BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions

Subject: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 08:54 PM

Didn't find anything on this in a search.

The U.S. is a collection of 50 sovereign states. Any state can say no to any abusive federal legislation. This isn't secessionism, it's just saying No to unlawful and/or unconstitutional dictates.

Does your state have a State Sovereignty Resolution? If not, it's pretty easy to pressure your state lawmakers into passing one.

Tenth Amendment Center

Various articles on Nullification

As your state approaches bankruptcy under the burden of unfunded federal mandates, and as more and more of your friends and family become the criminally-convicted chattel of the federal government, don't forget that you have a way to say no. At the state level. But it will take a modicum of effort on your part. You'll have to let your state rep and your state senator know that you want your state to pass a state sovereignty resolution and then begin using it to nullify abusive laws.

"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court, 1803

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:14 PM

Okay, that's nice.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: catspaw49
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 09:43 PM

Yeah, that State Sovereignty Commission sure did a lot in Mississippi back in the 50's and 60's. They stood up for States Rights in the face of all those dumbasses who wanted integration!

They provided funds and members for that noble order of protectors, The White Knights of the KuKluxKlan, and they were able to help the state divest themselves of leaders of the dusky races such as Medgar Evers while keeping the well principled and honorable politicians like Ross Barnett in front of the people.

They even were good enough to pay the legal fees to fight the communistic prosecution of their own like that light of southern manhood, Byron De la Beckwith. Of course their efforts at keeping only the most extremely well qualified voters on the voting rolls will never be forgotten

When the ideas are repugnant, it is incumbent on each of us to do something! In this case ichMael, I would suggest you take your ideas and links and stick them up your ass sideways then have them tamped in by a rhinoceros. Or just go fuck yourself.


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 28 Feb 10 - 10:30 PM

Thank you for your inspirational words, Spaw.

Speaking of what you call "dusky races," that brings to mind what recently transpired in Copenhagen. A genocide was attempted at the conference there.

It turned out that in the final printing of the carbon emissions agreement, the African bloc of nations discovered that they would have to cut their carbon emissions TWICE as much as the developed nations. This would have led to the death of tens, if not hundreds of millions of Africans over the next couple of decades from starvation. Just more war being waged against the black race, but on the largest scale yet attempted. The Africans walked away from the deal.

And in the U.S., this carbon scam is being peddled as Cap and Trade legislation. It failed at the national level recently, but it'll be back, and if it should ever pass, states with their Sovereignty Resolutions in place will be able to say No thank you.

You might want to think this through, because it appears that since you're against states being able to say no to Cap and Trade, you are in fact endorsing the elimination of what you call "dusky races."

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 03:15 PM

'Tenthers" are lunatic fringe.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 05:07 PM

If a state is in a federation from which it has no right to recede, it isn't fully sovereign. The same way you can't sing an unaccompanied song with an instrumental backing.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Alice
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 05:13 PM

Palin is a "Tenther"

Time to party likes it's 1854...

"The whole point of the Constitution is to bring states together in a union," said Schwinn, the John Marshall Law School professor. "So secession is not a constitutional option."

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 05:18 PM

Come on, Spaw, tell us what you really think.

The idea that the federal government is infringing on state rights isn't that outlandish - think of federal medical marijuana raids continuing in California despite MM being legal in the state.

"If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions' authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power."
–Thomas E. Woods

Seems like a pretty accurate description of what is happening.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:30 PM

Well, this is the exact issue that brought US the very costly and bloody War for Southern Independence...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:39 PM

"So secession is not a constitutional option."

Not if the constitution in question includes provision for secession. If the constitution specifically excludes it then indeed it wouldn't be "a constitutional option."

When a constitution doesn't say one way or another, it's not so clear. Then it all depends on the politics at the time. Hence the contrast between what happened in the USA in 1860 and in Czechoslovakia in 1992.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM

The issue of whether a law is constitutional is properly to be determined by an unbiassed constitutional or supreme court. Alas teh USA has not got one.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 06:44 PM

Those who argue for a broad definition of *state's rights*, and want to be able to opt out of 'oppressive' federal regulations need to be VERY sure what they are asking for.
Part of the deal in accepting the good parts of a UNITED bunch of states is understanding that there MUST be basic uniformity in certain rules and practices.
In this day & age, people move, travel and work in complex ways. Just how different DO they want things if they have to go from Alabama to Oregon...or vice-versa?
It's already complicated enough that in places, one can drive across a bridge and buy alcohol they can't buy at home....or get an abortion...or buy a gun.

Some of these folks think the 48---or 50--- separate little countries would be just dandy, until there's a disaster or invasion, and they aren't sure who to call for help.

It is a really hard balancing act to have major rules set in a central location, yet still allow regional diversity for some things.....but it just may be worth the effort.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amergin
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM

I seem to recall a war that was fought over the so called "states rights". It didn't fly a hundred sixty years ago...and I doubt it will fly much now....

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM

Yeah, Bobert said the same thing about five posts back. It's misleading.

"War between the states" does not necessarily follow from "concern about centralized power". And it's not about 50 separate little countries, it's about taking back decision-making power from the federal government.

If I may quote myself from another thread: Both parties and their elected officials, including Saint Obama, are nothing but shills for the same interest: the super-rich uber-capitalists who have controlled the US economy for over a century. These few people have decided to slam shut the window that opened after WWII and allowed a substantial number of the underclass to ascend to a relatively wealthy middle class status.

Their intent is to starve out the middle class (with whom they don't want to share their profits anymore) by running up such huge federal deficits that severe frugality measures "must" be put in place ("new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere") - read: cuts in social spending, welfare, education, health and Social Security.

Now, they can only do this from a strong, centralized position of consolidated power in Washington, where they do their dirty work.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Alice
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:29 PM

My reference above to 1854 is the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Those now trying to promote "state sovereignty" are harkening back to 1854.
click here for the history


"The act established that settlers could vote to decide whether to not allow slavery, in the name of popular sovereignty or rule of the people."

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 08:55 PM

Well, this is the exact issue that brought US the very costly and bloody War for Southern Independence...

No, that was the issue of secession. The State Sovereignty movement is not about secession. It is about stopping the juggernaut of the federal government through peaceful non-compliance. States don't have to secede to put a stop to federal abuses.

Look at the case of the Real I.D. Act. This from wikipedia:

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is a U.S. federal law that imposes certain security, authentication, and issuance procedures standards for the state driver's licenses and state ID cards, for them to be accepted by the federal government for "official purposes", as defined by the Secretary of Homeland Security. ... As of April 2, 2008, all 50 states have either applied for extensions of the original May 11, 2008 compliance deadline or received unsolicited extensions. As of October 2009, (update) 25 states have approved either resolutions or binding legislation not to participate in the program, and with President Obama's selection of Janet Napolitano (a prominent critic of the program) to head the Department of Homeland Security, the future of the law remains uncertain, and bills have been introduced into Congress to amend or repeal it. The most recent of these, dubbed PASS ID, would eliminate many of the more burdensome technological requirements but still require states to meet federal standards in order to have their ID cards accepted by federal agencies.

So, by 2008, all Americans were supposed to be carrying electronic I.D. cards. At the time the Act was passed the Dept of Homeland Security was saying that Americans would be REQUIRED to carry the cards whenever they were out in public. You would need them to drive, hold a job, enter a federal building like a post office, and so on. This was reminiscent of Nazi Germany, where people had to travel with "internal passports." We've all seen the movies..."Your papers, please." But because 25 states have said no to the REAL I.D., the program is dead.

And now, the PASS ID Act is rearing its head. This is the same program just renamed, and it too will have to be shot down. But you can't shoot these abuses down at the national level. We have to say no state by state. Hence, the need for State Sovereignty Resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:17 PM

And the most undemocratic law ever to threaten your civil liberties was quietly extended for another year just the other day: the Patriot Act.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 10 - 09:27 PM

Thank whatever powers there may be for centralized control from Washington.
The thought that some of the idjits who post here might ever gain credence in some benighted part of the country is sickening.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 02:08 PM

You conflate two separate issues ichMael.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 06:34 PM

From the "Real ID Act": At a minimum, a state shall include the following information and features on a DL/ID: (1) person's full legal name, (2) person's date of birth, (3) person's gender, (4) DL/ID number, (5) digital photograph, (6), person's address of legal residence, (7) person's signature, (8) physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting or duplication for fraudulent purposes, and (9) a common machine-readable technology with defined data elements. Anybody see "electronic I.D. cards" in there?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 07:30 PM

What do you think "a common machine-readable technology with defined data elements" means? It ain't a punch card...

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 07:50 PM

No, that is a bar code.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:07 PM

A bar code does not constitute "technology".

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:18 PM

It's awfully hard to read without a barcode reader. I have an "approved" ID card, and the only things on it other than typed data are two barcodes. There are no electronics.

This from the National Congress of State Legislatures discussion paper; The regulations require states to use the existing AAMVA standard 2D bar code for the machine-readable technology on the card. DHS requires that the PDF-417 2D bar code approved by AAMVA store the minimum data elements – expiration date, bearer's name, issue date, date of birth, gender, address, unique DL/ID number, DL/ID format revision date, inventory control number, and state or territory of issuance. DHS is not requiring encryption of this machine-readable information.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:26 PM

Bar codes are part of an electronic scanning system, yes.

Reading about the PASS ID Act here:

http://epic.org/privacy/pass_id/

RFID Use in PASS IDs: The PASS ID Act extends additional authority to DHS by allowing the Secretary to certify any driver's license or ID card, including Enhanced Driver's Licenses and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (WHTI) cards as approved under the PASS ID Act. Enhanced Drivers Licenses and/or WHTI IDs use contactless radio frequency identification (RFID) technology.

"One prime example of an ISE are information fusion centers, which facilitate bringing together information from distributed sources for the purpose of collection, retention, analysis, and dissemination. The term "fusion center," seems to have originated from the Department of Defense (DOD,) and refers to the fusing of information for analysis purposes."

Fusion Centers are pentagon/CIA interfaces with local communities.

This proposed legislation violates so many Amendments to the Bill of Rights. This act will also fail.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amos
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 08:30 PM

Ichabod:

We are banded together in order to form a more perfect Union.

Not to foment disunion and splintering.

Fix the Union, and the States will be fine, their rights protected.

Splinter the States, and you have the ultimate in imperfect Union, as well as a fractured and disagreeable bunch of tweet ies chirping at each other.


A

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: michaelr
Date: 02 Mar 10 - 10:30 PM

So Amos - how do you propose to fix the "union", read: the corporate controlled, corrupt, and hopelessly indebted behemoth that is the federal government?

I'd really like to know...

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 09:29 PM

I've worked up this letter for my State Senator and my State Rep. Will send emails, snail mails and possibly faxes this week, follow up with phone calls if I need to, or even office visits. I encourage the rest of you to do likewise. This letter is tailored to the state of Texas, but you may be able to adapt it to meet your needs:

Dear Rep/Senator xxx:

I'm sure you are aware of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" that recently came out of Washington, D.C. This bill is unconstitutional and criminal. Among other things, it forces Americans to buy a product under threat.

I'm sure you also know that several states are challenging the legality of the legislation. Texas has signed on to a suit in this matter. But the lawsuit will probably fail. The federal court system will most likely rule in favor of the federal government. Lawsuits are NOT the way to deal with this situation.

In April of 2009 the Texas legislature passed and Governor Rick Perry signed the Texas Sovereignty Resolution. The resolution serves notice to Washington that (in the words of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution), the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say the federal government has the power to force U.S. citizens to buy a product. The text of the Sovereignty Resolution can be found at the link below:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/81R/billtext/html/HC00050I.htm

States have the right to nullify criminal federal legislation. The Tenth Amendment Center has been educating on the process of nullification for years. Below is an excerpt from the generic nullification form the center has posted for the new healthcare bill. The form can be found at:

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/federal-health-care-nullification-act/

A. The Legislature of the State of _Texas declares that the federal law known as the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," signed by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010, is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States and violates its true meaning and intent as given by the Founders and Ratifiers, and is hereby declared to be invalid in this state, shall not be recognized by this state, is specifically rejected by this state, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in this state.

B. It shall be the duty of the legislature of this State to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" within the limits of this State.

And so on.

Please look at the form and consider introducing it into the Texas House/Senate. As one of your constituents, I've always admired and appreciated the work you do, and I hope you'll do your district and state proud by taking the lead in this matter.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 09:47 PM

My messqage to the the folks who live in states where this states rights seems to be such an important issue is this: Get the fuck out!!! You fvolkd a a drain on the federal budget!!!

If you look at the states that get the most back in federal dollars compared to the dollars they pay in you'll find an interesting situation... The crybabies in the South and Midwest are doing alot better than their Northeast and Western counterparts!!!

So if ya'll wanta go bankrupt then go the fuck bankrupt... It ain't because of federal mandates... It's because you cheapscapes go centuries without raising revenue (taxes)... I think it's been close to 30 years here in Virginia on income taxes... But the droped the car tax... Oh, they did raise the sales tax a penny... Big whup, giove the fiscally responsible a peanut for that...

Yeah, there's more to fiscal responsibility than sittin' on yer ass when the bills come due... Some folks go out and work... Not the South and Midwest... They blame the federal governemnt??? Like I have said repeatedly... Any Southern or Midwestern state that wants to call it quits is fine with me... We can't afford ya'll lazy and stupid crybabies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 09:47 PM

The US Supreme Court ruled on a Tenth Amendment challenge to the social Security Act (which requires all US citizens to buy into a retirement plan) in 1937, and said it was constitutional. Good luck getting the health care bill overturned on a Tenth Amendment challenge. BTW, has the "Tenth Amendment Center" ever won a Federal court case?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:20 PM

ichMael ichMael ichMael

Of course a bar code is technology.

# the practical application of science to commerce or industry
# engineering: the discipline dealing with the art or science of applying scientific knowledge to practical problems; "he had trouble deciding which branch of engineering to study"


You don't have much credibility in complex constitutional arguments once you have shown that you don't even know how to use a dictionary.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 10 - 11:46 PM

Hey Ick:

Remember when the whole goddamn nation was forced to buy a product under threat? A product that slaughtered families, destroyed buildings, shattered the minds of decent Americans, orphaned small children and broke their legs, in the name of a Righteous God-fearing Just Cause to prevent America from Being Damaged by Mythical Weapons?

Dang, I felt bad my taxes were going to pay for that shit.

But you say it was constitutional???



A

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:01 AM

The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The 10th Amendment was included to insure the supremacy of the states.

Your sheriff is the supreme legal authority in your county. Your sheriff can overrule any federal action. The feds know this, too, which is why they're currently trying to villify the Tenth Amendment.

We shall see what happens at the state level with regards to the forced labor deathcare bill.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:02 AM

The whole tenther thing is just sour grapes.

The problem is that Republicans don't believe in democracy, and they think that the constitution only applies to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 12:10 AM

Democracy is 51% being able to vote to kill the other 49%. The problem is that Americans don't know we have a constitution republic.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amos
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 01:33 AM

SOme Americans may not--as I recall it was the previous President who said the Constitution was just a piece of paper, as he steamrolled bits of it here and there.

But a lot of Americans do know it, Icky whack. I guess it sometimes depends on whose donkey is being gored; And I don't see a lot of specifics in your loud braying.


A

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:29 AM

Yeah, itch, I'd love for the converse to be true in that 51% of the representatives could pass a bill with 51% of the vote, but they can't... And that should be unconstitutional, regardless of what my former Senator, Robert Byrd, says...

If we had majority rule then health care reform wouldn't have been but a blip on the radar... By now we'd also have immigration reform as well, which BTW, wouldn't have been a blip on the radar either... The Fillibuster rule (not found anywhere in the constitution) is tearing our country apart becuase it allows a mentally ill minority from allowing the goevrenment to, ahhhhhhh, friggin' ****govern****...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: GUEST,Tinker in Chicago
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 04:17 PM

You have a point, ichMael. But generations of Americans have been taught otherwise, namely that the federal government has the right to do whatever it sees fit. It's a case of playing by the same rulebook (the Constitution) but selectively ignoring some rules (the Tenth Amendment). Sorta like the American League strike zone.

Funny how people criticize your idea with namecalling ("tenthers") and hostility ("sour grapes", "Republicans don't believe in democracy") but so many do not wish to debate you point by point. Stranger still, they quote the beginning of the Constitution ("to form a more perfect union") and excoriate you for quoting the end of the same document!

The idea in 1776 was to form a federation, that is, a group of independent entities that cede some of their powers to an overarching umbrella organization for the common good, while still remaining independent. Nothing more. But the feds just kept grabbing more power and more power, and now there's no chance they will be willing give any of it back voluntarily.

So which is it, then? Shall we enforce the whole Constitution (including the Tenth Amendment)or just the parts that we agree with (like the First and Second Amendments)?

And BTW, wanting to enforce the Constitution is the dead opposite of wanting to secede.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Sorcha
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:00 PM

I didn't read all that mess, but IF a state chooses NOT to follow Federal mandates, the Feds yank the highway funding,the school funding, and other stuff. They lose more than they gain.

Please try not to be stupid, ick

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:10 PM

He ain't half as stupid as the states that have passed these idiotic resolutions & think they will get them somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 05:54 PM

I think Icky wants to be stupid. He has not got hold of what a government does. It governs. It gets elected by a democratic mechanism (even if an imperfect one) and until the next election the minority do what the majority (determined according to the said system) tell them.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

And once more...

In the 1830's -- yeah, that is 1-8-3-0s and not the 1930s --- the uS had these states sovereignty aguments led by John Calhoun... They called themselves "The Nullifier Party"... They were the Tea Partiers of their day... Like the Tea Partiers they thought that the states could just null and void anything that they, The Nullifier, didn't like... You know, like school intergration that would come 120 years later as a result of "Brown v. Topeka Board of Education"...

I mean, the country has had this argument... BTW, if hashed it out again during the Civil War...

Let's get real here... This "states sovereinty" bullshit is just rednecks wanting "their country back", which is code for all kinds of things that rednecks love, which includes segregation, federal income taxes, etc...

The problem with their thinking is that if we let states opt outta stuff because they can then where does thatr leave the US Constitution??? Were does that leave the United States of America???

Well, I'll tell ya' where... No where...

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:39 PM

My state (Texas) has the 8th largest economy in the world, Sorcha. We could lose federal funding and never miss it--just quit sending money to Washington and divert the taxes to the state coffers.

The latest federal crime (telling Americans they will HAVE to buy insurance from Aetna or one of the other pre-approved insurance companies) is fascism.

It is especially hated in Texas because of our large Hispanic population. Predominantly Catholic, the families tend to be larger. So, now that the insurance companies have made their product mandatory, how are those families going to pay?

This turkey needs to be nullified state by state. And the Supreme Court cannot override a state's nullification. They can order people to do something, but you don't have to obey the order. The Supreme Court ruled a couple of times that blacks weren't human. They've ruled that you can suck the brain out of a child once it's out of the birth canal. Screw the Supreme Court. This healthcare nonsense is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 07:54 PM

You are delussional, itchy!!!

Texas is so attached at the hip to federal monet that you thinking you could survive without it is a moronish joke!!!

18 military bases alone!!! That 18, itchy... You shut them down and yer state fall flat on its arrogannt we-can-make0it-by-ourselves dumbass face... That is one shit load of DoD money coming into your state that isn't going elsewhere and it has a massive ripple effect in providing jobs that support that many bases... That's 18 bases, itchy... And thems is fir starters...

Then you have alot of money going into DEA gaents and border patrol... MY virginia tax dollars, BTW... Then you have Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and, and , and... You take that oney outta Texas and and let Texas succeed from the Union and Mexico would invade and take your sorry state in a week... One friggin' week...

But there is good news, itchy... After taking Texas and occupying it for awhile the Mexicans would throw you back like a dead fish when they fioggured out that without federal dollars (and lots of them) coming into Texas that Texas is as worthless as tits on a borehog...

And you can take that to the bank...

(What bank, Boberdz... They all closed since there was no money to put in them...)

Texas not needing federal money, my butt... The biggest welfare recipient in the entire nation, bar none!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 08:06 PM

I think I said earlier...or was it on another (similar) thread - I'm anxiously waiting for Texas to attempt to impose sovereignty on Fort Hood, where the 1st av. and 3d ACR are located. Oh yeah - the 1st Armored Division is at Ft. Bliss now.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 09:25 PM

Hey, art... I'd love to see the folks at Fort Hood say, "Bye-d-bye"... That one base alone would cripple Texas's economy... Then shut down the other 17 and Texas becomes a Third World country...

That the hardest part of listening to people from these terribly poor states that have inflated economies because of the tax dollars that are collected from the Northeast and Western states that are directed to them, ahhhhhh, complain about the federal government and its spending... Heck, without the federal dollars going into 10 of the original 13 Confederate states those stats would all look like Haiti...

Yet we gotta listen to these dummies brag about just how smart they are and how "a country boy will survive" bull...

Give me a break... The biggest drain on the US economy is the South and Midwest... And these folks think that rest of us who are pumping our tax dollars into their Third Word states are stupid... Well, in a way we are... We should be demenading that we get back our share of the federal taxes we pay... We are getting screwed and told that we are the dummies????

Beam me up, the rednecks are dumber than a box of creek rocks!!!

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 10 - 10:30 PM

from memory:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

some important words in there.. like **union** **common defense** **general welfare**....

The whole POINT was that it was much harder for small, individual colonies to do that stuff by themselves.....kinda like a family. But in order to have the benefits of the larger entity, they have to observe the rules made ...just as members of a family can have their own rooms, clostes...etc... and decide on how to paint the walls, but NOT on whether to raise pigs in the kitchen or throw rocks at the neighbors.

So....having stretched the metaphor, I suggest that states...especially states like Texas who think they have some special right to ignore the things that bring "domestic tranquility" ... those states need to ask themselves VERY carefully what they expect to get from bullying other states to "do it OUR way, or we'll take our marbles and go home"

Sorry Ichy...but using the words 'constitutional republic' doesn't convey to ME any notion that uniformity regarding "the general welfare" can be ignored at will.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 02:48 AM

Do they teach basic civics in the schools in Texas?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:33 AM

No, Jack, they don't... What they teach is arrogance, NASCAR, cigarette smoking, fast food and obesity, racism, capital punishment, bullying, dirty tricks, pointy boots that insure that you won't be able to walk when you get older, chewing tobacco, bald tires, glass-pack mufflers and tatooes... But no civics...

Yet these people are perfectly willing to lecture educated people who don't exhibit harmful eating and smoking habits on just how smart they are and how dumb the educated people are???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:40 AM

Bobert! You forgot that creationism is also part of the syllabus.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 09:54 AM

Oh yeah... I forgot to add "creationism"... So add that to the curriculum... Anything else???

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:07 AM

Air Pollution?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 10:12 AM

Not too sure about that one, Jack... I don't think that Texans care much about that subject, one way or another... Plus, with the prevailing winds it all ends up in Lousiana anyway...

b~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:28 AM

Let's be fair.... there are moderates...and even some liberals in Texas. There are some very reasonable, intelligent people in ALL states. Texas and some other Southern states simply have an excess of those who have narrow, insular attitudes and hype their own conservatism as if it were somehow fine print on the 10 Commandments.

   Some cannot distinguish between general pride in their home and culture and arrogant, belligerent attitudes where "anything WE decide to do is automatically justified".

It is sad to see the continuing polarization of the country as some refuse to even consider the goal of "the greatest good for the greatest number" and keep insisting that THEIR opinions supersede the majority.

There IS an important difference between the rules by which YOU live your own, private, life and what you try to impose on others.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:49 AM

So add that to the curriculum... Anything else???

Compulsory football ?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:04 PM

"Compulsory football" with public prayers to Jesus before the game.
(there have actually been court cases trying to get compliance with the law, but in some places it's actually dangerous to file a complaint.)

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Sorcha
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

Yea, let's just close ALL the military bases! And excuse me, but wasn't Texas a Sovereign Nation once, and they ASKED to join the US????

Just think, a passport to go to Texas! (and no more Texan Presidents either! This does have possibilities, folks)

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 07:41 PM

The latest posts made me wonder why I'd engendered such hostility, so I went back to the beginning of the thread, and I'm glad I did. I saw the stuff about the Real I.D. Act and I added a mention of that to the letter I'll send out to my representatives tomorrow. It will be good for them to see an example of how nullification stopped a criminal federal action. Once again I must thank the Mudcat name-callers for keeping me on my toes. Your vitriol is being put to good use.

Some of the vitriol seems a bit over the top, though. The persistent use of the term "redneck" is a bit disturbing. It alludes to skin color in a negative way, and I'm surprised to see it being used with such abandon on this forum. But it is being used, and since white people are referred to as "rednecks" here, should I be calling black people by something denoting skin color? And what about Hispanics? And Orientals? And should I use "redskin" when referring to American Indians? Advice on this would be appreciated.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:11 PM

IchMael, redneck has been used twice in this thread - once by you.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:17 PM

Well, yeah, itchy, rednecks hate the term redneck unless they have a bigass decal on the back of the F-250 that reads "Redneck"... Then they pack into clubs to hear Jeff Foxworthy...

But you have it ***wrong*** in claim,ing that anyone here, myself included, uses the term "redneck" interchangably with the term "white people"... That is wrong and you won't find it used that way but if you can make that statement and it goes unchallenged then I reckon that it makes yer side feel all smug about these eleitists musicians who think all white people are rednecks... Well, I for one use the term alot... But I know also know alot about rednecks... I live in a rural Virginia community where there are no shortage... Yeah, another rightie here has accused me persoanlly of being racist because I use the term... Hey, it ain't at all racist... Honky is racist... Nigger is racist... WOP is racist... Redneck ain't because it isn't used in place of "white people"... Heck I know lotta white folks and most of them ain't rednecks... Only the rednecks are rednecks and they earn their label and most of them wear it proudly...

Redskin, BTW, is racist... I hate it that it is because I am a life long Washington Redskins fan but...

...yeah, the name needs to go...

Maybe they could call themselves the Washington Rednecks??? Yeah, that would work... Hey, maybe they could combine football and NASCAR??? I donno???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:28 PM

BTW, itchy... This entire idea of states being able to trump federal law has some very negative histroical connotations... I mean, even tho it goes back to the federalists debates of the very early 1800's and again by the Nullifier Party in the 1830's the most recent bout of it came in the 1950s with Brown v Topeka Board of Education and the 10 or so years following as Southern states fought to keep their schools segregated... I can't think of any other time since when there have been so many people, mostly -- you guessed it -- Southern and Midwestern are so eat up on states telling the federal government in essence to "Go fuck yourself 'cause we like to do things our own way"....

So yeah, itchy, ya' kinda have to rmember where you are... This a folk musician website and in case ya' hadn't noticed about folks music, ahhhhhh, most of the people playin' it ain't excatly spring chickens... Translation: We remember Selam and Little Rock and those are times we don't, as a nation, need to revisit yet...

... from looking at angry white Tea Party gatherings and the the number hate groups that have sprung up in the last year it is apparent to Helen Keller that there are one heck of alot of rednecks that would be very happy with segregation and a return to Jim Crow anf they are out to try to make it happen by pushing for "states rights" (code for racism)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:28 PM

Well, it was used more than twice but only by two people--Icky and Bobez.


A

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 08:33 PM

I don't think that ichie wants to talk with us, just at us.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:01 PM

Oh, I'd interact more with folks here, Jack, if y'all weren't so rude. When I see a pea-brain trying to butcher my handle, for instance, I don't even bother to read the post. I mean, that really is child's play. If you think that passes for cleverness then you're not ready to discuss serious issues.

In your heart of hearts you liberals know you've been had. And you know that Rahm Emanuel and Barack Hussein Obama detest your weakness. They have no surprises and no terror in store for me, but you folks...you can't even face yourselves, much less them. I pity you.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 10 - 11:10 PM

Ichy:

You are a thoroughbred nincompoop, sir; you are arrogant, condescending, egotistical, and blinded by your own obsession to be right, make others wrong, and act indomitable while actually nullifying your own viewpoint with loads of imported bullpucky. Your paranoia is not interesting, nor are your pitying, but wildly delusional perspectives on others.

Why not find a kindergarten or something where those childish rhetorical devices might still have some mileage on them?

They don't impress anyone here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 10 - 01:10 AM

I don't think that Ichie realizes that I wasn't talking to him.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 07:59 PM

State Sovereignty Resolutions

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: mousethief
Date: 04 Apr 10 - 10:32 PM

I feel like a person waiting for a bus next to a street preacher with a portable PA system.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:40 AM

I would have thought it beyond obvious that the current healthcare act is within the commerce provision of the constitution - US healthcare is commercial isn't it? Indeed that is its besetting vice.

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: artbrooks
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 10:48 AM

What? Logic? Heaven forfend!

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: mousethief
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 05:39 PM

Has Texas left yet?

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Apr 10 - 09:03 PM

I say, "Follow the money" and at the end of each you'll find someone righteously indignant about the federal government but is also on the federal dole... I mean, look at the Midwest... It is eat up with farm subsidies... The feds pour dollars all over that region yet where do alot of these so-called fed-haters from??? You guessed it... The Midwest... Really pisses me off... Cut off the farm subsidies that prop up that entire region and then the crybabies will really have something to cry about... Right now the Midwest is living high on the hog from the taxes paid into the federal government by the blue states in the Northeast and the west coast, states which don't fare as well as their red state counterparts in bigass wellfare checks reigning down on them...

I mean, let's get real here... The loudest crybabies are the ones who are allready on the front teets and suckin' for all it's worth...

So they want out??? Really??? What a joke... No, they have just gotten so used to be pampered byy the feds that they have gotten fat and lazy... Yeah, look at the obesity rates from state to state... There is an alarming correlation between red and blue states... There is also an amazing correlatuion between the amount of federal taxes paid in v. the amount of federal taxes coming back between red and blue states...

Hey, if they want out??? Bye-dee-bye!!! Like I said, if that were to occur then I'd sell my farm and move to the new 'n vastly imnproved United States... You know, the one without the crybabies...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: ichMael
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 07:15 PM

Some excellent news on the states' efforts to keep the criminal federal government at bay. Missouri just passed Proposition C, saying no to the murderous Obamacare plan:

Just under a million Missouri voters braved 102-degree heat Tuesday to cast ballots exempting the state's residents from Obamacare mandates. The verdict on the nationalized health care scheme could not have been more clear: More than 71 percent chose to tell the federal government to stop meddling with their personal health care choices.

Missouri Sen. Jane Cunningham introduced the legislation that placed the Health Care Freedom Act before voters. This act nullifies any statute that attempts to "compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system." Obamacare's defenders insist the federal health care law trumps Proposition C under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which is ironic considering the utter disregard for constitutional authority that went into drafting Obamacare itself....

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/05/2132005/deaf-ear-no-longer-possible.html

Subject: RE: BS: State Sovereignty Resolutions
From: Bobert
Date: 09 Aug 10 - 07:43 PM

Missouri??? Yeah, I'd expect that from the crybabiest state of all the midwestern crybaby states... They are allready extracting $2 of federal dollars for every $1 they pay in taxes... Fuck 'um... If they want to pull the heck out then don't let the door hit ya'll on the way out...

BTW, anyone from Missouri wanta expalin how the US is gonna compete in the global economy when it spends 17% of it GNP for jack-shit health care compared to good health care in Europena countries that are spending 8 to 9%... Come on, all you Missourians... Come on and "show us" ya'll "show me-ers"... What??? Cat got yer toungue...

Manditory!!! Horrors!!! Hey, while we are at dismantling a program that will cut into the 17% making US more competetive lets jst go all the way... No more taxes... No more drivers licenses... No more insurance... No more nuthin'... Just "Mad Max After the Thunderdome" and more "Mad Max After the Thunderdome"... Yeah, that's the American spirit... Anarchy, guns, chaos... Don't get no better than that...Bring it on... I got several boxes of sheels so I'm gonna get several of ya'lls before you get me and then someone will get you 'cause you used yer ammo up on me...

Glory days... What a vision for America!!! Bring it on itchy... Might of fact, you can start with me... Hey, I gotta a little Mel Gibson in me... Plus I got some guns... Maybe you and me could just get the party going...

Whaddayathink???

B~