Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:07 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Why do these Red States need a "joint working group"?

If they Fed acting unconstitutionally then then each State has standing to bring their suit to the Supreme Court.

But they are not doing that. Why? .............Because they have no case.

[I swear the right wing lemmings will fall for anything]
Because you are dealing with issues pertaining to the constitution which required 75% of the states to pass amendments which are being violated. It only makes sense to get some of these other states to join in the dispute. Need others to join, no, does it make good strategic sense, especially considering that any further ratification of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention by all states, absolutely. Only a fool would go in without a group so they can get the smartest and most educated to speak about the issue..

Did you say the same about Bush and his invasion of Iraq? That he didnt need a "working group", that he should have just gone in on his own? Of course you didnt, you liberals cant get your story straight from one posting to another. Anything to try to insult a Republican even if it means ignoring what you said previously to make yourself look like a fool..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:07 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,980,467 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
The only way to get the USSC to hear a case is a case must be filed / action taken

What Tenn is essentially proposing by their suggested boycott (a great idea IMO) is to get the Feds to sue them. Unfunded mandates are a good start. Let the Feds sue.

Then, going through the Fed Court system to the USSC.

I'd love it.
OK, so file a case already.

Here is one State suing the Fed

State Sues Federal Government on Marriage Law | Avvo News

What's stopping Tennessee?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:09 PM
 
Location: DFW
40,951 posts, read 49,198,692 times
Reputation: 55008
One good thing the current administration is doing for US citizens is making us aware of our constitutional rights and amendments. Prior to recent times very few of us really understood what the 10th Amendment said much less really meant.

The more I see Obama & crew wanting to nationalize and socialize the United States the more I appreciate the Constitution and the importance of the amendments.

More & more states should demand the 10th be enforced.

Thank you, Barrack
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:10 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,980,467 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Because you are dealing with issues pertaining to the constitution which required 75% of the states to pass, it only makes sense to get some of these other states to join in the dispute. Need others to join, no, does it make good strategic sense, especially considering that any further ratification of the Constitution requires a Constitutional Convention by all states.

Did you say the same about Bush and his invasion of Iraq? That he didnt need a "working group", that he should have just gone in on his own? Of course you didnt, you liberals cant get your story straight from one posting to another. Anything to try to insult a Republican even if it means ignoring what you said previously to make yourself look like a fool..
Oh so it's not Unconstitutional...you want to change the Constitution?

Good luck with that.

And be careful Red States what you ask for.

Only two Red States carry their own weight in Federal Spending.............http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001439.htm

Last edited by padcrasher; 10-25-2009 at 03:19 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Missouri
4,272 posts, read 3,788,485 times
Reputation: 1937
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
So you think its ok for the feds to violate the Constitution, provided they send the states enough money?
I'm saying the states love their federal handouts and any threat to that money coming in eliminates any serious boycott.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
What's stopping Tennessee?
Strength in numbers

What Tennessee is talking about (primarily) is all the unfunded mandates that come from the Feds.

If a whole bunch of states join with Tennessee, it would truly put the Feds in a real position of having to defend these mandates - that personally I doubt they can Constitutionally.

We are entering an era of the States standing up and saying "Enough!", "Stop!". 2nd Amendment issues, voting to opt out of Federal health insurance mandates, definition of marriage mandates (State constitutional amendments) etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:15 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,980,467 times
Reputation: 4555
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
One good thing the current administration is doing for US citizens is making us aware of our constitutional rights and amendments. Prior to recent times very few of us really understood what the 10th Amendment said much less really meant.

The more I see Obama & crew wanting to nationalize and socialize the United States the more I appreciate the Constitution and the importance of the amendments.

More & more states should demand the 10th be enforced.

Thank you, Barrack

I suppose you didn't understand habeus corpus rights, and wire tapping without a warrant, and holding an American citizen in jail for five years without charges, and illegal searches, and "free speech zones" set up for protestors blocks away from the President?

The Bush Administration lost numerouse times in court on these matters.

Where has the Obama Admin lost in court on your claimed Constitutional matters?

The answer: Not one time.

Typical right wing authoritarian....they ONLY love the Constitution when their side is out of power and they can score political points with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:16 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra View Post
I'm saying the states love their federal handouts and any threat to that money coming in eliminates any serious boycott.
Not true.

We here in Arizona have disproved your theory

We also are getting ready to stand up to the Feds over immigration control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:22 PM
 
Location: The Woods
18,358 posts, read 26,499,682 times
Reputation: 11351
Quote:
Originally Posted by padcrasher View Post
Why do these Red States need a "joint working group"?

If they Fed acting unconstitutionally then then each State has standing to bring their suit to the Supreme Court.

But they are not doing that. Why? .............Because they have no case.

[I swear the right wing lemmings will fall for anything]
Having a majority of the states behind an issue can have a big impact on the SCOTUS. A majority of the states could call a constitutional convention and destroy the federal government if they were angry enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-25-2009, 03:25 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,479,243 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
I disagree. Years ago - Arizona fought the 55 mph mandatory speed limit. The Feds said "no more highway funds". We said Fine. Arizona was the state that got rid of the 55mph. States are going to stand up for the citizens rights as they should. And, if a majority of the states start fighting back - the FEDs will fold.
Phil Bredesen, the Governor of Tennessee, has a more clear-minded view than you and a few others here. He allowed the so-called Firearms Freedom Act to pass into law without his signature. He did comment, however...

[The bill] represents a fringe constitutional theory that will be thrown out of court, but letting it become law may speed that challenge and yield clarity sooner.

In other words, if you bozo Republicans want to make outright fools of yoursleves, you just go right ahead...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top