It’s Constitutional

[idb]

you lack the IQ to know your point was that an uber uber trivial lie that no one believes is the "best" or most significant lie conservatives tell while admitting liberals tell huge huge important lies such as the top 1% don't pay their fair share when in fact they pay 40% of income taxes.

See why we are 100% sure a liberal will be slow?

Yet again, you have changed the rules.
Now it has to be the "best" lie.
Tell me which one you think is the "best" conservative lie - it should be easier for you as you're the only one that knows the rules.

All conservative lies are the ‘best.’

Every lie the right contrives is meant to repeated again and again until it’s perceived as the ‘truth.’

You'll also notice the simplicity of them so that they can be easily understood.
No messy nuance required and it allows for a simple conclusion that fits on a t-shirt.
"He's stopped the pipeline - so he hates oil"
"He talks nicely to Arabs - so he's a Muslim"
"He didn't send tanks into Tahrir Square - so he supports the Muslim Brotherhood"
"He sat in bed watching the Benghazi attack in real time - so he murders Americans"
"He said that Job Creators didn't build their businesses - so he hates business"

And on and on.....

 

[WorldWatcher]

Secession IS Constitutional because the Gov't is created by the States, not the other way around.

When you enter into a Contract and the the other Party has not honored it's part of the deal, you have every right to Sue to have the agreement enforced or have the deal declared Null and Void.

This Secessionist movement is not to start a new country, it's to re-establish Constitutional Law.

Sorry MS, the secessionists are about starting a new country. See the Constitution of the United States starts out with these seven words "We the People of the United States". If a State successfully secedes, then they are not part of the United States.

As such they are not under and or protected by the United States Constitution. Now they would be free, if they successfully secede with their own governmental structure, it could be a monarchy, it could be a Constitutional republic like we have, or it could be broken factions of warlords.


>>>>

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Secession IS Constitutional because the Gov't is created by the States, not the other way around.

When you enter into a Contract and the the other Party has not honored it's part of the deal, you have every right to Sue to have the agreement enforced or have the deal declared Null and Void.

This Secessionist movement is not to start a new country, it's to re-establish Constitutional Law.

Sorry MS, the secessionists are about starting a new country. See the Constitution of the United States starts out with these seven words "We the People of the United States". If a State successfully secedes, then they are not part of the United States.

As such they are not under and or protected by the United States Constitution. Now they would be free, if they successfully secede with their own governmental structure, it could be a monarchy, it could be a Constitutional republic like we have, or it could be broken factions of warlords.


>>>>

I do not see the US Government allowing any State to leave without resorting to force. Nor do I see the Congress voting to allow them to leave.

But it is all moot because no State is considering it anyway.

 

[paperview]

You’ll find no jurist – even the most rabid rightwing/libertarian wackjob – who would for a second propose the Supreme Court’s authority with regard to both judicial review and its interpretive authority as to what the Constitution means be abandoned.

you are profoundly slow and liberal. Scalia is 100% for reducing the interpertative authority of the Supreme Court. What planet have you been on???

 

[jtpr312]

I dismiss the OPINION of ANY supreme court justice on the matter for the reasons I gave you. 1. The Constitution makes no mention of secession. 2. I don't recognize the right of the supreme court to judicial review.

So what happened to you when you put this into practice IRL?

He doesn't or he would be in jail for ignoring violating and breaking numerous laws. He is an internet tough guy that does not do as he preaches.

Tell ya what when he organizes and launches an armed rebellion get back to me on his honesty.

The only time I had need to put it into practice is in my hiring policies, I own a business and refuse to hire non-Christians, homosexuals, or negroes, and in my renting policies, I own a small summer place in VA which I rent out when not using and refuse to rent to the same groups of people. As for launching an armed rebellion, this nation is getting closer and closer to arme drebellion every month and is just waiting for the right leaders, like our Founders where, to lead it. I was a great Corporal but woudn't make a very good General Gunny, don't have Hitler's charisma.

 

[jtpr312]

secession is not legal...

even the rightiest of the right justices on the supreme court antonin scalia agrees.

but you know better, i'm sure.

I don't give a crap what some bought and paid for judge says, the FACT is that the Constitution makes NO mention of secession at all so it's not a matter for the 9 whores in DC to decide anyway. The FACT is that NY, VA and RI refused to ratify the Constitution unless their right to leave the union, at their discretion, was maintained, NO DENIAL of this was ever made, therefore their right to secede was and is valid and a right granted one state automatically goes to ALL states. And I never said I know better, I just gave you the historical facts from the actual poeple who where there, and the supporting documentation from the Virgninia delagation, which was introduced and passed by resolution PRIOR to them ever ratifying the Constitution. The opinion of the nine whore is irelevent as I don't recognize their right to decide what is and what isn't constitutional anyway as the Constitution DOES NOT give them that right, they usurped that right in Madison vs Marbury. The Constitutionality of law was and is given, by the Constitution, to the people, NOT to any supreme court and Thomas Jefferson warned us of what would happen if we ever allowed the court to usurp the power of "We the People", as represented by the Congress.

Thomas Jefferson
to William C. Jarvis in 1820:

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

and to Edward Livingstone in 1825:

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."







The Supreme Court and Judicial Review
Judicial Review
The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power.
Powers of the Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Judicial branch of the federal government and Section 2 of that article enumerates the powers of the Supreme Court. Here is Section 2, in part:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;
to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;
to Controversies between two or more States;
between a State and Citizens of another State;
between Citizens of different States;
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Feel free to examine the entire text of Article III to assure yourself that no power of Judicial Review is granted by the Constitution
http://http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

Ignorant nonsense:

Judicial review was initially taken for granted and presumed to exist. Many members of the Framing generation presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to a constitution.

Why did the Framing generation presume that judicial review was to exist?

They held this presumption because of colonial American history. In England, the by-laws of corporations had been subject to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations. Eventually, legislation from all the English colonies was limited by the principle that it could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed around 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council and the crown reviewed over 8,500 colonial acts.

The Ethics of Prosecutors - Boston College

You may ‘not recognize’ judicial review to your heart’s content, for all the good it will do you. You’ll find no jurist – even the most rabid rightwing/libertarian wackjob – who would for a second propose the Supreme Court’s authority with regard to both judicial review and its interpretive authority as to what the Constitution means be abandoned.

Of course you wouldn't numbnuts, they all aspire to that lofty, godlike position themselves, but the fact is the Constitution never delagated that power to the courts, supreme or otherwise.

 

[PratchettFan]

I dismiss the OPINION of ANY supreme court justice on the matter for the reasons I gave you. 1. The Constitution makes no mention of secession. 2. I don't recognize the right of the supreme court to judicial review.

So what happened to you when you put this into practice IRL?

He doesn't or he would be in jail for ignoring violating and breaking numerous laws. He is an internet tough guy that does not do as he preaches.

Tell ya what when he organizes and launches an armed rebellion get back to me on his honesty.

There isn't going to be an armed rebellion. That's just the fantasy wet dream of those who have not the slightest clue what such a rebellion would mean.

In this country, there is no repression going on. No troops marching down the street and opening fire on citizens. Taxes are extremely low. Food, shelter and clothing accessible to just about everyone. None of the things which result in armed rebellion are present. All we have is a bunch of spoiled children screaming about secession in the same way any spoiled child threatens to hold their breath until mommy and daddy give them their sweety. If they can't have it all their way, then they will take their ball and go home - and then we'll be sorry. This isn't a movement, it's a playground tantrum.

 

[PratchettFan]

[Of course you wouldn't numbnuts, they all aspire to that lofty, godlike position themselves, but the fact is the Constitution never delagated that power to the courts, supreme or otherwise.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it did. Whether or not you acknowledge that is irrelevant. Your agreement is not a requirement. Only your compliance. Even your compliance is voluntary, so long as you understand the consequences.

 

[Flanders]

None of the things which result in armed rebellion are present.

To PratchettFan: Everything is present.

All revolutions come from the middle class, and then only when something has been taken away from them. The poor do not have the organizational skills necessary to foment successful revolution. The rich have no reason to revolt. In short: People never start a revolution to get something —— they always revolt to get something back. Socialists know this. That is why they have been trying to create an educated middle class with tax dollars; a middle class loyal to government rather than dedicated to individual liberties for all. Socialists mistakenly believe that replacing the private sector middle class with a government-created middle class insures the parasite class’ safety. They could not be more wrong.

 

[PratchettFan]

None of the things which result in armed rebellion are present.

To PratchettFan: Everything is present.

All revolutions come from the middle class, and then only when something has been taken away from them. The poor do not have the organizational skills necessary to foment successful revolution. The rich have no reason to revolt. In short: People never start a revolution to get something —— they always revolt to get something back. Socialists know this. That is why they have been trying to create an educated middle class with tax dollars; a middle class loyal to government rather than dedicated to individual liberties for all. Socialists mistakenly believe that replacing the private sector middle class with a government-created middle class insures the parasite class’ safety. They could not be more wrong.

Thank you for your marvelous evidence in support of the part you decided not to quote from my post. Just a fantasy wet dream. The aryan brotherhood is still waiting for its race war, the hippies still waiting for the age of aquarius, and you for secession. Personally, I prefer reality.

 

[Toro]

All revolutions do not start with the middle class. Why would anyone think that?

 

[PratchettFan]

Secession IS Constitutional because the Gov't is created by the States, not the other way around.

When you enter into a Contract and the the other Party has not honored it's part of the deal, you have every right to Sue to have the agreement enforced or have the deal declared Null and Void.

This Secessionist movement is not to start a new country, it's to re-establish Constitutional Law.

Sorry MS, the secessionists are about starting a new country. See the Constitution of the United States starts out with these seven words "We the People of the United States". If a State successfully secedes, then they are not part of the United States.

As such they are not under and or protected by the United States Constitution. Now they would be free, if they successfully secede with their own governmental structure, it could be a monarchy, it could be a Constitutional republic like we have, or it could be broken factions of warlords.


>>>>

I do not see the US Government allowing any State to leave without resorting to force. Nor do I see the Congress voting to allow them to leave.

But it is all moot because no State is considering it anyway.

Quite true. And no state is going to.

I recall a few months ago talking with someone who assured me the "Occupy" movement was going to swell and change the entire world. Not even close. A society doesn't undergo a major change just because a few people are unhappy. That is really all it is. They are unhappy. They aren't desperate, not starving, not down trodden. Federal troops aren't marching into small towns, killing the men and raping the women.

It's just silliness.

 

[PratchettFan]

All revolutions do not start with the middle class. Why would anyone think that?

Because it fits the fantasy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Secession IS Constitutional because the Gov't is created by the States, not the other way around.

When you enter into a Contract and the the other Party has not honored it's part of the deal, you have every right to Sue to have the agreement enforced or have the deal declared Null and Void.

This Secessionist movement is not to start a new country, it's to re-establish Constitutional Law.

Sorry MS, the secessionists are about starting a new country. See the Constitution of the United States starts out with these seven words "We the People of the United States". If a State successfully secedes, then they are not part of the United States.

As such they are not under and or protected by the United States Constitution. Now they would be free, if they successfully secede with their own governmental structure, it could be a monarchy, it could be a Constitutional republic like we have, or it could be broken factions of warlords.


>>>>

I do not see the US Government allowing any State to leave without resorting to force. Nor do I see the Congress voting to allow them to leave.

But it is all moot because no State is considering it anyway.

Seriously I don't see any State actually submitting a Bill of Secession containing provisions for...

1. The new country to assume a proportion of the debt equal to their percentage of overall population.

2. Voluntary revocation of United States Citizenship (either through direct renunciation or through acceptance of citizenship in the new country).

3. Since the citizens of the do not want to be United States citizens, the termination of all payments by the people of the United States (i.e. Social Security, Federal Retirements, etc.) to people that left.

4. The peaceful transfer of mobile property back to the United States. I'm sure some deal can be worked out to sell them excess equipment at a discounted rate. (Of course the new country would assume ownership of all fixed assets.)

5. Loss of federal aid such as hurricanes, forest fires, floods, earthquakes, etc.

6. The peaceful closing and transfer of all federal employees back to the United States (if the job will still exist, if the position will be eliminated, then of course the employee will lose their job) and the closing of all federal buildings and military bases. (They can be moved to states that want them instead of supplying economic advantages to a State that doesn't want them.)​

Faced with the reality of what cutting the ties to the other States will really entail, I don't see it happening either. But given those conditions if the vote within the State of the population at large was to leave, so be it. I'd recommend to my Congressman and Senators to let them go.


At this point there are just bloviating, chest thumping, internet tough guys hitting a White House internet site. When I see real petitions be placed on the ballot and/or before the legislatures to cut all ties with the people of the United States - then I might take them (at least that group) seriously.



>>>>

 

[Montrovant]

So what happened to you when you put this into practice IRL?

He doesn't or he would be in jail for ignoring violating and breaking numerous laws. He is an internet tough guy that does not do as he preaches.

Tell ya what when he organizes and launches an armed rebellion get back to me on his honesty.

The only time I had need to put it into practice is in my hiring policies, I own a business and refuse to hire non-Christians, homosexuals, or negroes, and in my renting policies, I own a small summer place in VA which I rent out when not using and refuse to rent to the same groups of people. As for launching an armed rebellion, this nation is getting closer and closer to arme drebellion every month and is just waiting for the right leaders, like our Founders where, to lead it. I was a great Corporal but woudn't make a very good General Gunny, don't have Hitler's charisma.

Secessionist, bigot, racist who ignores discrimination laws, who believes we are close to armed rebellion?

 

[Flanders]

PratchettFan;6437498

Thank you for your marvelous evidence in support of the part you decided not to quote from my post.

To pratchettFan: And thank you for quoting my entire response.

PratchettFan;6437498

The aryan brotherhood is still waiting for its race war, the hippies still waiting for the age of aquarius, . . .

To pratchettFan: Liberal talking points about the lunatic fringe works for standup comics. It does not work so well for uninformed bumpkins trying to sound politically astute. Making secession a hippie issue is more ludicrous than trying to make it about race.

None of your misdirection changes the true ingredients for revolution. The unrest in this country is about individual liberties, working for one’s self, private property Rights, the Constitution, and so on —— the very things the parasite class took away from private sector Americans. Those are the things Americans want back.

PratchettFan;6437498

Personally, I prefer reality.

To pratchettFan: Then try this:

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

middle class (noun)

The members of society occupying a socioeconomic position intermediate between those of the lower working classes and the wealthy.

Since you cannot see a hyphen in a spoken word —— when Hussein says middle class he also means he would replace the middle-class with the tax collector’s morality:

middle-class (adjective)

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the middle class; bourgeois: middle-class taste; middle-class morality

NOTE: Newspapers articles use both the noun and the adjective.

 

[PratchettFan]

PratchettFan;6437498

Thank you for your marvelous evidence in support of the part you decided not to quote from my post.

To pratchettFan: And thank you for quoting my entire response.

PratchettFan;6437498

The aryan brotherhood is still waiting for its race war, the hippies still waiting for the age of aquarius, . . .

To pratchettFan: Liberal talking points about the lunatic fringe works for standup comics. It does not work so well for uninformed bumpkins trying to sound politically astute. Making secession a hippie issue is more ludicrous than trying to make it about race.

None of your misdirection changes the true ingredients for revolution. The unrest in this country is about individual liberties, working for one’s self, private property Rights, the Constitution, and so on —— the very things the parasite class took away from private sector Americans. Those are the things Americans want back.

PratchettFan;6437498

Personally, I prefer reality.

To pratchettFan: Then try this:

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

middle class (noun)

The members of society occupying a socioeconomic position intermediate between those of the lower working classes and the wealthy.

Since you cannot see a hyphen in a spoken word —— when Hussein says middle class he also means he would replace the middle-class with the tax collector’s morality:

middle-class (adjective)

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the middle class; bourgeois: middle-class taste; middle-class morality

NOTE: Newspapers articles use both the noun and the adjective.

Yes, yes, yes. I get what you are saying but you missed the most important thing I said. I prefer reality. Expanding upon your wet dream for me doesn't change its basic nature.

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator on what the Constitution says and means. And they ruled that a State may ONLY leave the Union if Congress agrees to let them go.

Thus unilateral leaving is Unconstitutional and is in fact insurrection against the US Government.

Dear RetiredGS:
yes and no.
by the LETTER of the law, yes the SC has authority as top of the judicial branch.

However, if they abuse this position to violate the SPIRIT of the Constitution,
this becomes problematic if the people don't have a way to check against
legal and judicial abuse. I totally sympathize with people who feel that Judge Roberts, for example, or the SC ruling granting Bush's re-election after FL was contested, both made unethical politically biased decisions outside the bounds of Constitutional law and authority.

In such cases contested by the people, it is equally "insurrection against the law of the land" for decisions made by the SC that violate the Constitution and the will of the people. The only way I see to fix the problem is to RESOLVE the conflict instead of imposing one bad solution or another if both are equally contested and NOT including or representing all of the public interests EQUALLY. We need to start enforcing TRUE Constitutionality equality by CONSENSUS on otherwise conflicting decisions, and QUIT imposing majority rule over the dissenting minority as a shortcut.

There needs to be a CONSENSUS (especially on issues involving diverse beliefs such as gay marriage and even the health care policies) or else separate the conflicting groups under different policies, and quit trying to impose or favor one biased policy over the other which violates equal protection of the laws by unlawfully discriminating against people of the opposing views or beliefs.

In the end, it is up to the people to decide by free will how to interpret what is within govt authority under the Constitution. Even if the President or SC makes an unconstitutional decision that goes against or unlawfully discriminates against/excludes beliefs or choices for a more ethical/constitutional option that WOULD be in keeping with Constitutional standards, then the people have the right and/or duty to enforce the laws and not violations of them.

We just have to AGREE how to go about resolving the conflict, to make sure we do not do anything illegal or unconstitutional in how the corrections are made. That is the problem here, is that we don't have an AGREED way to directly redress the grievances regarding the SC and legal system even if a bad, questionable, unethical or unconstitutional ruling is made.

If we DON'T have a way to protect our free will and beliefs, then following the SC "blindly" is as bad as having the Pope "impose" an interpretation that all people must submit to RELIGIOUSLY. We must retain free exercise of religion and consent of the governed if we are going to prevent the same abuse or corruption of church authority from affecting state authority, especially with the position of judges whose interpretations become mandatory.

There must be direct judicial review to check and balance the system of democratic due process, or else the system is prone to continue the current trend of legal abuses due to unchecked corporate influence and private/political interests where bigger entities and individuals are not "equally protected" as the law requires. The bullying has to stop.

It is NOT constitutional to impose politically or religiously biased decisions or policies against dissenters due to a skewed system of due process that favors interests with larger resources.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hussein double speaks the definition of the middle class more often than he double speaks any other part of his agenda; i.e., he never, EVER, EVER, distinguishes between the private sector middle class and the government middle class whenever he says he is helping the middle class on taxes, etc.

In truth he is destroying the private sector middle class at the same time he is enriching the government middle class:

Dear Flanders and PrachettFan:
May I offer some very "rough" analogies here to drive the point home.
Please forgive me if these are a bit over the top.

1. If, for example, people are working more and more days out of the year to pay the government for taxes, then we are basically enslaved by "not reaping the benefit of that labor" that is going to pay authorities who have legal requirements over these payments. So the closer the tax rate gets to 40%, then we are basically 60% free citizens.
Isn't that "roughly" the same as being "3/5 free" as it was in the days of slavery?

2. If defenders of the health care mandates argue that forcing nonusers to pay for the insurance or govt services (even if they prefer and believe in paying for health care privately WITHOUT going through insurance or govt) is the "only way to afford" the system, how is this different from the notion that SLAVERY was "necessary as the only way to afford" the labor to work the plantations and build the economy.

In both cases, the "letter of the law" makes it "legal" for govt to endorse the institution, and even use govt and laws to defend and protect the interests of those who support it.

But by the spirit of the law, the people who do not feel they have free choice are being forced to work to pay the extra cost for things they did not ask to use and should be free to pay for another way that respects their free will.

How is this different from 'involuntary servitude' if people do not consent to work to pay for the benefits of others against their will???

People normally AGREE to pay taxes for military or other govt functions, services and costs.

Here, people do NOT agree to work to pay an extra 1500 that does not go into a system they agree to pay for, but precludes them from paying that money into some other way of affording health care under a system by which they can control the services and useage.

Sorry if this is too extreme or too far a stretch to use as a fair analogy.

Can you at least see the similarity in why people are outraged they would
be forced to pay through a system they don't believe in for insurance or services
for others when they would rather pay for their own health care directly in other ways?

 

[emilynghiem]

Name me a single state legislature which has even created a committee to explore the notion of secession. Just one. I'll wait.

1. The descendents of the Kingdom of Hawaii have long petitioned to nullify the annexation and recognize their sovereignty. Because of conflicting beliefs over the right of the state legislature to rule over them, this petition is presented directly by the people behind it.
So by its nature, it may not necessarily get anywhere through the bureaucratic channels.

Too bad the people wanting to get rid of Obama don't jump on this bandwagon and get behind the nullification of Hawaii as a state!

2. Seriously, the district of Freedmen's Town where I live has also fought for emancipation from political oppression and abuse of govt under corporate interests and influence.

I am seriously talking with investors about approaching the Governor about an investment plan to give taxpayers the option of lending money to govt and developing this historic district for Vet housing and health care, as a tax alternative to the federal exchanges.

Again this may not go through the state legislature due to bureaucratic red tape, but may go through executive orders or through other commissions first before creating legislation by negotiations between state and federal authorities on agreed options to invest in more sustainable services and financial plans than the uncertain coverage under the ACA.