The 10th Amendment

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Listening, Dec 1, 2013.

  1. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,398
    Thanks Received:
    12,331
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,960
    Well I won't go so far as to say they are no better. I only said they aren't less corrupt. :)

    They do have better ideas and they do by accident probably leave more to the states and local communities as the Founders intended. It isn't because they are more moral or ethical. They just happen to represent a constituency that demands things that produce better government than what the Democrats demand.
     
  2. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    O.K.

    O.K.

    Let's take the term Republican out of it. Let's just say people who believe in small government. Not a conservative.
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,398
    Thanks Received:
    12,331
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,960
    Certainly I would guess 99% if not all of Americans who believe in a Constitutionally limited federal government as the Founders intended are strong supporters of the 10th Amendment. I don't know how any of us could possibly act any differently to make it 'mean more'.
     
  4. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    11,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,695
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +13,501
    The way you make it mean more … Is by making it mean something in the first place.

    We cannot expect people to to uniformly negotiate what they believe as the separation between Federal Rights and States Right without substantial leadership in organization.
    Any number of citizens could choose to test the ability of the Federal Government to overstep its bounds … And several have done so with some success.
    This just doesn't translate into mass movement on popular issue because more individuals don't want to take the time, effort and money necessary to fight the government.

    What it means is that States are going to have to start putting their citizens above what they are unwilling to fight for.

    Take for instance the State of South Carolina and H.3101 (still sitting in their Senate, but has passed 28-16).
    H.3101 is the South Carolina Freedom of Healthcare Protection Act … And essentially disregards parts of the ACA that it views as Unconstitutional.

    2013-2014 Bill 3101: Freedom of Health Care Protection Act - South Carolina Legislature Online

    Only when State Legislatures and Governors step up and start taking responsibility for the protection of their own rights ... And the rights of their citizens ... Will there ever be a difference.

    Governor Nikki Haley wants to help the people in her state.
    The Governor wants to be in South Carolina and take care of South Carolina's business ... Doesn't so much care about approval from Washington or getting elected on the national scene.

    If the states aren't willing to support the efforts of the people they represent ... Then each citizen within that state is obligated to replace their own representatives with someone who will do the job that needs to be done.

    We have far more influence within our own state governments and our communities than we do on the national level.
    You have a greater chance of shaking the tree in your own backyard than trying to chop one down in Washington ... Get together with your neighbors and you can start making short work of that tree.

    Why should we as individuals have to worry about fighting the Federal Government over States Rights ... If the States won't stand up for themselves to start with?

    .
     
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,398
    Thanks Received:
    12,331
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,960
    That too happened back the TRR and FDR era. Once the federal government turned the Constitution on its head, it was able to start taking the power from the states and manipulating the money. But because it was so gradual, it was the proverbial frog lulled into complacency in the pot until it was finally boiled alive.

    Now the states are in a tough spot. They HAVE to have federal money to fulfill their obligations and if they openly defy the federal government, the federal government now has the power to punish them in unpleasant ways.

    It is the same way with the people. Most of us are conservatives at heart. Most of us long for a return to small, effective, efficient government and the liberties that we have lost, one by one, over time. But 50% or more of us now depend in some way on government benefits. And even if those benefits are small, it takes huge cajones to gather the gumption to voluntarily give them up in favor of a return to constitutional government. The federal government has bribed and blugeoned and manipulated and lied its way into total control over us. And those in government are not about to give up their power, prestige, influence, and rapidly expanding personal fortunes in order to do anything about it.
     
  6. BlackSand
    Offline

    BlackSand Nobody Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    11,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,695
    Trophy Points:
    380
    Location:
    Wherever I May Roam
    Ratings:
    +13,501
    I think that is where the Bill in South Carolina is a little different in application.
    It would be the same old-same old with the exception that it doesn't stop at the simple refusal of government funding.

    It simply states that the State Exchanges are what they would consider to be not only unconstitutional but illegal.

    Note that it also establishes the ability to prosecute individuals and entities that attempt to enforce what they see as " Unconstitutional Legislation" passed by the US Congress.
    They are not saying that they will opt out of the system ... But stating that the legislation and State Run Exchange is illegal and open to prosecution under the law.

    As a State ... South Carolina is not telling the Federal Government that they won't play ball ... They are telling the Federal Government that they will take them to court or throw their agents in jail if they try to enforce the Unconstitutional Legislation.
    The Legislation is what limits funding should a state choose not to comply ... And to limit funding would be attempts to enforce the Legislation.

    Could be interesting ...

    .
     
  7. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    I would suggest getting involved in local government. This is a great place to start....or so I have posited.

    Local government can be more involved in the precinct connection and local party machinery. In that way you can influence what goes up the chain. We need more folks in line with this philosophy.

    Additionally, you need to understand your local recruiting processes. My experience has been that it is other pols recruiting people to run for office. Then they have "servants" We need to get away from that.
     
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,398
    Thanks Received:
    12,331
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,960
    I've been doing that since I was 18. But we will not turn it around until the people themselves demand that the government stop giving them free stuff and take away the power of those in government to use our money to give free stuff. Until we do that, the 10th Amendment will be essentially meaningless.
     
  9. Listening
    Offline

    Listening Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2011
    Messages:
    14,989
    Thanks Received:
    1,642
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +2,046
    So, let me ask you.

    Do your local republicans (or so called republicans) demand free stuff too ?

    How organized are the conservatives in your area ?
     
  10. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    50,398
    Thanks Received:
    12,331
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +17,960
    I think Republicans are less likely to demand free stuff, but Republicans alas are humans with feet of clay and it is as difficult for them to resist taking free stuff they are given as it is anybody else. And once you are receiving a government benefit, it is asking a lot of most people to expect them to insist that the government take away the benefit.

    The government, media, and leftist talking heads have been sufficiently successful in marginalizing and demonizing the Tea Party movement which was, at least for awhile, our best shot at turning all that around. And now with 50% of the population being beneficiary in some way on government generosity, I think we may have lost a brief window of opportunity that we had.

    This has nothing to do with Republicans or partisanship. This has everything to do with federal government manipulation of the vote and its insatiable appetite for more power, prestige, influence, and ability of those in government to massively increase their personal wealth. That takes precedence over everything else.
     

Share This Page