The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

Please explain to me what you mean.

I find these kind of "hints" to be difficult to decipher. The lack of examples or supporting documentation makes it tough to know just what you mean.

Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics.

States rights is the same idea. To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other, in order to reduce the influence of the other party, at least in that area.

The classic example is the Confederacy, designed to eliminate Republican influence.

Any of the current districts will prove only that both parties are attempting to gerrymander their constituents in order to secure votes. Corrupt all of them.

"Corrupt all of them."

Who's "them"?

All people? All government? All businesses? All Democrats? All Republicans? All liberals? All conservatives?

 

[Listening]

You don't have to look at many contemporary state governments to see what a bad idea giving them more responsibility is.

Please provide examples.

This is a an accusation that you won't support in three sentences. Make it good.

The ones that I know first hand are New York and Florida.

New York has an effective Governor but a legislature as ineffective as Congress has been rendered. While Cuomo has made some progress, it's a long, long way from a done deal.

Florida has an inept Governor and a nondescript legislature. Gov Scott, of Medicare fraud fame, ran when there was a large Tea Party infestation in Florida's electorate. He got elected for his recitation of two sentences. Jobs for everyone, and the dismantling of government.

He knew that, but never credited Obama for, the National recovery from the Great Recession, which brought jobs back to Florida.

He started to dismantle government but now that he's up for re-election has decided to undo much of what he did. Enormously wasteful.

I don't have other first hand experience but Texas and Wisconsin and Michigan strike me as other good candidates.

So you really have nothing.

What you described is no worse than our federal government.

Where I live, things are quite functional.

What makes you think a federal legislature can be any better than a state legislature.

People used to whine about corruption. And we don't think our current congress is corrupt and stupid ?

 

[Listening]

What you are really selling is super gerrymandering. Let each party take their States so that negotiating and statemenship aren't needed.

The recreation of the Civil War.

Please explain to me what you mean.

I find these kind of "hints" to be difficult to decipher. The lack of examples or supporting documentation makes it tough to know just what you mean.

Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics.

States rights is the same idea. To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other, in order to reduce the influence of the other party, at least in that area.

The classic example is the Confederacy, designed to eliminate Republican influence.

How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ? YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size. It was not designed to do anything. It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on. It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve. We have the same faldera today in areas of the country. Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people. We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population). We have not expanded the number of representatives. One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people. My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole. That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.

But that is a bad thing.

 

[Listening]

Please explain to me what you mean.

I find these kind of "hints" to be difficult to decipher. The lack of examples or supporting documentation makes it tough to know just what you mean.

Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics.

States rights is the same idea. To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other, in order to reduce the influence of the other party, at least in that area.

The classic example is the Confederacy, designed to eliminate Republican influence.

Any of the current districts will prove only that both parties are attempting to gerrymander their constituents in order to secure votes. Corrupt all of them.

We've weakened the senate through the 17th amendment.

I've heard the argument time and time again that local politics is corrupt.

When I get an invite to go see my federal legislator (usually at some million dollar home), I can get in for 250. I can get a picture for 500. Now whose gonna spend that kind of money....not most normal people (they don't have it). So who is this person beholden too ?

My local state rep gets a small salary. But it's nothing like the shaker and mover platform of the fed.

 

[PMZ]

Please provide examples.

This is a an accusation that you won't support in three sentences. Make it good.

The ones that I know first hand are New York and Florida.

New York has an effective Governor but a legislature as ineffective as Congress has been rendered. While Cuomo has made some progress, it's a long, long way from a done deal.

Florida has an inept Governor and a nondescript legislature. Gov Scott, of Medicare fraud fame, ran when there was a large Tea Party infestation in Florida's electorate. He got elected for his recitation of two sentences. Jobs for everyone, and the dismantling of government.

He knew that, but never credited Obama for, the National recovery from the Great Recession, which brought jobs back to Florida.

He started to dismantle government but now that he's up for re-election has decided to undo much of what he did. Enormously wasteful.

I don't have other first hand experience but Texas and Wisconsin and Michigan strike me as other good candidates.

So you really have nothing.

What you described is no worse than our federal government.

Where I live, things are quite functional.

What makes you think a federal legislature can be any better than a state legislature.

People used to whine about corruption. And we don't think our current congress is corrupt and stupid ?

I think that all organizations have some stupid and some corrupt people.

I doubt if the proportions are any different between the average federal and average state governments and average corporations. And the population in general.

At least with government we can replace them. Not so in business.

I will say though that it is my experience that as you get closer to local government the inexperienced based stupidity increases.

 

[Listening]

The ones that I know first hand are New York and Florida.

New York has an effective Governor but a legislature as ineffective as Congress has been rendered. While Cuomo has made some progress, it's a long, long way from a done deal.

Florida has an inept Governor and a nondescript legislature. Gov Scott, of Medicare fraud fame, ran when there was a large Tea Party infestation in Florida's electorate. He got elected for his recitation of two sentences. Jobs for everyone, and the dismantling of government.

He knew that, but never credited Obama for, the National recovery from the Great Recession, which brought jobs back to Florida.

He started to dismantle government but now that he's up for re-election has decided to undo much of what he did. Enormously wasteful.

I don't have other first hand experience but Texas and Wisconsin and Michigan strike me as other good candidates.

So you really have nothing.

What you described is no worse than our federal government.

Where I live, things are quite functional.

What makes you think a federal legislature can be any better than a state legislature.

People used to whine about corruption. And we don't think our current congress is corrupt and stupid ?

I think that all organizations have some stupid and some corrupt people.

I doubt if the proportions are any different between the average federal and average state governments and average corporations. And the population in general.

At least with government we can replace them. Not so in business.

I will say though that it is my experience that as you get closer to local government the inexperienced based stupidity increases.

So there is a reason to keep it local.

As to your last sentence, I don't see that. There are morons at the federal level, plenty of them. It's just that they play with bigger bankrolls and those who are seeking to influence them are willing to roll out big bucks to get their way.

 

[PMZ]

Please explain to me what you mean.

I find these kind of "hints" to be difficult to decipher. The lack of examples or supporting documentation makes it tough to know just what you mean.

Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics.

States rights is the same idea. To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other, in order to reduce the influence of the other party, at least in that area.

The classic example is the Confederacy, designed to eliminate Republican influence.

How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ? YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size. It was not designed to do anything. It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on. It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve. We have the same faldera today in areas of the country. Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people. We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population). We have not expanded the number of representatives. One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people. My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole. That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.

But that is a bad thing.

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

 

[PMZ]

So you really have nothing.

What you described is no worse than our federal government.

Where I live, things are quite functional.

What makes you think a federal legislature can be any better than a state legislature.

People used to whine about corruption. And we don't think our current congress is corrupt and stupid ?

I think that all organizations have some stupid and some corrupt people.

I doubt if the proportions are any different between the average federal and average state governments and average corporations. And the population in general.

At least with government we can replace them. Not so in business.

I will say though that it is my experience that as you get closer to local government the inexperienced based stupidity increases.

So there is a reason to keep it local.

As to your last sentence, I don't see that. There are morons at the federal level, plenty of them. It's just that they play with bigger bankrolls and those who are seeking to influence them are willing to roll out big bucks to get their way.

I see how bad local government is every day. In both locales that I frequent. Most local politicians are in way over their head. The saving grace is that try can only screw up local things.

 

[Listening]

I think that all organizations have some stupid and some corrupt people.

I doubt if the proportions are any different between the average federal and average state governments and average corporations. And the population in general.

At least with government we can replace them. Not so in business.

I will say though that it is my experience that as you get closer to local government the inexperienced based stupidity increases.

So there is a reason to keep it local.

As to your last sentence, I don't see that. There are morons at the federal level, plenty of them. It's just that they play with bigger bankrolls and those who are seeking to influence them are willing to roll out big bucks to get their way.

I see how bad local government is every day. In both locales that I frequent. Most local politicians are in way over their head. The saving grace is that try can only screw up local things.

You don't think our federal morons are not in over their heads ?

Truly ?

And I agree, it is better that we only have locals screwing up local things. You can more readily fix that....don't like it ? Run for office. Might cost you 5 K (from donors).

You want to run for the legislature, you're talking a million to start. Big money donors time !

And please address my point about how many people each one represents. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Listening]

Gerrymandering is redistricting to lock in partisan support demographics.

States rights is the same idea. To not dilute areas strong in one party or the other, in order to reduce the influence of the other party, at least in that area.

The classic example is the Confederacy, designed to eliminate Republican influence.

How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ? YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size. It was not designed to do anything. It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on. It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve. We have the same faldera today in areas of the country. Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people. We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population). We have not expanded the number of representatives. One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people. My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole. That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.

But that is a bad thing.

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

 

[PMZ]

So there is a reason to keep it local.

As to your last sentence, I don't see that. There are morons at the federal level, plenty of them. It's just that they play with bigger bankrolls and those who are seeking to influence them are willing to roll out big bucks to get their way.

I see how bad local government is every day. In both locales that I frequent. Most local politicians are in way over their head. The saving grace is that try can only screw up local things.

You don't think our federal morons are not in over their heads ?

Truly ?

And I agree, it is better that we only have locals screwing up local things. You can more readily fix that....don't like it ? Run for office. Might cost you 5 K (from donors).

You want to run for the legislature, you're talking a million to start. Big money donors time !

And please address my point about how many people each one represents. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

We have a census every ten years to provide the data for determining House representation. I don't think that the number of people represented is very important. What's more important is that the demographics be representative of the state population. Of course that's contrary to partisan politics. So it's a continual battle. All in all we have much more important things to worry about.

 

[PMZ]

How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ? YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size. It was not designed to do anything. It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on. It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve. We have the same faldera today in areas of the country. Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people. We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population). We have not expanded the number of representatives. One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people. My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole. That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.

But that is a bad thing.

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.

 

[PMZ]

How is states rights the same things as gerrymandering ? YOur statement about dilution does not provide any clarrity to me.

The confederacy was the equivalent of the 13 original colonies in terms of size. It was not designed to do anything. It was established as a reaction to something that was already going on. It simply chose to preserve what it felt it needed to preserve. We have the same faldera today in areas of the country. Big union states.

I am afraid there is nothing here that argues against following the 10th amendment.

When the country was formed, there 13 states and 6 million people. We now have states that are almost 10 times as large (in terms of population). We have not expanded the number of representatives. One rep now has a constituency of about 600,000 people. My house rep has a constituency of a maybe 25,000 peopole. That makes my local vote 24 times more powerful.

But that is a bad thing.

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

How is that different than any issue? The issue was their right to tell the Union how to run Federal business. It was settled. States don't.

 

[Listening]

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.

You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?

 

[Listening]

The Confederacy was designed to be a country separate from the United States of America. A country absent of the Republican Party of the time. A country of only the Democrats of the time.

It was the ultimate manifestation of states rights. Withdraw from the Federal Government.

The 10th amendment was and is part of our Constitution and has always been followed according to our process for determining such things.

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

How is that different than any issue? The issue was their right to tell the Union how to run Federal business. It was settled. States don't.

The constitution clearly states what is federal business and what is not.

That was the intent of the document.

Just because the federal government wants to make it their business, does not make it their business.

 

[PMZ]

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.

You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?

I'm aware that he took the number of justices from five to the current nine.

 

[PMZ]

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

How is that different than any issue? The issue was their right to tell the Union how to run Federal business. It was settled. States don't.

The constitution clearly states what is federal business and what is not.

That was the intent of the document.

Just because the federal government wants to make it their business, does not make it their business.

The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

Absolutely false.

FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Your comments about the confederacy still make no sense. The were not one state. They simply didn't want the feds screwing with their economies.

"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.

You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?

From Wikipedia.

"The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937[1] (frequently called the "court-packing plan")[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Roosevelt's purpose was to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that had been previously ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central and most controversial provision of the bill would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every sitting member over the age of 70 years and 6 months."

"During Roosevelt's first term,[4] the Supreme Court had struck down several New Deal measures intended to bolster economic recovery during the Great Depression, leading to charges from New Deal supporters that a narrow majority of the court was obstructionist and political. Since the U.S. Constitution does not mandate any specific size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt sought to counter this entrenched opposition to his political agenda by expanding the number of justices in order to create a pro-New Deal majority on the bench.[3] Opponents viewed the legislation as an attempt to stack the court, leading them to call it the "court-packing plan".[2]
The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937 and was the subject, on March 9, 1937, of one of Roosevelt's Fireside chats.[5][6] Shortly after the radio address, on March 29, the Supreme Court published its opinion upholding a Washington state minimum wage law in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish[7] by a 5–4 ruling, after Associate Justice Owen Roberts had joined with the wing of the bench more sympathetic to the New Deal. Since Roberts had previously ruled against most New Deal legislation, his perceived about-face was widely interpreted by contemporaries as an effort to maintain the Court's judicial independence by alleviating the political pressure to create a court more friendly to the New Deal. His move came to be known as "the switch in time that saved nine." However, since Roberts's decision and vote in the Parrish case predated the introduction of the 1937 bill,[8] this interpretation has been called into question.[9]"

"Roosevelt's initiative ultimately failed due to adverse public opinion, the retirement of one Supreme Court Justice, and the unexpected and sudden death of the legislation's U.S. Senate champion: Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson. It exposed the limits of Roosevelt's abilities to push forward legislation through direct public appeal and, in contrast to the tenor of his public presentations of his first-term, was seen as political maneuvering.[10][11] Although circumstances ultimately allowed Roosevelt to prevail in establishing a majority on the court friendly to his New Deal agenda, some scholars have concluded that the President's victory was a pyrrhic one."

 

[Listening]

"FDR showed just how easy it was for someone to utilize a crisis to wipe his ass with the Constitution."

What you mean to say is that you disagreed with his politics.

This is a democracy. Nobody gets everything that they want.

You are aware of his infamous proposed court packing scheme ?

I'm aware that he took the number of justices from five to the current nine.

It was nine at this time, and I believe it was always nine.

He wanted to put more robes on the bench (1 for every justice over some age).

It failed.

Everyone saw it for what it was....a blatent attempt to overpower our checks and balances.

Ultimately he wound up putting a bunch of libs on the bench that served his purposes.

 

[Listening]

How is that different than any issue? The issue was their right to tell the Union how to run Federal business. It was settled. States don't.

The constitution clearly states what is federal business and what is not.

That was the intent of the document.

Just because the federal government wants to make it their business, does not make it their business.

The intent of the document was to set in place the bylaws for our government. Many things were debated. The only thing that counts are the specific words chosen and ratified in the Constitution.

Then why do you even consider that the constitution allows the federal government to enact health care legislation.