Discussion in 'Congress' started by Angel Heart, May 3, 2009.
And all you have to do is CONGRESS to pass it?
Good luck with that.
I'm tellin ya' states righters...if ya want to take back the power ya got to have a constiutional convention and SPELL OUT CLEARLY what rights the FEDS have.
No more ambiguous language, no more vague descriptions that are really only suitable for the 18th century, you have got to clearly state what powers the states have, the Feds have and the PEOPLE retain free from abuse by EITHER the states or the FEDS.
... and start using common English!
That whole configuration of government was REJECTED when we went from the Articles of Confederation to a CENTRALIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT after the Constitution.
What a backwards looking paradigm....
Why on earth would we look to failed systems?
Because they really do want the SOUTH TO RISE AGAIN, of course.
I mean just look at the policies of the Republican party of late and tell me Jeff Davis wouldn't happily sign onto most of them.
That's what the Constitution did.
10: 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.
In other words, half of what the federal government is doing now are what the States should be doing. The other half are illegal under amendment 9.
9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Too bad our overlords treat the Constitution as nothing more than toilet paper.
An overbearing, central government is the most failed of all systems. Aristorcracy/monarchy is not a good thing to regress to, as much as you may like. The most progressive of ideas was that that was born in the 18th century in the American colonies where the people and the states have the rights and the central government is subservient to the will of the people, not the other way around.
Yeah here's the thing...restoring (or increasing depending on your view of it) powers to the states does not insure citizens' individual rights.
What is does, or at least so the Federalist argument goes, is balkanize the USA from one (perhaps) potentially oppressive, but centrally powerful, (ergo more cohesisve national) government, to fifty potentially oppressive governments which lack that benefit of national cohesion?
Now do any of us think that state governments cannot become capricous and overbearing and corrupt?
Or do we recognize that the exact same complaints that we with have with Federalist abuse of government power will manifest in the state capitals?
Your analysis on this thread is really beneath you. There must be a bias you have that rearing its head.
So the federal government is always correct in its decisions to protect individual rights? Like they were when they ordered the internment of 110,000 Japanese-Americans and then the Supreme Court upheld it as proper in the Koromatsu decision. Or maybe an example of how well the federal government upholds individual rights was the Dred Scott decision? Or how about Plessy v. Ferguson? Maybe that's that you mean by the Federal Government supporting individual rights?
What you'd like us to focus on was the one time where states' rights supported slavery and Jim Crow, while conveniently forgetting the National government's role in both of those institutions. You also conveniently forget all of the states that supported and fostered the abolition movement at the state level. Those were also those laboratories of democracy that eventually forced the end of the slavery. This was against the prevailing view of the national government at that time that you want to be the sole arbiter of individual freedom.
We can guarantee but one thing, that is that whatever the guarantor of our freedoms, it will be imperfect. This is because it is a creation of man and man is imperfect. I would chose to have 50 small guarantors where I can move freely from one that I despise to another I feel is more superior that a single large one that becomes oppressive that forces me to change my citizenship and way of life if I chose to leave. The stakes are far too high to vest the preservation of rights in one entity.
When you lose power, pull out your trusty pocket constitution and tell the people why the current regime is not following it to the T.
Like I said before, after it sets up the Republic, the Constitution is no more than propaganda.
Separate names with a comma.