GOP candidates on states rights, SHOCKING!

[Inthemiddle]

Same here. BEcause he will beat Obama like a red headed stepchild. But heck, Bachmann could do that too.

Perry would never win a general election for President. You cannot be elected President of the United States when you want to secede from the United States. It will never happen.

 

[Listening]

C'mon folks....this is a bulwark against the liberals who want to steal you blind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Same here. BEcause he will beat Obama like a red headed stepchild. But heck, Bachmann could do that too.

Perry would never win a general election for President. You cannot be elected President of the United States when you want to secede from the United States. It will never happen.

Perry does not want to secede from the United States, but thank you for your consistency in always wasting time blathering about made-up issues, rather than ever having the cojones to discuss REAL ones.

 

[rightwinger]

Same here. BEcause he will beat Obama like a red headed stepchild. But heck, Bachmann could do that too.

Perry would never win a general election for President. You cannot be elected President of the United States when you want to secede from the United States. It will never happen.

Perry does not want to secede from the United States, but thank you for your consistency in always wasting time blathering about made-up issues, rather than ever having the cojones to discuss REAL ones.

Perry threatened to secede if Wasington did not conform to his political views

Obvious Presidential material

 

[Listening]

Perry would never win a general election for President. You cannot be elected President of the United States when you want to secede from the United States. It will never happen.

Perry does not want to secede from the United States, but thank you for your consistency in always wasting time blathering about made-up issues, rather than ever having the cojones to discuss REAL ones.

Perry threatened to secede if Wasington did not conform to his political views

Obvious Presidential material

He is still not President Obama.....that makes him attractive.

 

[WatertheTree]

WOW! Only 2 current GOP candidates back state rights!!!!!!!!! What U say on this one???


Leading GOP Candidates Don't Want to Return Power to the States - Yahoo! News

I say nice spin but it's just more liberal bullshit.

Try thinking for yourself.

Christ if you could put dumbshit into a can and sell it then you would have millions.

 

[WatertheTree]

The 10th Amendment spells this out. We need more power devolved to the states, which is what the Founders wanted.
Perry once again shines and presents a clear alternative to the compromised "lead" candidates.

Rick Perry is a liar and a fraud. He wants to be elected so he is parroting Ron Paul. Rick Perry has no plan for once he is elected. He is expecting his biggest donors to make decisions for him.

 

[Listening]

A bump for the 10th amendment.

 

[dblack]

The problem with the tenth amendment is that it relies on the interpreted scope of the enumerated powers. As long as we have broad interpretations of the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, the tenth is moot.

We'd be better off focusing our energies on a new amendment (or perhaps new judges) that will reign in the radical expansions of federal power allowed under the existing case law.

 

[Listening]

The problem with the tenth amendment is that it relies on the interpreted scope of the enumerated powers. As long as we have broad interpretations of the commerce clause, and the general welfare clause, the tenth is moot.

We'd be better off focusing our energies on a new amendment (or perhaps new judges) that will reign in the radical expansions of federal power allowed under the existing case law.

I'd say the problem is that the GOP has stood by and let things go in the direction you mentioned.

I agree that the focus should be on not returing to states powers....but simply making this country one where states reign supreme on most issues.

Existing case law is one of the worst arguments the GOP has ever let slide.

The SCOTUS knocked down SS before it passed (and after FDR essentialll threatened to take over the SCOTUS via his court packing scheme). Nobody remembers that.

 

[Listening]

And I'm gonna keep bumping it !

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 10th Amendment spells this out. We need more power devolved to the states, which is what the Founders wanted.

It’s telling how the right wishes to exchange the tyranny of the Federal government for the tyranny of the states. Indeed, a given state government is much more likely to violate one’s civil rights than the Federal government.

And the 10th Amendment says nothing about authorizing the states to violate their citizens’ civil rights, which is prohibited by the 14th Amendment.

Constitution IS the supreme law of the land... BUT the powers of the federal government as SPECIFICALLY limited and laid out... and all other powers are reserved for the states or the citizens... and that is specifically spelled out in the constitution.

The U.S. Constitution defines a specific set of powers for the federal government.

If you want to add powers to the federal government....you amend the constitution.

Incorrect:

McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

What is true is that history shows the SCOTUS to be quit willing to ignore the constitution and play god.

According to whom and by what authority is the Supreme Court ‘ignoring’ the Constitution? You?

That’s otherwise an utterly ignorant statement.

A simple reading of Federalist 44/45/46 shows the intent.

The Supreme Court determines the intent, and what the Constitution means; the Federalist Papers and other primary documents from the Foundation Era were considered in various Court rulings – but they are not absolute or comprehensive in their authority.

What was Roe V. Wade ?

Your question should be ‘what was Griswold v. Connecticut?'

That is how liberals do it. They don't amend the constitution. They put corrupt judges in place and rule from the bench.

Again, more ignorant idiocy, devoid of fact or evidence. You blindly lash out at that which you don’t like or understand.

I love the 10th.

You may ‘love’ it all you want, believe it to be whatever pathetic fantasy you want it to be – it doesn’t change the facts of Constitutional case law, and the fact there are no ‘states’ rights’ as you believe them to exist.

 

[Listening]

While there really is no clear argument against what has happened in the last 200 years (and it is pretty twisted), it really does not matter.

Even if the 10th didn't exist, it is time conservatives realized that if the left wants a "living breathing constitution" then we can make it breath the way we want it to.

And that would be to give power to the states.

It is a great idea.

Look at at what a promising job our federal government under the strong leadership of Barack Obama has done.....nothing. It is a sas commentary on what adults who behave like children and cowards can do.

I'd much rather be under the thumb of someone a little closer to home and I'll take my chances on having my rights violated by them instead of the guy who violates them for me and 300,000,000 others all in the name of buying a few votes from a select group.

As to John Marshall....well, if the founders don't count, neither does he.

And people have written, Roe vs. Wade is essentially dead given all that has transpired since the shameful Harry Blackmun decided to play god. It is never used in current case law. What a shame.

It's just to bad that states have not fought for a constitutional amendment that outlaws late term abortion so that people like Ginsburg (who I so wish Cheney would take duck hunting) can't force their views on us.

 

[Listening]

That is how liberals do it. They don't amend the constitution. They put corrupt judges in place and rule from the bench.

Again, more ignorant idiocy, devoid of fact or evidence. You blindly lash out at that which you don’t like or understand.

The history behind the court and FDR's angst with regard to it is all to clear.

Stifled in his efforts to use a federal government to do something it was not intended to do, he proposed his infamous court packing scheme. Which cost him is alliance with key democrats. The court continued to fight him.

Then came the vote in time that saved nine. It's all there and nobody disputed that the bastard in the White House was not respecting the separation of powers as he tried to play king. But, as they say, time gave him what he wanted and he eventually got liberal judges in place who did his bidding. The senate played along and FDR wiped his ass with the constitution on a regular basis.

So, please keep using words like idiocy. It only shows that you really only have a grasp of things as you wish them to be.

I noticed that your buddies on the left had no problem going after the scotus on rulings regarding corporations and campaign finance.

 

[Listening]

Let's try it again.

 

[peach174]

It's about power in both parties.
Not about us and the constitution.
Vote the incumbents out in both parties.
Vote all of the career politicians out because they only want power.