Tactics to limit the Federal Government

[Avatar4321]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

 

[slackjawed]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

 

[Annie]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

You may be correct but it's not going to happen.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

1) Return federally owned lands to the States

2) Let's try this for a change

3) Stop letting stupid people vote

4) Get the smart people to actually vote the vermin out of office

 

[Annie]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

Some are starting to:

Tenn. Senate votes to reject health care mandate - BusinessWeek

Tenn. Senate votes to reject health care mandate

By ERIK SCHELZIG

NASHVILLE, TENN.

The Tennessee Senate on Wednesday passed a bill to require the state attorney general to mount a legal challenge to any federal law to require participation in a health care system.

The "Tennessee Health Freedom Act" sponsored by Republican Sen. Mae Beavers of Mt. Juliet passed without debate on a 26-1 vote, with five abstentions.

The bill's goal is "not to nullify any federal law," Beavers said in brief remarks on the Senate floor. "It would simply acknowledge the right of individuals to refuse to participate in a government-run health insurance program."

Beavers said her proposal seeks to check congressional power. Otherwise the federal government "could mandate that each of us buy a Chevrolet every year so we could help pay of the loans that were made to the industry," she said....

Similar proposals have been filed in 30 states, sometimes in the form of constitutional amendments. The effort is endorsed by a conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, which prepares conservative legislation for use in many states. Beavers said her bill is based on a measure recently passed by the Idaho House....

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2010/021610petition_epa.pdf

exas Challenges Federal Government Over EPA Greenhouse Gas Findings



AUSTIN - The State of Texas today challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding for greenhouse gases.

“With billions of dollars at stake, EPA outsourced the scientific basis for its greenhouse gas regulation to a scandal-plagued international organization that cannot be considered objective or trustworthy,” said Attorney General Abbott. “Prominent climate scientists associated with the International Panel on Climate Change were engaged in an ongoing, orchestrated effort to violate freedom of information laws, exclude scientific research, and manipulate temperature data. In light of the parade of controversies and improper conduct that has been uncovered, we know that the International Panel on Climate Change cannot be relied upon for objective, unbiased science—so EPA should not rely upon it to reach a decision that will hurt small businesses, farmers, ranchers, and the larger Texas economy.”​

 

[Avatar4321]

1) Return federally owned lands to the States

2) Let's try this for a change

3) Stop letting stupid people vote

4) Get the smart people to actually vote the vermin out of office

I dont think they will let you stop the people in political parties from voting

 

[☭proletarian☭]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

1) Return federally owned lands to the States

2) Let's try this for a change

3) Stop letting stupid people vote

4) Get the smart people to actually vote the vermin out of office

I dont think they will let you stop the people in political parties from voting

touche'

 

[Avatar4321]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Because it eliminated a check the States had on the Federal Government.

 

[Liability]

Nullification.

The day when several States act as one to effectively deny to the Federal Government the right to act invalidly and in contravention of the limits imposed on the Federal Government by the Constitution is the day things might start to change for the better.

Don't get me wrong.

I fully expect that the fubars in the Federal Government will not "take" that affont to their stolen mantle of authority lying down.

But still, if Texas acted on the same day as Georgia and the same day as Idaho (and dare to dream, the same day as California and the same day as New York), the federal officialdom wouldn't know whether to shit or go blind.

I would really like to see Texas kick EPA officials out of office space in Texas.

Instead of sending in troops, you can BET that the Feds would retaliate by cutting the pipeline to the federal funding of roads etc in Texas. That's cool. Understandable even. And in retaliation for THAT, the State should stop collecting any taxes for any Federal agencies and decline to have the Feds distribute 1040 Forms to the residents of Texas. Kick the IRS officers out of offices throughout the State. Declare that the payment of Federal taxation would become a State criminal offense....

And again, if the Feds dared to send in troops (which they would not), the other States could simply follow suit.

Once the Feds got the message, all interested parties could sit down and talk it out.

Around that time, it would be GREAT to hold a Constitutional convention again. Not many Amendments would be required to set things back to order. Repeal the 17th Amendment. Repeal the Income Tax -- and deny any other form of taxation legitmacy until the Income tax was officially outlawed. An Amendment, perhaps, reflecting what "due process" actually means, not what it has become. An Amendment clarifying that a PREAMBLE is not the same thing as an Article, and that interstate commerce means what it was intended to mean, not the nonsense it became by judicial fiat.

 

[slackjawed]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Before the 17th amendment, unfunded mandates were unheard of for one thing. The interstate commerce control only came after it passed.

Now, keep in mind, most states still held elections, and then the state assemblies 'selected' the senators, so there were still elections in most states. A notable exception was wyoming, for some reason the gov had complete control there.
The states also lost the ability to recall senators when the 17th amendment was passed.

It seems that parties would have to go to make it work. Due to party politics, several senate seats went unfilled because of partisan politics before it was passed. That was a severe problem, and some way would have to be found to deal with ti or repealing the 17th would simply put us back there.

The 17th amendment was one of the 'progressive' campaigns in the early 1900's, and the states lost power, or sovernty when it passed.

I would like to see the 17th repealed, as well as rthe power of political parties curbed. I don't think it's reasonable to expect it will happen, but nonetheless, I would like to see it.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont have an issue with a Constitutional Convention per se. However, you never know what might get preposed there. We may go in with the idea that we fix the problem and end up with things worse or the system completely abolished.

 

[ihopehefails]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Easy. By having a body in the federal govt that represents the interest of states it provides a natural check on the federal government because state and federal governments want CONTROL. Neither side wants to give it up so so a bill that threatens state sovriegnty will never make it through the Senate or not make it through the Senate easily.

Now if you are concerned that the people, through the direct vote, will not have any say in the federal government we can have another body in the federal government that represents them. This body already exist and is called the house of representatives. They decide things that directly affect the people such as taxes and war while the Senate decides things that affect states such as treaties and supreme court appointees.

This stops the federal government from enacting legislation that violate local and state laws without their consent. It makes certain that all politics that affect your life are handled at the local level instead of at the national level where your individual voice will be one of 300 million. At that point your wishes will get drowned amoung the 300million.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

As part of that we should repeal the 17th amendment. The state governments would then have much more power.

Clarify

How is having the senators elected by the People instead of by legislators a bad thing?

Because it eliminated a check the States had on the Federal Government.

I don't follow. Can you link to an explanation of your argument? It would seem that the People being able to choose their representatives in DC directly would serve to better check against DC acting against the interest of the People.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

damn straight!!!!

Its time to take our constitutional power back and take away the power the feds have usurped from us slowly over the decades.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Nullification.

The day when several States act as one to effectively deny to the Federal Government the right to act invalidly and in contravention of the limits imposed on the Federal Government by the Constitution is the day things might start to change for the better.

Right... I can tell you how that'd end... it involves US Armed Forces...

Instead of sending in troops, you can BET that the Feds would retaliate by cutting the pipeline to the federal funding of roads etc in Texas.

And texas'd stop paying the taxes the fed was sending back and pay for the roads themselves.

And again, if the Feds dared to send in troops (which they would not).

It's happened before...

 

[Charles Stucker]

Nullification.

Or have enough states call for a constitutional amendment process to force the Congress to take action.

Though I do like your idea it might prove unworkable as they would send in someone to "arrest" the state legislators for federal charges and anyone from the state resisting would get shot. The FBI might even get local police to cooperate through intimidation tactics (we know where your family lives)
We are talking about a government which has no concern for individuals (except the legislators and their cronies + select family members)

 

[Samson]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

In effect, the Feds "bribe" state elected officials to do their bidding.

Unable to print money, states must maintain a budget, or actually raise taxes, OR RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Some states, Wyoming for example, actually maintains a budget with little federal funding, and little taxation (having almost no population helps).

Other states, California, New York, Florida, are almost hopeless basket-cases even with massive federal funding

Most other states, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, are somewhere in between, but one thing is clear: They all rely heavily on Federal Funding, and the necessary expansion of Federal Debt.

If, at the state level, candidates could be elected on the basis of rejecting all federal funding, and raising state taxes to maintain reduced state services, then we can all begin drinking bubblr-up and eating rainbow stew.

LEADERSHIP at the Federal Level needs to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and simply reduce the size and expense of the Federal Government.

 

[slackjawed]

It comes down to the fundamentals of one's belief.
If one believes that the country should be a Union of states, as defined in the original constitution, one is for nullification, repealing the progressive income taxes, the 17th amendment ect.
If one believes that the federal government should holdd all power in a central location and dictate to the states, then one is against all those things.

There are pros and cons to both ways of thinking. The real fact is that this very discussion (minus some of the particulars like the 17th amendment) has been going on almost since the inception of the country.

 

[slackjawed]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

In effect, the Feds "bribe" state elected officials to do their bidding.

Unable to print money, states must maintain a budget, or actually raise taxes, OR RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Some states, Wyoming for example, actually maintains a budget with little federal funding, and little taxation (having almost no population helps).

Other states, California, New York, Florida, are almost hopeless basket-cases even with massive federal funding

Most other states, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, are somewhere in between, but one thing is clear: They all rely heavily on Federal Funding, and the necessary expansion of Federal Debt.

If, at the state level, candidates could be elected on the basis of rejecting all federal funding, and raising state taxes to maintain reduced state services, then we can all begin drinking bubblr-up and eating rainbow stew.

LEADERSHIP at the Federal Level needs to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and simply reduce the size and expense of the Federal Government.

I would like to add to your post that a lot of that federal money goes to states, all states, to administer programs that are MANDATED by the federal government to exist.
In some states, that money wouldn't be needed if the mandate to provide those services was not there.
Bubble up and rainbow stew, hmmm, what time?