The 10th Amendment

[PMZ]

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.

 

[ShawnChris13]

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

 

[Listening]

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

 

[PMZ]

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

We have government at all of the levels that you mention to make local decisions.

 

[PMZ]

I believe that there is something about Federalism to be learned from modern times as well as the thoughts from colonial times. We have 250 years of experience and an entirely new world to live in since our inception, so it's good to see how well, in practice, what we've done has worked.

My personal observation is, what could be better than where we are? What specific improvement in our position, would a different outcome of the issue of Federalism, have led to? Keep in mind that all organizations have ebbs and flows in their fortunes, so such a comprehensive consideration should consider the long term. The climate, if you will, vs the weather.

I personally see little room for improvement.

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

 

[Listening]

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Define unconstitutional.....

I don't understand your second question.

 

[PMZ]

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Define unconstitutional.....

I don't understand your second question.

The criteria for UnConstitutional have been well established for almost 250 years. Why would anyone presume to redefine them?

My post offered considerations that I believe as useful a perspective as Constitutional. So I disagreed with the statement that "That is about constitutionality."

 

[Listening]

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Define unconstitutional.....

I don't understand your second question.

The criteria for UnConstitutional have been well established for almost 250 years. Why would anyone presume to redefine them?

My post offered considerations that I believe as useful a perspective as Constitutional. So I disagreed with the statement that "That is about constitutionality."

Nobody is asking you redefine them. I am asking in what context you utilize the word.

Some people say Obamacare is unconstitutional...when, by definition (John Robert's brain fart), it is constitutional. They don't care, they still "see it" as going against the constitution.

If you index anything the SCOTUS has ruled on is constitutional....then your position would be that unless someone is going in direct contradiction the SCOTUS....they are only enforcing constitutional laws.

And that would mean that your second question is a contradiction. A personal opinion on what is constitutional would not only not be the only consideration....it would not be A consideration at all.

 

[Listening]

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

We have government at all of the levels that you mention to make local decisions.

It seems the intent was that only local government would make local decisions. Government at a higher level would not intrude.

Even then, you have the old vietnamese saying that "The (enforacability of) Emporer's writ stops at the entrance to the village".

 

[PMZ]

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

We have government at all of the levels that you mention to make local decisions.

It seems the intent was that only local government would make local decisions. Government at a higher level would not intrude.

Even then, you have the old vietnamese saying that "The (enforacability of) Emporer's writ stops at the entrance to the village".

Do you want each level of local government to make national decisions?

Sounds like local government anarchy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Listening]

We have government at all of the levels that you mention to make local decisions.

It seems the intent was that only local government would make local decisions. Government at a higher level would not intrude.

Even then, you have the old vietnamese saying that "The (enforacability of) Emporer's writ stops at the entrance to the village".

Do you want each level of local government to make national decisions?

Sounds like local government anarchy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This makes no sense.

Let me try again.

I don't want the federal government making any legislation my state can make.

I only want them making legislation as it affects a few things (and health care is not one of them).

I want local government (i.e. the city council) making the laws for my city (that are not necessary to bend and twist to a bunch of federal legislation....or regulation.

Does that help ?

 

[PMZ]

It seems the intent was that only local government would make local decisions. Government at a higher level would not intrude.

Even then, you have the old vietnamese saying that "The (enforacability of) Emporer's writ stops at the entrance to the village".

Do you want each level of local government to make national decisions?

Sounds like local government anarchy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This makes no sense.

Let me try again.

I don't want the federal government making any legislation my state can make.

I only want them making legislation as it affects a few things (and health care is not one of them).

I want local government (i.e. the city council) making the laws for my city (that are not necessary to bend and twist to a bunch of federal legislation....or regulation.

Does that help ?

I want the Federal government to make all decisions on nationwide scope problems because each state deciding on their own solution is wasteful. The states are much more alike than different.

The world sees us as the United States. That perception is critical to our position in the world. A bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms would render us third world very quickly.

 

[ShawnChris13]

We could stop spying on our own citizens and detaining Americans for life without trial. There's a good place to start.

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

 

[Listening]

Do you want each level of local government to make national decisions?

Sounds like local government anarchy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

This makes no sense.

Let me try again.

I don't want the federal government making any legislation my state can make.

I only want them making legislation as it affects a few things (and health care is not one of them).

I want local government (i.e. the city council) making the laws for my city (that are not necessary to bend and twist to a bunch of federal legislation....or regulation.

Does that help ?

I want the Federal government to make all decisions on nationwide scope problems because each state deciding on their own solution is wasteful. The states are much more alike than different.

The world sees us as the United States. That perception is critical to our position in the world. A bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms would render us third world very quickly.

So, why do we allow people to live in houses and make decisions. Why does not the federal government just put us all in apartments and tell us what to eat.

Each family making decisions is wasteful. Or am I missing something ?

 

[Listening]

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

Chris,

I think the point I am trying to make is that we need to be clearer on the scope of each government's responsibility.

The smaller something is, the more flexible it is (and the easier it is to hihack....I realize that). But when you say "As long as government..." I have to ask what government.

Federal ?
State ?
County?
Municipal ?
Subdivision ?

 

[PMZ]

That is about constitutionality.

What I am more interested in exploring getting back to a place where Michigan can decide if it wants to spend more on roads and less on schools and the federal government can't do a darn thing about it.

States are more specific entities than the United States.

Counties are more homogeneous than states.

And Cities...

And Nieghborhoods...

And Families....

The smaller the scope, the more important it should be because it affects us directly.

Is there any reason to think that people, looking at issues that are being decided for 320,000,000 are not correct in thinking their vote does not mean much ?

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

If it wasn't for the Union there would still be slavery here.

 

[ShawnChris13]

"That is about constitutionality."



First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.



Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

Chris,



I think the point I am trying to make is that we need to be clearer on the scope of each government's responsibility.



The smaller something is, the more flexible it is (and the easier it is to hihack....I realize that). But when you say "As long as government..." I have to ask what government.



Federal ?

State ?

County?

Municipal ?

Subdivision ?

I'm listening, Listening. PMZ is the one claiming the government has no flaws and rules benevolently with a caressing guiding hand.

Local decisions should be local and the Fed should be worried about foreign affairs and border protection. NAFTA and other such trade agreements must be done away with.

 

[Listening]

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

Chris,



I think the point I am trying to make is that we need to be clearer on the scope of each government's responsibility.



The smaller something is, the more flexible it is (and the easier it is to hihack....I realize that). But when you say "As long as government..." I have to ask what government.



Federal ?

State ?

County?

Municipal ?

Subdivision ?

I'm listening, Listening. PMZ is the one claiming the government has no flaws and rules benevolently with a caressing guiding hand.

Local decisions should be local and the Fed should be worried about foreign affairs and border protection. NAFTA and other such trade agreements must be done away with.

On this we agree.

Now, the question is how to we get the GOP to start subtley putting this into play ?

We need to move in this direction. But a grandios red-meat strewn approach does not work. We need to quietly keep grabbing local governments and learning how to ignore the feds. And when we can get the GOP in at the federal level, they need to start repealing laws (or get their balls cut off).

How do we start this ? Should we ?

 

[Listening]

"That is about constitutionality."

First, there is no evidence that we have ever enforced legislation that is unConstitutional.

Second, why would anyone say that anyone's personal opinion of what is Constitutional is the only consideration?

Yeah PMZ cause Jim Crow laws followed the constitution. Along with segregation of schools. As long as government made the decision there's never a reason to question anything it does according to you.

If it wasn't for the Union there would still be slavery here.

That is first off-topic....second not true. There is no telling what would have happened to slavery had the civil war not been fought. Technology pretty much got rid of the need for huge amounts of ag labor.....

But, the point of this thread is to discuss the idea of pulling local decisons to local levels.

 

[PMZ]

This makes no sense.

Let me try again.

I don't want the federal government making any legislation my state can make.

I only want them making legislation as it affects a few things (and health care is not one of them).

I want local government (i.e. the city council) making the laws for my city (that are not necessary to bend and twist to a bunch of federal legislation....or regulation.

Does that help ?

I want the Federal government to make all decisions on nationwide scope problems because each state deciding on their own solution is wasteful. The states are much more alike than different.

The world sees us as the United States. That perception is critical to our position in the world. A bunch of disorganized little fiefdoms would render us third world very quickly.

So, why do we allow people to live in houses and make decisions. Why does not the federal government just put us all in apartments and tell us what to eat.

Each family making decisions is wasteful. Or am I missing something ?

The household is the most local organizational entity. They make all of the decisions that affect only their family. Which is the vast majority of decisions that affect them.

And so on up. Every level decides what affects only them. When a decision needs to be made that affects more than one else locale it must be made at a level "over" all affected locale.

To get back to my original post, what we have evolved to works. We don't need to fix what's not broken.