Skip to comments.Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty (Paging General Robert E. Lee)
Posted on 02/07/2009 3:24:06 AM PST by Evil Slayer
click here to read article
You live in the most corrupt state in the union. But beyond the corruptness of all blue states, you have taxation which is destroying their economies. The Red States however...are going strong.
Blue states can't compete with Red states and it's a thing of beauty.
And yes Boxer is a Clinton troll...they were so skeered of Condi. Boxer was over the top with her taped appearances with Condi. Little did they know, Condi was wasn't political, Condi is/was true blue which caused them to take their eyes off Barry. Soetero is/was ineligible, but the Clintons didn't know how to expose it. And now they don't care, other than being associated with the most unprofessional inept presidential team in our history. Obama took airforce 1 to virginia to show off. Obama is weird - axelrod and emanuel are weird and corrupt. It's like they are showing off their crib. Foreigners will continue to expose the amateur thug weird politicians from chicago. it's already happening.
Where does it list these states as being at the forefront of the battle?
It doesn’t, hence my comment, “need to be at the forefront of the battle”.
A big step would be in bringing back old fashioned civics classes. During the recent campaign I couldnt believe how ignorant many of the younger people were about how the federal government runs. They seemed to think our President has dictatorial powers, this was helped by Obama constantly saying what he would do and that he wasnt George Bush. I dont recall him mentioning Congress.
I pointed out to a poster on another forum that our President doesnt control the budget - he can only suggest and it is Congress that writes the final budget. The poster asked what obscure web site I picked that up on! I sent a link to our Constitution with a paste of Section 7 & 8.
It did no good.
Our state reps and senators are just trying to get back a slim slice of what the Feds took out of the states.
So it is really not sucking at the teat of the federal government as much as a pushing and shoving match to get back some of the money.
The feds on their own generate very little money except in fines so they have to make it up by extorting the people and the states.
Of course, taking so much money from the states and then dangling money out as a carrot is a way of controlling the states and keeping them dependent.
As far as the internal power of the clause goes, that's true.
Externally, the clause gives the fed government the authority to regulate commerce coming in [income] from foreign nations.
Goods coming from England for example, could be directed to different ports in order to distribute the taxes 'among the several States'. [Contrary to popular belief, the fed government doesn't have exclusive jurisdiction at the ports, they share it with the State where the port is located. This is called concurrent jurisdiction.]
Incidentally, this power could also be used as a punishment mechanism on a State for noncompliance with the Constitution by allowing the fed government to AVOID ports in certain States, thereby denying state their share of the revenue from importation taxes.
§ 1075 The constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers; and none of them can be rightfully exercised beyond the scope of the objects, specified in those powers. It is not disputed, that, when the power is given, all the appropriate means to carry it into effect are included. Neither is it disputed, that the laying of duties is, or may be an appropriate means of regulating commerce. But the question is a very different one, whether, under pretence of an exercise of the power to regulate commerce, congress may in fact impose duties for objects wholly distinct from commerce. The question comes to this, whether a power, exclusively for the regulation of commerce, is a power for the regulation of manufactures? The statement of such a question would seem to involve its own answer. Can a power, granted for one purpose, be transferred to another? If it can, where is the limitation in the constitution? Are not commerce and manufactures as distinct, as commerce and agriculture? If they are, how can a power to regulate one arise from a power to regulate the other?
It is true, that commerce and manufactures are, or may be, intimately connected with each other. A regulation of one may injuriously or beneficially affect the other. But that is not the point in controversy. It is, whether congress has a right to regulate that, which is not committed to it, under a power, which is committed to it, simply because there is, or may be an intimate connexion between the powers. If this were admitted, the enumeration of the powers of congress would be wholly unnecessary and nugatory. Agriculture, colonies, capital, machinery, the wages of labour, the profits of stock, the rents of land, the punctual performance of contracts, and the diffusion of knowledge would all be within the scope of the power; for all of them bear an intimate relation to commerce. The result would be, that the powers of congress would embrace the widest extent of legislative functions, to the utter demolition of all constitutional boundaries between the state and national governments. When duties are laid, not for purposes of revenue, but of retaliation and restriction, to countervail foreign restrictions, they are strictly within the scope of the power, as a regulation of commerce. But when laid to encourage manufactures, they have nothing to do with it. The power to regulate manufactures is no more confided to congress, than the power to interfere with the systems of education, the poor laws, or the road laws of the states.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
I must concur with the dangling of the carrot statement and being better off, but I do wonder if the State Reps look at it like they are trying to get some of our money back.
Maybe so, but I would surely believe the States are fighting for us, if they did take action.
I think those States claiming sovereignty are making a good first step.
But to actually break ranks from the Union, I still think it wont actually happen. If the people in those States chose to break ranks, I would support them. Spending our children's money is a immoral act that I can not support.
The Fed is out of hand and I can not see Thomas Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Henry, and others who gave us freedom supporting the actions of the Federal guvmint today.
I do think that to break ranks with the Union would be a bad idea unless severely provoked because it might place us in more danger from our foreign enemies.
If your state is not on the list, contact all your State Legislators and Governor and send them the following links with your letter. Tell them to make sure they protect the constitutional rights of the citizens of your state!
Excellent letter. I will be notifying my state reps with similar sentiments this week.
I have gotten several requests for permission to use the letter at post #25. Consider this blanket permission for all you FReepers who choose to send it (with whatever tweeks you would need to make to make it fit your personal situation and for your state.) Get the word spread!!
Time to raise the Bonnie Blue flag of secession! End Federal tyranny!!
You mean legislators ACTUALLY read the Constitution (re: 9th & 10th Amendments)?
I’d like to revise and extend my remarks.
Clearly, this is no time for an exodus from the blue states because as most Freepers know liberals fight like prissy girls and if normal individuals leave the blue states, those states may fall into the hands of islamic nuts.
Not an acceptable loss.
I will continue to fight where I live because I am known here.
I find WND to be pretty entertaining, however with every article I read of theirs, the credibility of them is lowered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.