Skip to comments.Dodd cut aviation security funding in July
Posted on 12/29/2009 5:58:28 AM PST by Def Conservative
Mark Hemingway has a long memory for budgeting amendments, which he proves at the Washington Examiner. With focus returned to airport security, Mark reminds us of how Chris Dodd paid off a political constituency by getting a little pork to the firefighters union that supported his bid for the presidency in 2007-8, which got $10 million in firefighter assistance grants from FEMAs budget. All Dodd had to do was to get $4.5 million from another source which turned out to be the TSAs explosives detection systems:
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Dodd needs a wedgie in dishonor of the underwear bomber. I wonder if people in CT would have the fortitude to vote is sorry @$$ out of office ?
And will this ever make it’s way to MSNBC? Liberal does country wrong..........I do not think so, time for us to do their job, let’s give this one a BIG SHOUT OUT!
Sending it to Laura Ingraham now...
This is precisely the kind of crud that incenses me whenever some MOC accuses a president of this or that — CONGRESS has a good deal of culpability in every single thing to do with the budget, they write the thing every year!
You’re on the right track. Now, a majority in Congress share the same affiliation with the President so things will move quickly in the wrong direction.
One might argue that the PEOPLE should not elect Senator Dodd, but only a majority of Connecticutt voters are required to send him back to office.
One could argue that the 17th amendment was a mistake. But WE didn't pass it. And even if it weren't the case, the CT legislature could easily appoint a Dodd to the Senate, and the people of the other 49 states would be powerless.
It just shows how the national government at all times has the upper hand. It shows that it is too much to ask for Americans at large to be aware of every single bad idea being passed in the national Legislature.
Dodd needs to be held accountable.
As if they needed another reason to vote that POS out of office. Now this. Jeez.
Behold! The reason for the 10th Amendment revealed!
It is such a good thing we are all sheep that depend on daddy government to keep us safe. They love us all and want the best for us. They’ll keep us safe.
How many terrorists have to be foiled by the passengers before we realize the government doesn’t give one hot damn about keeping you safe?
You want safe flights? Arm the passengers! They’ve been the most successful in foiling hijackings since 9/11.
If you look to government as some sort of all-caring, all-knowing, all-powerful father figure meant to keep you safe, you deserve neither safety nor freedom; you deserve to be the slave you are.
Peter Schiff is running against Dodd.
The 10th amendment is completely worthless. It has nothing to do with the actual design or delegation of powers in the system. It adds nothing whatsoever to the construction of the government. It merely expresses a sentiment without any objective, observable definition. In fact, it begs the question.
The 10th amendment speaks of "the powers not delegated to the United States." This is where they beg the question. If Article 1, Section 8 successfully defines the limits of national power, of what additional use is the 10th amendment? If Article 1, Section 8 does NOT successfully define the limits of national power, in what manner will the phrase "powers not delegated to the United States" resolve such controversies?
The 10th amendment was duct tape, added later by opponents of consolidated government, as an attempt to add safeguards to the system they were resigned to accepting. But this amendment is a worthless protection, as history has shown.
James Madison, who opposed this amendment, described it thusly:
It is a still greater cause of regret, if the distinction be, as it appears to me, altogether fanciful. If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended. If no such line can be drawn, a declaration in either form would amount to nothing.In other words, if Article 1, Section 8 fails to enforce limits on national power, the 10th amendment will also fail to do so, because they are two different ways of saying the exact same thing. The 10th adds no substance whatsoever. Madison believed Article 1, Section 8 would be a successful expression of limited powers. Unfortunately for us, Article 1, Section 8 failed. "Implied Powers" doctrine was applied as early as the Washington administration, over Madison's objection.
James Madison letter to g Washington Decr, 5, 1789
Can this be given legs?
Believe me, I’ve been on this track for more than twenty years.
The point of my comment was the intent of the 10th Amendment, not to discuss its' validity or usefulness. The entire Constitution is and has been being ignored to the point where it is almost irrelevant for nigh onto 200 years.....but that practice has more to do with an ignorant and apathetic electorate than it does the words contained within the document itself.....
Fair enough. I just hate to see people place their hopes on a toothless, substance-less amendment.