Skip to comments.The states must rise again: the only way to combat Obama's socialist agenda
Posted on 04/07/2010 11:12:40 AM PDT by mlizzy
With the passage of ObamaCare coming on the heels of government takeover of industries and taxpayer-funded bailouts of the irresponsible, many are wondering how we can turn the socialist tide. They see Uncle Sam expanding, their rights and economic prospects shrinking and their voices ignored. For these people, November cannot come soon enough.
But November is not the ultimate solution. In the political universe, seven months is an eternity, and we cannot know precisely how public sentiment will evolve. Besides, the chances of Republicans retaking both Houses are slim and, even if they do, there's no guarantee they'll rise to the occasion. Some will be Scott Brown types not the sort to give us tradition we can believe in.
A better solution lies on the local and state levels. Fifteen states are currently suing the federal government over ObamaCare, and then there is the Tenth Amendment Movement, involving at least 35 states that are asserting their sovereignty over powers granted them by that amendment. These are good starts, but . . . .
Question: What if the Supreme Court, in obvious violation of the Constitution, upholds ObamaCare? Do we simply obey unflinchingly and wait for the next federal usurpation?
(Excerpt) Read more at renewamerica.com ...
Correction: his Marxist Agenda
Correction: his Marxist Agenda
Obama was a MARXIST in college, and still is now today.
ent with the most radical Marxist Leninist professors.
I think this is an issue where we can find common ground with democrats in our states. How many politicians can achieve federal office. How may are stuck in the states for their whole career. Probably about 100 to 1 stuck at the state level. Why should the federal politician have all the power?
Not necessarily. Article III Section 2 states that the appellate jurisdiction of Scotus is subject to “Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Doesn’t make sense.
The federal government is a CREATED entity, by the contract of the Constitution.
No one in his right mind would say that one party has the sole interpretation power over the contract between two parties, especially when the interpreting party is simply a creation by contract.
Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
I've stopped monitoring threads and unilaterally adding names to the ping list, so if you want on or off the list just say so.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
The Right Side of Life/State Initiatives
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
|CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES|
And sometimes, like in the case of "Earl," the abused spouse needs to put the beater out with the trash.
I think you might find this column very interesting. If you read the whole thing, he addresses the very question I have. If the Supreme Court doesn’t rule our way (he expects they probably won’t), what then?
The 10th amendment is the “opt out” provision for the states in the constitutional contract with the fed.gov.
No party in their right mind would enter into a one sided contract and allow themselves to be subject to abuse.
And no state is obligated to continue a business association with the government just because they have had a business relationship in the past. Times change and so do business interests. Especially when the other side is involved in an abusive relationship.
Keep asking your state officials to justify their existance. After all, if the Yankee government makes all the rules and tells us all what to do, why do we need them?
the north and the south will rise together
as good little slaves to hurry about to the crack of obama’s whip?
The fundamental American building block is the compact. In a compact, each surrenders equally in exchange for a superior benefit. In this compact, the people of each state through special conventions transferred a portion of state jurisdiction to the newly formed federal government. It was always the People’s right to take away and to invest power, not the state’s. The 10th Amendment recognizes that the People retained some power to the individual and from government. The states did not “contract” with the federal government. It did not yet exist.
Those are the reasons each state has it’s own Constitution.
The founders recognized that government best represents the people is the government most decentralized.
“Those are the reasons each state has its own Constitution.
The founders recognized that government best represents the people is the government most decentralized.”
What good is a state Constitution if the Yankee government says their rules govern and they keep telling the states what to do? Look at all the rights we have lost:
1. Religion - abortion overides moral and states laws;
2. Guns - fed law overrides states;
3. Private property - see Kelo v. New London;
4. DeathCare - association; and
5. Militia - now belongs to 0bambi..
The list goes on. Add in all the unfunded mandates and it quickly becomes apparent that the states, i.e. the people,
are subject to the Yankee government. Slavery is now the law of the land and child abuse (abortion) will be paid for by all.
As for me, I REFUSE. I was born a free man and I will die on my feet rather than bend to their will.
I was going to ping this article to you as well, so GMTA.
I’ll be traveling for a few days and may or may not be able to participate in discussion.
But I have certainly appreciated your posts and will be back in the fray soon!
Sowell had the great analogy of an abusive or infidelity ridden marriage.
One spouse abuses the other, cheats, and displays NO intention of keeping his/her vows, while insisting the other spouse keep theirs.
Only those in favor of the cheating, abusive spouse’s behavior (ie, liberals) would say that this is a situation that should continue.
your first 3 examples are directly state issues. Property rights, a local issue in the case of Kelo. Of course I disagree.
Gun rights, each state has it’s own laws related to CCW, although the fed.gov is the ultimate authority on the 2nd Amendment and has exerted some overbearing authority, but not to the point of restrictive measures such as in DC or Chicago. Local issues once again.
Religion. Where are you repressed in religious beliefs? Once again, each state has individual laws regarding abortion, but the ultimate federal authority is only to monitor that NO public funds are used. States still have to adhere to the public funds issue.
Obama care, definitely an overreach of federal authority and the courts will work it out. 16 individual states are asserting authority over personal health care decisions. States have the sovereignty rule on their side. Once again, states are in control of the ultimate responsibility to reign in a rogue congress.
Which militia is now Obama’s? Last I counted, there is over 160 militias chartered in the US, and many more informal groups. I don’t see AG Holder directing their traffic.
We are on the same side here dude. The situation just needs some forceful persuasion from the states to reassert their authority.
I agree that we are on the same side. My examples are all areas where Washington ( Congress, POTUS and/or SCOTUS)have told the states that the FEDs have the final say-so; not the states.
One of the lesser items in the DeathCare bill is that 0bambi can call out state militias in time of an emergency - even if the Governor objects! The DeathCare bill will provide for taxpayer funded abortions, EO notwithstanding. That infringes on my freedom of religion.
Good post; no name-calling.
Obama has less support for calling out the National Guard than he thinks. The Guard is still under the direction of the individual Governors. although a lot of their funding comes from fed.gov. I think a lot of governors will be less than cooperative to some far flung order of fascist domination by Obama.
It might be a good idea to switch target priorities.
Apparently its SCOTUS that has the responsibility of enforcing the Constitutional laws.
SCOTUS has the burden of the final say so and they are just ducking every issue for some reason, is it a combined blackmail scheme?
A massive bribe? Death threats?
A secret society like the Freemasons and they actually want a civil war?
Scotus needs a wake up slap and a splash of cold water to wake up, they should be examining Obamas credentials, er..rather LACK of credentials. Scotus is technically becoming part of the crime, they know the truth but are afraid to step forward to pursue it.