Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Monorprise; BillyBoy

They aren’t robbing them of any power, they are still to free to persue statism on the state level on top of federal statism.

I have 4 levels of statist government over me.

The problem is socialists not popularly elected Senators. I want them all gone. It doesn’t matter to me if the crappy leftist policy is being enforced by the federal or state government. It’s screws me either way.

Several rat Senators are recent gubernatorial appointees. Every single one voted for Obama care and their rat Governors are glad they did. They are FOR it. Democrats in state legislatures are FOR it. Poll them and you’d see. Most rat pols are for it no matter what level of government they “serve” at.


54 posted on 08/26/2010 7:19:30 AM PDT by Impy (DROP. OUT. MARK. KIRK.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj
Massachuttes RAT state legislators would oppose Obamacare? Bwahaha. These anti-17th amendment freepers really have a strange view of the world if they think the people who passed Romneycare would be against Obamacare. Maybe we should poll the Mass. RAT state legislators and find out for sure. I'd be happy to bet money on that one.

One time another anti-17th amendment freeper insisted that amnesty for illegals would never be considered if Senators were selected by state governments. Let's examine this one... Senators who currently got their job via appointment from state governments are: Bob Menendez, Michael Bennet, Ted Kaufman, Roland Burris, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Lisa Murkowski. Wow. What a great team fighting for state sovereignty. No doubt they'll form the Senate No Amnesty caucus any day now. Bob Menendez can chair it. ;-)

And speaking of Lisa Murkowski, any bets on whether she would have been retained if the RINO-infested Alaska state legislators got to make the decision? I believe Joe Miller got the endorsement of around 4 or 5 Republican state legislators, the rest were in the tank for Murkowski. Oh well. Politicians know better than the rest us, right?

And when it comes to state governments, it's interesting how those who are the loudest voices against the AZ law have no idea what's in the bill. Likewise, those who most passionately argue that state legislatures should pick our Senators seem to have no idea what kind of people make up the 50 state legislatures around our nation. Perhaps those who advocate for this bill should be required to spend a few days observing their local state legislature "in action" and see what kind of people they'd be handing over the reigns of power to. I've seen my state legislature in session. Have they?

On a final note, perhaps the most telling thing is RAT politicians will always publicly claim to oppose letting state legislatures choose the Senator, but their actions tell another story. During the 2004 U.S. Senate debate between Keyes and Obama, this topic actually came up -- with Keyes arguing the IL state government should pick our Senator for that seat and Obama arguing passionately against it. Keyes picked the question, it seemed like an odd topic since the situation was unlikely to ever come up in real life. But ironically, four years later that scenario came up. Blago was arrested for trying to sell Obama's senate seat. Proposals were made immediately to strip the Governor of having the power to choose the Senator, and let the people of Illinois decide via a special election instead. The state legislature refused to act on this and take power away from the government and give to the people. Since Obama had argued so passionately four years earlier that he didn't want his colleagues in Illinois government to make that choice, you'd think he'd use the bully pulpit and use his weight to press for a special election so the people can decide. But no, Obama left it up to his pals in the state legislature. And the result is Blago gave us Roland Burris.

So thanks to Barack, Alan Keyes got his way all along. We now have a Senator selected by Illinois state government in that seat.

56 posted on 08/26/2010 11:39:08 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: Impy

“They aren’t robbing them of any power, they are still to free to persue statism on the state level on top of federal statism.”

Only within the far more limited and often infeseable confines of Washington’s limitations. Washington has been reducing our states largely to administrative divisions.

The one thing about those that desire control which we can uses against them in the end is the fact that they can’t all be in charge. Inevitably they will come to feud with themselves in how that power is welded, at least until one of them asserts crushing tyrannical power over all of them and the rest of us.

Those of us that wish to be free of the state have no where near as much serous grounds on which to fight as we generally wish to NOT be in each other’s business.

“I have 4 levels of statist government over me.”
One word: Move.


57 posted on 08/26/2010 3:58:11 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson