Posted on 09/13/2014 7:27:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If MSNBC dislikes it, a good thing is going on.
Rednecks get their names from working for a living, thus setting a bad example for those who depend upon US Govt.
““unarmedblackteen” must be a new adjective. Not sure what it means.
An anomaly?
““unarmedblackteen” must be a new adjective. Not sure what it means.
An anomaly?
These people do not know what an honest conversation is. They go through life ignoring the other side of the argument from the one they old. They are essentially children masquerading as adults.
Hellary. Nixon. 2016....
It was/is inexcusable for Republican controlled legislature not to pass Right to Work legislation. They even had a bill to put it on the ballot but didn’t vote on it. If MICHIGAN can pass RTW Laws, why the hell can’t Missouri?
MSNBC is complain how Democrats don’t control the Missouri legislator, and their governor isn’t particular effective at ‘fighting republicans’ or anything else for that matter.
Amendments to the Federal Constitution should avoid limiting what any state can do.
States have their own Constitution’s consented to by their own people chaining them down. We don’t need or want Washington on high telling us how to govern ourselves in any intrastate matter, that just leads to Washington’s gross apatite for domestic intrusion. Politicians that move from federal to state or state to federal politics must trade one set of polices for anther.
There can be only one just reason for a Federal limitation upon any state, that reason is to inhibit injury to neighboring states. This is as Thomas Jefferson said the only legitimate acts of Government are against those acts which are injurious to others.
That means as much as I agree with the printable of preserving to parents the highest Authority of how raise their own kids, this is intrinsically a state issue. So too is guns, if Liberals want to live in a police state hellhole, we have to let them do so so long as it is their own state.
How else are future generations going to what liberalism really is underneath the lies of the News Media?
in any event we in the rest of the USA have no right to tell the people or State of Massachusetts they can’t make slaves of anyone foolish enough to move there.
I further take issue with allowing Federal employees to define any part of their own limitations ranging from the very meaning of their binding law to variables within.
In short if you allow the treasury department to define the debt level, you shall have no meaningful definition, they will lie to us and themselves for money.
The unamended Constitution limits what States can do; prime example: prohibition on Ex Post Facto law.
Arguably, the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well (regardless of "incorporation") because it is written in the passive voice. (Where the action is the subject rather than a particular actor.)
States have their own Constitution’s consented to by their own people chaining them down. We don’t need or want Washington on high telling us how to govern ourselves in any intrastate matter, that just leads to Washington’s gross apatite for domestic intrusion. Politicians that move from federal to state or state to federal politics must trade one set of polices for anther.
I generally agree; but on something like an income tax I think it would be prudent to set forth limiting parameters that are acceptable and constant across the states — I also see the value in restricting it to a single rate applied to the impacted population.
There can be only one just reason for a Federal limitation upon any state, that reason is to inhibit injury to neighboring states. This is as Thomas Jefferson said the only legitimate acts of Government are against those acts which are injurious to others.
Then why is there prohibition on Ex Post Facto law upon the States themselves? This issue would not commonly impact other states.
That means as much as I agree with the printable of preserving to parents the highest Authority of how raise their own kids, this is intrinsically a state issue. So too is guns, if Liberals want to live in a police state hellhole, we have to let them do so so long as it is their own state.
I think if you reread that particular amendment you'll find that it prohibits the federal government from imposing upon the states what to teach.
(Also, you are likely wrong about guns — as noted, the 2nd is written in the passive voice.)
in any event we in the rest of the USA have no right to tell the people or State of Massachusetts they can’t make slaves of anyone foolish enough to move there.
What of the 13th Amendment?
I further take issue with allowing Federal employees to define any part of their own limitations ranging from the very meaning of their binding law to variables within.
Where is that allowed/encouraged in these proposed amendments?
In short if you allow the treasury department to define the debt level, you shall have no meaningful definition, they will lie to us and themselves for money.
Ah, but that's the thing: it's not allowing the treasury to define the debt limit, but defining the debt limit in terms of what we actually have — though, I suppose that I should add under penalty of purjury
to the report.
“I generally agree; but on something like an income tax I think it would be prudent to set forth limiting parameters that are acceptable and constant across the states — I also see the value in restricting it to a single rate applied to the impacted population.”
The concept of making law(tax law in this case but any law in General) that apply s to one group of people differently than others as consumable as that may be is not something Washington can control without a tool of abuse.
Look at the 14th Amendment read as it was written and sold, the 14th amendment would seem to prohibit states from making laws that treat one group of Americans differently than anther. But in practice the same ‘legal’ tool has only really been used in the last 50 years to levy war upon our state’s political and economic freedom to govern themselves in anyway disagreeable to the powers that be in Washington.
You see instead of simply insisting that all members retain the same set of political rights as left to them by the absence of such disparaging law. Washington as instead claimed the same tool as power to impose its own specific set of polices not upon all the states, but only a few. Thus doing the very thing the 14th amendment claims to prevent.
You must learn from history never to underestimate the ingenuity and dishonesty of politicians and their hand picked magistrates. You allow them a tool for any specific propose and they will do anything they can to use that tool for whatever political proses they desire.
The only reasonable thing to do is to just leave the tool out of their hands and trust that natural interstate competition will resolve any such matters over time.
This is as true of miss-treated ethic as it is economic minorities(both of which can and will move, taking their money and talent with them.)
If Massachusetts wants to drive its most productive citizen out to Texas, or South Carolina, who am I to complain?
“Then why is there prohibition on Ex Post Facto law upon the States themselves? This issue would not commonly impact other states.”
Ex Post Facto laws are laws imposed on acts that took place before the law was passed. This is of course an entirely unfair and unavoidable form of public persecution(Thief of liberty or property) because you can’t passably avoid violating a law that hasn’t been created and imposed yet just as you can’t possibly know about it.
Your right in that it doesn’t effect other states directly but as part of the constitutional contract States have agreed to free trade and free transit among each other’s citizens, so if any one of them had this punitive authority they could in theory uses it to steal wealth or liberty of any citizen of any state who had at any point set foot in their state simply by making a law against what ever they happen to have done as to apply specifically to them in that circumstances time and place. Whereas had the law existed before hand then any prudent merchant or traveler would have means to avoid its violation or if necessary the state all together.
Now its important to note one additional element that that our States have agreed to do in the contract, that is extrite citizen charged with crimes. This of course is key, because otherwise our the abusive state (with the Ex Post Facto law) would be unable to arrest the person or property already outside of said state, and thus enforce the law that did not yet exist while they were there. Of course the reviving state would be disinclined to surrender their citizen and his/her property under such an abusive circumstances.
This is why we can sustain free trade policy’s with states that do permit Ex Post Facto laws, We simply don’t extradite in those cases, although it is still strongly advised that you avoid doing business or travel within such states. Unfortunately as long as our States have no legal choice but to extricate they cannot protect ‘legally’ their citizen from such abuse.(this is not to say that our State’s haven’t successfully tried to do so anyway).
“What of the 13th Amendment?”
The 13th amendment speaks of official private slavery, I speak of economic, political, and social slavery to the institution that is the State in a largely figurative sense.
But as you mentioned it the 13th amendment provides a perfect example of the practical issues and disputes in regard to the same problem as illustrated by the interstate conflict in extradition that took place prior to the 13th amendment. Thus further illustrating why the practical bottom line is the requirement for extradition of criminals/slaves (IE people who are bounded to service or confinement in other states).
Without the solid system of extradition between the states issues like slavery and ex facto laws would be less centralized.
“”I further take issue with allowing Federal employees to define any part of their own limitations ranging from the very meaning of their binding law to variables within.”
Where is that allowed/encouraged in these proposed amendments?”
You propose that Federal officials define not only the debt but the gold supply, i admit theses things must be done, but they must also be verified by someone who isn’t hand picked by the very people inclined to spend as much as they want.
You also fail to address the logically compromised position of the Federal Court system’s assumed control over the Federal Constitution. I would like to point out that until a counterbalancing interest is installed, no amendment to the Federal Constitution will in the long run ever be anything but a piece of paper to be written and rewritten by Federal Employees at will.
The Constitution must be enforced by the States and their people, you know the very parties that formed it, and have a vested interest in sustaining it.
That's patently false: the amendment defines the money-supply (gold), and its purity, and the debt limit in terms of the amount possessed... it does not allow them to define these, in fact it has measures to prevent "clever workaround" by exempting itself from congress's power over weights and measures, and it imposes serious consequences for confiscation of gold.
IOW, it removes much power, even definitional power, from the federal government.
I simply cannot understand the why [and how] of your assertion that this is giving power to the feds.
Aside from the above, this article completely ignores the real problem that Democrats have in Missouri. The complete messes that are St. Louis and Kansas City under Democrat control have driven the traditional Democrats in the rest of the state into the Republican ranks. They will not come back, in fact it will get worse. Kansas City remains a viable metropolitan area because there is a state line with Kansas that makes it easy for people to escape the insanity. St. Louis has no such outlet, but both cities have become boat anchors rather than engines of growth. If the Democrats can't fix St. Louis and Kansas City, then they can't retain political power in Missiouri. They shouldn't hold their breaths.
“That’s patently false: the amendment defines the money-supply (gold), and its purity, and the debt limit in terms of the amount possessed... it does not allow them to define these, in fact it has measures to prevent “clever workaround” by exempting itself from congress’s power over weights and measures, and it imposes serious consequences for confiscation of gold.”
Im afraid there seems to be a misunderstanding here, Washington’s own accounting of dept possessed is itself the product of the kind of Fraud that Washington would hypocritically Jail any private company for doing. Recent history alone has taught us that Washington cannot be trusted to publish honest numbers.
As for the reinstatement of the gold Standard I don’t dispute the wisdom of your gold ratio, but rather the verifiable of the Government’s supply’s. The only solution I can however offer to this is the simple requirement that Government trade dollars for gold at that fixed rate, while permitting state level Audits.
Both of theses issues as indicated are relativity minor to the very fundamental problem of Washington simply opting uses its employees (enforcers) to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit, as the Federal Employees in black-robes currently do. Short of resolving that conflict of interest no other amendment is anything but a thing of paper.
Liberals know a written constitution is pointless in their employee’s dishonest and unaccountable hands, they in black robes have made themselves supreme dictators and have in doing so trashed the Federal Constitution beyond any semblance of limitation.
I fully agree there; I have had several rants about the governments [both state and federal] ignoring their Constitutions.
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.