prolly Zuckerberg's wife...
Posted on 03/14/2015 1:41:25 PM PDT by EveningStar
“Latinos in the San Fran area have a great work ethic. “
==
Same here in MA. During out abysmal,snowy,freezing February roof collapses were a big fear.
Every crew I saw spending days shoveling and chopping on frigid roofs were Hispanics. Every one.
.
That is my hope as well but at some point the feds are going to have to cooperate with the results. If the results come even close to limiting the feds to its constitutional powers, many thousands of government workers, bureaucratic heads, and officials will be packing their bags and heading for home with no job. It's possible but not likely. But I'm all for the effort.
State nullification doesn't ensure anarchy, if done right. It demands the Constitution be the Rule of Law - that is the antithesis of anarchy. Most unconstitutional federal acts have had no reasoning or justification based on good-faith findings of the actual text and original understanding and intent of the Constitution or applicable clauses. State nullification could force a review of federal acts in the light of good-faith constitutional interpretation. That would be a huge step in the right direction and could lead to the feds backing down from at least the most egregious illegal acts.
Constitutional interpretation was never meant to limited to the feds themselves. Again, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments support that.
There are best-case and worst-case scenarios for state nullification. You limit the only end game to the worst possible scenario - "anarchy" (which is ironic since the effort I'm calling for would be to RE-ESTABLISH the Rule of Law, not break it).
The possibilities go both ways. As it stands, if nothing changes, we are headed for anarchy in the form of tyranny and a complete break from the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution. It is stealth and very gradual, almost unfelt, but Obama has accelerated things.
State nullification says enough NOW. If demanding the Constitution be the Rule of Law is anarchy, then I'd rather have that than letting my freedom be taken away without a shot being fired. State nullification creates a hope that tyranny stops here and now and we can negotiate using the Constitution as the basis with out shots being fired. Otherwise, people are voting for tyranny by default because they are afraid to fight for their freedom.
I don't believe it is enough nor necessary to sit by while almost daily we see our freedoms being taken away while we hope that someday we'll have a successful Article V convention to which the feds actually acquiesce.
prolly Zuckerberg's wife...
You can start with the State dept missing six Billion dollars....
Nonsense you say. Well here is an interesting article. It states in 1960 America was 85% white. In 2011 America was 63% white and in 2050 projected to be 47% white. Another article I have read recently stated that now, or in the near future, a majority of kids 5 and under will be non-white.
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/11/14/u-s-racialethnic-demographics-1960-today-and-2050/
And by the way, if white people don’t want to have kids but do serial dating and whore around for most of their reproductive years they have nobody to blame but themselves when they realize America isn’t the same anymore.
The report shows that focusing on education alone will do little to reduce racial wealth gaps for households at the median (...)
So why the hell do we spend more per student on public education than any other nation if it has practically no effect?
“Honey, I just threw the bad money down that ginormous hole and it didn’t do anything. Let’s take the good money and throw it down there too! If we can just fill up that hole with money, something good is BOUND to happen!”
I admire your passion and thoughtfulness. We differ slightly on the path to shared goals.
Like us, James Madison did not resolve very well a number of tensions, ambiguities, contradictions in his thoughts about sovereignty. Sure, the people are sovereign, but how best to exercise it?
It is unlikely we would be having this debate had the 17A not so corrupted the Framers’ design.
That is how liberals describe them through their never ending ‘income inequality’ and ‘give a leg up’ and the rest of the nonsense that they spout all the time. They degrade people’s abilities so that they’ll vote Democrat!
I know; this is how liberals see you, as poor dirty wage slaves, just begging for the next hand out. I have no idea why any person who identifies themselves as 'Latino' would vote for a Democrat. They just want to infest your neighborhoods with criminals from other countries, create welfare dependent families, and murder babies. Not one of these things are part of any Latino family I know. Yet every election, they go to the polls, and vote for what they don't want.
Better than single-state nullification, Ayn Rand proposed the following amendment to the U.S. Constitution that completely rocks:
There shall be no law restricting the rights of production and trade.
Effectively puts the fed and the federal government out of business since that’s all they do is restrict the rights of production and trade.
My white privilege was having parents who stayed together and taught me values.
Perhaps..., today..., that would be more appropriately phrased as, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his GREED???"
Do we wait around while Obama, Congress, and SCOTUS and the regulatory agencies daily threaten more and more tyranny and we lose more and more blood-bought, precious freedom?
Is it OK to just let the feds run roughshod with basically nothing to stop them while we wait and hope for the results of an Article V convention that is far from even being convened? Do we pin all our hopes on a process that, if and when convened, will require all the hoops jumped through successfully to having the kind of “radical” amendments’ that are worded carefully enough to stop the feds in their tracks without SCOTUS finding the loopholes they want to find?
Even if we get that far which is probably not very realistically likely, and we end up with the amendments that would actually stop the feds in their tracks, what mechanism is in place to force the feds to acquiesce to the “radical” reduction in government and huge unemployment of workers, bureaucratic heads, and officials?
We can’t pin all our hopes on such an unlikely scenario. Jacquerie, we’re probably further down the line here than we realize or want to acknowledge. Even Mark Levin admits the feds are beyond fixing themselves. We may not have much to work with by the time the Article V thing comes up with the needed amendments. And what if it fails? What is Plan B? What is Plan A to stop the feds now while we wait for the Article V thing? We can do something about stopping the feds now and still hope for a successful result of an Article V effort.
The price is too high for waiting around while we wring our hands, complain, and pine over the woulda-shoulda-coulda’s of things like the 17th amendment. Every day we delay legitimate resistance available to us, is another day of more lost, precious freedom. Maybe freedom isn’t valued as much today as it used to be. I know this. Those who have suffered under tyranny still feel its worth dying for. I’m afraid we Americans have been lulled into thinking there may be acceptable altenatives to liberty. I don’t.
Opra
Of course. Like so….If X from this study, and Y from that study are correct, then Z must be true!
Here's an example of the bizarre 'proof'…
"Indeed, in 1969, civil rights activist John Lewis bought a three-bedroom house for $35,000 in Venetian Hills, Atlanta. He and his wife were the first black family in the middle-class neighborhood. In his book, “Walking with the Wind,” he notes that, “within two years… the white owners began moving out.” Had the value of his house simply kept up with inflation, it would be worth $222,881 today. But Zillow shows that three-bedroom houses in Venetian Hills, Atlanta, are currently selling for around $65,000 to $100,000.
Not a peep about the real estate meltdown.
Yeah, the problem is WHO determines and forces the “FROM” and WHO determines and forces the “TO”?
Your “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is a method of persuading the gullible and do-gooders to accept tyranny in place of freedom.
I’m guessing it is Oprah. But how can that be? She’s, she’s um, well, you know.
Nonsense! My grandfather came to the country from Italy penniless. His first job was a pushcart. He worked hard and saved so that he was able to his own a tavern. His children were all solidly middle class.
Good to know Salon doesn’t try to do actual journalism.
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.