Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 3:36 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1725
This seems to be popping up in all kinds of places on the Web this week, so I figured I'd post it here, too.

There are quite a few States that have interesting bills coming up in this session. They all basically assert the rights of the States to not be dictated to by the federal government. Some of the language, though, is very strong, and I can't tell if it's just posturing, or if they mean it. Anyhow, here's a list of the bills that I've managed to get together so far:

Arizona
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
Washington

Supposedly, Michigan and Oklahoma, too, but I'm having trouble finding links to their bills.

I seem to remember something like this happening in the 90s, but I don't remember anything really coming out of it. Anybody else hearing about this, or know something about what's going on?

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:54 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2003 12:00 am
Posts: 2825
WLM: saenblt@hotmail.com
Location: Wishing I was not in Kansas anymore
Et Tu Missouri?

Stupid State. Not that Kansas is much better...

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:18 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm
Posts: 5432
Website: http://grillick.blogspot.com
WLM: jg87106@msn.com
Yahoo Messenger: Giltaras
AOL: Giltaras
Location: Brooklyn, NY
I blame the Sixteenth Amendment. If Congress didn't have as much money to throw around, they wouldn't be able to make all these conditional grants to states, like they do now.

Oh, and Abraham Lincoln, for winning the Civil War, the bastard.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:26 am 
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 882
Location: Here
Yes, I personally find it interesting that there's not a single former Confederate State on that list.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:44 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm
Posts: 5432
Website: http://grillick.blogspot.com
WLM: jg87106@msn.com
Yahoo Messenger: Giltaras
AOL: Giltaras
Location: Brooklyn, NY
They know better.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:03 am 
Evil Game Minister of DOOM!
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 12:00 am
Posts: 16202
ICQ: 6954605
Website: http://krellen.net
Yahoo Messenger: shinarimaia
AOL: TamirDM
Location: The City in New Mexico
Thaklaar wrote:
Yes, I personally find it interesting that there's not a single former Confederate State on that list.

Most of them have new constitutions specifically forbidding them from seceding.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:08 am 
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 882
Location: Here
FreakyBoy wrote:
Thaklaar wrote:
Yes, I personally find it interesting that there's not a single former Confederate State on that list.

Most of them have new constitutions specifically forbidding them from seceding.

I only read Washington State's bill, but it neither explicitly nor implicitly threatened secession. Did one of the others do so?

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:15 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2006 9:09 pm
Posts: 5432
Website: http://grillick.blogspot.com
WLM: jg87106@msn.com
Yahoo Messenger: Giltaras
AOL: Giltaras
Location: Brooklyn, NY
HCR 0006 New Hampshire wrote:
That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government


There you go.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 1:17 am 
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:30 pm
Posts: 882
Location: Here
Yes, well, New Hampshirites are crazy. I should know. I married one.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:19 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 1725
I've gleaned a few more tidbits about what this whole thing means and what it's all about.

- Medical marijuana: It's legal in some states, but illegal to the feds. The feds are still raiding suppliers/users that are considered legitimate to the states where it's legal. Sometimes, they even use mercenaries, such as Blackwater, to conduct the raids for them.

- RealID: Some states don't like this program, and they don't like that it's being mandated without funding.

- No Child Left Behind: Some states hate this program, but have no way to get out from under its heel.

- Mandated, unfunded programs in general: The Federal Government has a habit of mandating certain things, like RealID, without considering the costs to the states. They also don't provide any funding, or any mechanism to make funding available. They just say, "we want you to do X, and we want you to pay for it, have a nice day."

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:44 am 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 6:26 pm
Posts: 2811
Location: This account has been suspended
Iowa seems to have it's own unique way of doing things - they just want to change the Federal Government. Or at least how the President is elected.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:35 am 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am
Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
So Iowa is joining the club? Cool.

Of course, they already have a vastly disproportionate effect on the way our government works thanks to having the first presidential primary...

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:44 am 
Member of the Fraternal Order of the Emergency Pants
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 3156
AOL: drachefly
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Micah, I also take note of the New Hampshire bill specifically mentioning guns and ammunition. That's another biggie.

A lot of gun owners are scared that Obama will take away their guns. I have not monitored his position on this issue closely.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:40 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 5:58 am
Posts: 7718
AOL: SimonJester1v1
Location: Look at me still talking when there's Science to do!
I think the issue is not really important to him one way or the other. Certainly not important enough to touch off a political firestorm. Especially not one that will convince thousands of crazies that it's time for revolution because the black helicopters are inbound.

Based on his "cling to" comment during the campaign, I suspect that he views gun control as a false issue- one that really isn't important to the well being of the country one way or the other. And that it gets blown out of proportion by people trying to use it as a wedge issue.

Top 
   
 Post Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:27 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12031
Location: The things, they hurt
Let's not veer further into discussing gun control. Not a reprimand, just a reminder.

Sooo...*awkward pause*...how about them Red Sox?

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: