Ohh that home schooling

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Provide general welfare my ass. Its provide just enough to get the general public dependent on them to justify continual expansion of said programs. (not to mention making sure they have a dependable voting block to keep them in power...)

What dependant voting block?

Do you mean the small percentage of the population that relies on TANF during times of need?

You really need to update your ancient BS right-wing talking points to modern BS right-wing talking points. I know they only come in one flavor, BS, but you should at least spew BS with style.

 

[Damocles]

It is a power. It's the power to lay and collect taxes to promote the general welfare of the American people, something Libertarians oppose.

Lay and collect taxes is a power, "General Welfare" is a vague description of how to use it. The document then goes along and specifically states what they can use it on by describing the other powers, then negating all other powers not specifically given to the Federal government.

It is Amendment 14 that removed most of the States Rights...

 

[Good Luck]

Lay and collect taxes is a power, "General Welfare" is a vague description of how to use it. The document then goes along and specifically states what they can use it on by describing the other powers, then negating all other powers not specifically given to the Federal government.

It is Amendment 14 that removed most of the States Rights...

The 14th Amendment did nothing to "remove" states rights. What it DID do, primarily, is expand constitutional protections of the PEOPLE to include state governments as well as the federal government. Other than securing governments at all levels against violating the Bill of Rights, removing the 3/5 rule for blacks, and limiting people guilty of participating in insurrection from government service, it did not in any way change the balance of power between the state and federal governments.

 

[Damocles]

The 14th Amendment did nothing to "remove" states rights. What it DID do, primarily, is expand constitutional protections of the PEOPLE to include state governments as well as the federal government. Other than securing governments at all levels against violating the Bill of Rights, removing the 3/5 rule for blacks, and limiting people guilty of participating in insurrection from government service, it did not in any way change the balance of power between the state and federal governments.

Not true. Many states had official religions, for instance. They no longer could after the 14th Amendment.

 

[Good Luck]

Not true. Many states had official religions, for instance. They no longer could after the 14th Amendment.

OK, I misunderstood your gist. The 14th amendment gave more rights to the people by applying the Bill of Rights to state as well as federal governments. That is a goos thing, IMO. There is a lot more involved than state religions.

But the 14th did NOT give the federal government additional authority over the states. The only thing that has done that is a vastly misrepresented SCOTUS decision that states the federal government has the right to pass laws that pertain to those powers granted under the Constitution. That is where the "promote the general welfare" clause of the taxation powers comes into play.

What I find sad is the SCOTUS decision that stated the federal government has authority to pass laws necessary to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution contained the caution that such authority should not be granted liberal applications. Yet far reaching, WAY out of the scope of the intent of the decision applications is the rule today, rather than the exception.

Of course, all is not QUITE lost (yet). To implement their plans the feds are often forced to resort to economic blackmail to leverage states to comply. With that in mind, if the states, in a "popular uprising" format, would start telling the feds where to get off we'd find ourselves better off.

As an example that it can be done, my home state has absolutely refused to cooperate with the federal ID mandates. Not only is Montana not implementing federal ID policies, but we have actually passed a law that forbids compliance, and requires all agencies to report any attempt from federal agencies to locally force compliance. That's pretty much a big FUCK YOU to the feds on that issue.

I LOVE living in Montana!!!

 

[Cancel3]

OK, I misunderstood your gist. The 14th amendment gave more rights to the people by applying the Bill of Rights to state as well as federal governments. That is a goos thing, IMO. There is a lot more involved than state religions.

But the 14th did NOT give the federal government additional authority over the states. The only thing that has done that is a vastly misrepresented SCOTUS decision that states the federal government has the right to pass laws that pertain to those powers granted under the Constitution. That is where the "promote the general welfare" clause of the taxation powers comes into play.

What I find sad is the SCOTUS decision that stated the federal government has authority to pass laws necessary to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution contained the caution that such authority should not be granted liberal applications. Yet far reaching, WAY out of the scope of the intent of the decision applications is the rule today, rather than the exception.

Of course, all is not QUITE lost (yet). To implement their plans the feds are often forced to resort to economic blackmail to leverage states to comply. With that in mind, if the states, in a "popular uprising" format, would start telling the feds where to get off we'd find ourselves better off.

As an example that it can be done, my home state has absolutely refused to cooperate with the federal ID mandates. Not only is Montana not implementing federal ID policies, but we have actually passed a law that forbids compliance, and requires all agencies to report any attempt from federal agencies to locally force compliance. That's pretty much a big FUCK YOU to the feds on that issue.

I LOVE living in Montana!!!

Sounds like you have a politician with balls in charge of the state. What a novel concept.


Hmmm, I wonder if I could convince my beloved that Montana winters are actually milder than ours in Alabama? Nah, she may be blond and be married to me, but she isn't stupid.

 

[Good Luck]

Sounds like you have a politician with balls in charge of the state. What a novel concept.


Hmmm, I wonder if I could convince my beloved that Montana winters are actually milder than ours in Alabama? Nah, she may be blond and be married to me, but she isn't stupid.

Brian Schweitzer is a damned good. Would make an excellent president, but the democratic party would never allow him top ticket. (Too many brains, too independent a thinker, and has the unmitigated gall to select a republican as a running mate.)

But the willingness to thwart fed mandates goes back before Brian. During the days of the double nickel, Montana was the only state that enforced the law with a conservation ticket rather than a speeding ticket. You could get caught going 90 mph, and as long as it was not on a bad highway or in bad weather, you'd be fined $5.00 and sent on your way. Didn't even go on your driving record because it was not technically a moving violation. There were many attempts to raise the fine because they cost the state more than $5 in paperwork, etc. to keep track of them all. But the answer was always "We are sending a message to D.C., not trying to increase revenues."

Montana also told the feds to fuck themselves on some water conservation legislation that would have had us paying for CA to import water from OR, and running our watershed dams to please WY. That one ended up in SCOTUS. MT won.

Just call us the 10th Amendment state.