Drudge: WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY

[armstrong001]

Two clichés that are more than appropriate...

Be careful what you wish for.

United we stand, divided.. well, you know.

It's my bet that most of these folks who want to break up this union have no idea what they'd be in store for.

But hey, political agenda = more important than country nowadays. No matter how short sighted and petty it may be.

~Bang

I honestly don't see the states trying to secede, but rather trying to regain some of their eroded power. I certainly would much rather keep the union whole, and just limit the Federal Government's power. People aren't just looking for an excuse to break away, they are looking for a way to tell the government to back off. If the Federal Government continues down this road of continuing to consolidate its power, we'll see what happens.

[Bang]

I honestly don't see the states trying to secede, but rather trying to regain some of their eroded power. I certainly would much rather keep the union whole, and just limit the Federal Government's power. People aren't just looking for an excuse to break away, they are looking for a way to tell the government to back off. If the Federal Government continues down this road of continuing to consolidate its power, we'll see what happens.

I would sincerely hope you're right. Typically people have a way of taking things to the extremes anymore.

~Bang

[armstrong001]

Because the document doesn't have any detailed "rules." It is barely a skeleton of general concepts. You cannot possibly tell me what "due process" means without reference to judicial interpretation. It is essentially meaningless as two isolate words.

It is not at all unreasonable to believe that the Founding Fathers understood that their skeleton would take on more flesh over the years, and that they collectively had no problem with that, because otherwise they would have provided much more detail.

Anyhow, what is the point of this exercise? You can examine Magna Carta all you want from a 1215 perspective and say that it was a very limited document, but the British Government operates under Magna Carta as it is TODAY, in light of hundreds of years of history, as the fundamental basis for their government, and that is reality.

So it is with the American Constitution.

I've already said that interpretation is needed. But when you use interpretation to vastly expand the scope of Federal power, it is no longer interpretation, but an unconstitutional power grab. There is a difference between interpreting what the founders meant by regulating commrece and using the clause to justify anything you want it to justify. Or interpreting the general welfare clause to mean social welfare, health and human services, etc.

What I'm trying to get at is that a strict interpretation, following as closely to what is written as possible would be the direction the founders would have expected. If the founders had wanted supreme Federal power, they would have written the whole Constitution differently.

[SnyderShrugged]

I would sincerely hope you're right. Typically people have a way of taking things to the extremes anymore.

~Bang

OHNOZ!

You did the old Kentucky "anymore" thingy!

I had never heard that word used in that manner before moving to Louisville. It's a strange usage to me.

I love our regional dialects! Interesting differences wherever I go.

[Thiebear]

I would love to see different programs tried in different states of many years.

THEN as time goes on you adopt the programs that would fit say Inner City or Suburbia or 2acre housing areas based on what works best.

As opposed to: Everyone get this one size fits all moomoo of Kindergarten . enjoy it.

[armstrong001]

I would sincerely hope you're right. Typically people have a way of taking things to the extremes anymore.

~Bang

There really aren't that many people who want to "break away". They want to see their government reigned in. Of course, Republicans are the ones doing it now, since they aren't in power. But Democrats wanted power reigned in over the last 8 years (although more for the executive branch). Personally, I don't care which side does the talking. I just want a limited Federal government, and let the States figure things out on their own.

[TheGoodBits]

In can understand a limited government point of view, but not a 100% strict interpretation of the Constitution. It's just not practical because of the fact that things have changed so much since it was written.

[Bang]

I see what you are saying Bang, and its wise counsel. But I ask you, how far does it go before liberty becomes more important than unity and country?

I honestly don't see where anyone's true liberty is being threatened. I think the federal government has stepped in to try and head off an incredible mess, and with that there's going to come some intervention.

Now, you know me, so you know I don't say this out of any partisan leaning, but I see this no differently then when post-9-11 we gave up a lot of liberties to the fed for an emergency situation that was a genuine threat to all of us.

We, me included, had genuine fears that the government could take things too far and place us under martial law, etc. etc.

But, tentatively we trusted them, and by and large our homeland liberties were kept pretty well intact. I know there were issues like the wiretaps and Gitmo and such, but by and large our general lives haven't changed much, and we adapted to new security measures.

The point is that we're again in critical times, and I think that rather than fight tooth and nail as we seem to be so ready to do these days, we show none of the American Spirit that means that no matter the challenge we can overcome.

No one is threatening our liberties. Take the usual suspects for example, they mentioned an assault weapon ban, and boom, that got shot down pretty quick, pardon the pun. Same as when Bush gets in and everyone screams that he'll outlaw abortion.. it didn't happen, it doesn't happen, it never happens. Typically the real big issues that everyone is always so damned vocal about never change. Small changes occur in our lives, but for the most part we cruise right along. We still have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

This country has been driven into the ground for a multitude of reasons. We can keep driving it down until there's nothing left, it's our choice. I think many of the issues driving this particular movement are political in nature, and that the typical Joe out there gets caught in the middle and forced into a "choose up sides" attitude.

Unfortunately,considering the amount of propaganda out there generated by our two glorious parties, the extremes hold sway when it comes to our collective thinking, and I truly fear when they will incite real violence. (I believe they already have.)

Revolution is not always a good and noble idea. Just sayin'..

~Bang

[Bang]

There really aren't that many people who want to "break away". They want to see their government reigned in. Of course, Republicans are the ones doing it now, since they aren't in power. But Democrats wanted power reigned in over the last 8 years (although more for the executive branch). Personally, I don't care which side does the talking. I just want a limited Federal government, and let the States figure things out on their own.

I get you, but doesn't it bother you the viciousness of the rabble rousing now?

Maybe this is where my fear stems, the commentary that fuel this huge divide in our country really don't seem to be very responsible about it, and truly sometimes seem to encourage the worst possible scenarios and fears.

Like you said, right now it's Republicans and Fox beating the drums, but the same goes for the bush years when every liberal network would fall all over themselves for the chance to report negatively on the war.

Sometimes there has to be conscience, I believe. I think these agencies can be insidious in their manipulation, and it bugs me how many swallow it all hook line and sinker, depending on which opinion they're predisposed to agree with when they turn on the TV.

Anyway, now I'm all off on a tangent.

~Bang

[Bang]

OHNOZ!

You did the old Kentucky "anymore" thingy!

I had never heard that word used in that manner before moving to Louisville. It's a strange usage to me.

I love our regional dialects! Interesting differences wherever I go.

Seems natural to me. I had no idea that was a regional thing,, I don't think I've ever even been in Kentucky.

~Bang

[PokerPacker]

In can understand a limited government point of view, but not a 100% strict interpretation of the Constitution. It's just not practical because of the fact that things have changed so much since it was written.

That is what the amendment process is for.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This statement makes you sound very dismissive to the Consitution and the Bill of Rights.

Really, as a bar member in D.C. and Maryland someone who has therefore sworn twice to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution, I bet I'm a lot less dismissive and a lot more informed of it.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Everything not included in this list of powers.

Welll, that is an extremely simplistic and wrong interpretation of the Constitution, which also grants the SC the power to interpret it. And so, since that time there has been, oh I don't know, about 200+ years of SC opinions which have interpreted that stuff accordingly. Just looking at your list, TARP fits into about 4 of them, for example.

But, no, you're right. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the SC deciding what the Constitution means... and you're a lot smarter than all the brilliant men that have been on the SC and spent their entire lives studying Constitutional law. My bad.

[Larry]

Three words: "Separate but equal"...

You feel like actually saying what your point is?

[Larry]

Then the Bills of rights is not applicable at all to states according to you? Who cares about state laws that say you can't send your kids to whatever school you want to? State laws that say you can't teach your kids foreign languages. State laws that ban contraception for the use between maried people. State laws that target a specific religion and forbid them from building a church. State laws that ban interracial marriage. State laws that say you are liable to be hung if you teach a class with white and black kids. We should let the states have these rights?

Better example: You mean, slavery's legal, if Mississippi passes a law that says it is?

Oh, wait. I know. You mean the 13th Amendment applies to the states, but the First doesn't, right?

So, how about the Second?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

This thread is hysterical. Just the thought that the Constitution is so easy to understand is funny. I love how people take one sentence from the bill of rights, and they post is as justification for whatever they want.

For example, that mhd24 post about the Bill of Rights not applying to the states... if it were that easy, it wouldn't be an issue. There's also a clause in the Constitution called The Supremacy Clause... guess what, it wasn't even an amendment (does that make it more important b/c it was written by our founders, or less important because the amendment came afterwards?)....

Jeez, I wish 99% of this board realized they weren't experts on the Constitution, law, or the government in general. Or at least I wish some of them would actually take the time to study it before posting generic simplistic crap.

[PokerPacker]

Welll, that is an extremely simplistic and wrong interpretation of the Constitution, which also grants the SC the power to interpret it. And so, since that time there has been, oh I don't know, about 200+ years of SC opinions which have interpreted that stuff accordingly. Just looking at your list, TARP fits into about 4 of them, for example.

But, no, you're right. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the SC deciding what the Constitution means... and you're a lot smarter than all the brilliant men that have been on the SC and spent their entire lives studying Constitutional law. My bad.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th Amendment

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-10th Amendment

Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, how many pickled peppers did Peter Piper pick?

- Nursery Rhyme

I have about as much an idea of what that means as you do of what you quoted.

[Larry]

Yes he was. However history is written by those who win the wars. Personal opinion...but if a state wants to leave the union then they should be allowed to. They joined of their own free will, why are they now bound to stay?

Actually, I'd agree with DB, here.

I'm really glad that the Union won the Civil War. I think the world is a better place, today, than it would be if the United States were no longer United. IMO, if the Civil War doesn't end with a Union victory, then the US, today, is Europe. At best. (And Europe is likely either German or Russian.)

But, as a moral position, I think the states should have the right to secede. I really don't think that the Framers intended for a state to get to vote once, to join the Union, and then they don't get to vote any more.

IMO, Lincoln did more to destroy the Constitution than any other President in our history. I give him a pass, because what he did worked, and because I'm content with the way the world is, today.

[SnyderShrugged]

Actually, I'd agree with DB, here.

I'm really glad that the Union won the Civil War. I think the world is a better place, today, than it would be if the United States were no longer United. IMO, if the Civil War doesn't end with a Union victory, then the US, today, is Europe. At best. (And Europe is likely either German or Russian.)

But, as a moral position, I think the states should have the right to secede. I really don't think that the Framers intended for a state to get to vote once, to join the Union, and then they don't get to vote any more.

IMO, Lincoln did more to destroy the Constitution than any other President in our history. I give him a pass, because what he did worked, and because I'm content with the way the world is, today.

Larry! We have an identical view on this!

[SnyderShrugged]

Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, how many pickled peppers did Peter Piper pick?

- Nursery Rhyme

I have about as much an idea of what that means as you do of what you quoted.

hmmmm? It seemed pretty straightforward to me?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Actually, I'd agree with DB, here.

I'm really glad that the Union won the Civil War. I think the world is a better place, today, than it would be if the United States were no longer United. IMO, if the Civil War doesn't end with a Union victory, then the US, today, is Europe. At best. (And Europe is likely either German or Russian.)

But, as a moral position, I think the states should have the right to secede. I really don't think that the Framers intended for a state to get to vote once, to join the Union, and then they don't get to vote any more.

IMO, Lincoln did more to destroy the Constitution than any other President in our history. I give him a pass, because what he did worked, and because I'm content with the way the world is, today.

I don't know Larry, I definitely think there would have been some positives to letting the South go.

[PokerPacker]

Peter piper picked a peck of pickled peppers, how many pickled peppers did Peter Piper pick?

- Nursery Rhyme

I have about as much an idea of what that means as you do of what you quoted.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (Everything that the Constitution does not grant the federal governement), nor prohibited by it to the States(and that the constitution does not restrict from state, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.are powers reserved for the States or otherwise the people

The wording on that amendment really isn't complicated at all.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution (Everything that the Constitution does not grant the federal governement), nor prohibited by it to the States(and that the constitution does not restrict from state, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.are powers reserved for the States or otherwise the people

The wording on that amendment really isn't complicated at all.

Really? Its not complicated? Shows how little you've thought about it. What are the powers granted to the federal government, by the way?

Also, you read the entire Constitution together, and you don't parse out one sentence and look at it in a vacuum.

I love how I post how hysterical it is to see people cite one sentence in the Constitution and argue that they know what it means, you do exactly that, and then you continue to defend it.

Seriously though, take a couple years, STUDY Constitutional Law, make an effort to understand the complexities, and then assert opinions. Don't just quote one sentence and say "SEE!"

[Larry]

Two clichés that are more than appropriate...

Be careful what you wish for.

United we stand, divided.. well, you know.

It's my bet that most of these folks who want to break up this union have no idea what they'd be in store for.

But hey, political agenda = more important than country nowadays. No matter how short sighted and petty it may be.

~Bang

I remember having a Social Studies teachar tell me that something like 60% of Americans think it would be a good idea to just pitch the Constitution in a waste basket and write a new one from scratch. He says that that percentage has been relatively constant for the decades that the pollsters have been asking the question.

This causes me to reflect that:

a) IMO, this indicates the fact that most of the people who feel that way, do so because they believe that the new doculent would be closer to what they believe. In short, most people think that the world agrees with them.

Boy, am I glad that I don't live in a democracy.