states rights

[Possom]

First and foremost I am not a liberal troll or a liberal in general. I am new to this forum but from what I have read I agree with most of the views here. So, on to my post concerning states rights and questions there in.

Wouldn't our country as a whole benefit greatly from the return of states rights and reduction of such an oppressive federal government? How can a body of government located thousands of miles away from my home make better decisions for us then one that is right here close to my home? I don't see all that much difference in the republican and democrat parties on a national level now. Both parties wish to continue the globalization of government and strive for ever greater power over the people.

Do we really need a federal government that handles more then the protection of our people by outside forces? Can every other issue not be handled and decided by the state government?

Would we as a people not receive better representation from a local and state government deciding what is best for our state?

Another benefit of states deciding most laws would be the ability to move to another state. For instance, if you live in Mississippi and the state adopts a law outlawing same sex civil unions and you are gay, you can simply move to a liberal state such as Massachusetts that allows gays to marry. Problem solved.  

I edited my original post to remove any misconceptions of what I was proposing needs to happen to make our country a better place for all of us to live.

[obumazombie]

I couldn't get past your first sentence.

[Bad Dog]

That was the point of the 10th amendment.  The Founders fervently believed that government as close to the governed as possible was best.  They also believed that the Federal Government would, over time, attempt to take over more and more control over our lives.  They were right.

[Possom]

Then the real question is how do we get back to how the founders intended our country to be run? How can the 10th amendment be revived to place the power back to the states where it should be?

[Bad Dog]

Then the real question is how do we get back to how the founders intended our country to be run? How can the 10th amendment be revived to place the power back to the states where it should be?

What is your answer?

[Chris_]

Would we as a people not receive better representation from a local and state government deciding what is best for our state?

Yes, that's the basic idea.

[Possom]

I don't know if there is an answer to that question. The only avenue I see for even getting close would be for a state to stop taking federal monies. I think state governments are starting to see the situation that we have gotten ourselves into. I.E. Arizona concerning immigration policies. There are no easy fixes for that issue. That I am sure of.

[Big Dog]

Wouldn't our country as a whole benefit greatly from the return of states rights and removal of such an oppressive federal government?

Advocating the removal of the Constitutional government of the United States is legally defined as "Seditious conspiracy", a criminal offense under 18 USC, section 2384. Watch yourself.

The Oath of Office of every military member, elected official, law enforcement officer, and Federal employee in the United States includes the words, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." You are among current and former members of the military here, as well as Citizens who have taken that oath.

The Constitution was written to grant very specific powers to the Federal government. Those powers are the essential function of the Federal government, which must be preserved for the USA to exist as a nation. The assertion of states rights is the responsibility of each state's government, which most have done a piss-poor job of protecting. The assertion of individual rights is the responsibility of you, me, and every Citizen.

[rich_t]

Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a good start, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[rich_t]

Advocating the removal of the Constitutional government of the United States is legally defined as "Seditious conspiracy", a criminal offense under 18 USC, section 2384. Watch yourself.

The Oath of Office of every military member, elected official, law enforcement officer, and Federal employee in the United States includes the words, "I do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America." You are among current and former members of the military here, as well as Citizens who have taken that oath.

The Constitution was written to grant very specific powers to the Federal government. Those powers are the essential function of the Federal government, which must be preserved for the USA to exist as a nation. The assertion of states rights is the responsibility of each state's government, which most have done a piss-poor job of protecting. The assertion of individual rights is the responsibility of you, me, and every Citizen.

What Possom posted is no where near seditious IMO.  He could have worded it a tad more carefully, but I didn't read his post as advocating the the complete removal of the Federal government, but to reduce their oppressive nature over the past several decades.

[Possom]

I am not in any way advocating the removal of the federal government in its entirety. In no way did I intend to insinuate any sort of rebellion or civil war or anything of the sort. We will always have and always need a federal government but we shouldn't be looking at the fed to make every decision for us. I am saying that the states have allowed the federal government to take control of decisions that should be made on the state level.

[Bad Dog]

I don't know if there is an answer to that question. The only avenue I see for even getting close would be for a state to stop taking federal monies. I think state governments are starting to see the situation that we have gotten ourselves into. I.E. Arizona concerning immigration policies. There are no easy fixes for that issue. That I am sure of.

Some states are fighting back but refusing federal monies would be impossible unless states could refuse to remit taxes and fees demanded by the federal government.  The Tea Party is a start on the people attempting to remedy the situation.

[Kyle Ricky]

I agree that the states should be allowed to decide what they do. They should also be free to uphold a federal law, which is why they Arizona and Florida are getting sued by the DOJ.

Note: Welcome to the forum, Possom. Don't forget to introduce yourself in the proper forum.

[Freeper]

First and foremost I am not a liberal troll or a liberal in general. I am new to this forum but from what I have read I agree with most of the views here. So, on to my post concerning states rights and questions there in.

Wouldn't our country as a whole benefit greatly from the return of states rights and removal of such an oppressive federal government? How can a body of government located thousands of miles away from my home make better decisions for us then one that is right here close to my home? I don't see all that much difference in the republican and democrat parties on a national level now. Both parties wish to continue the globalization of government and strive for ever greater power over the people.

Do we really need a federal government that handles more then the protection of our people by outside forces? Can every other issue not be handled and decided by the state government?

Would we as a people not receive better representation from a local and state government deciding what is best for our state?

Another benefit of states deciding most laws would be the ability to move to another state. For instance, if you live in Mississippi and the state adopts a law outlawing same sex civil unions and you are gay, you can simply move to a liberal state such as Massachusetts that allows gays to marry. Problem solved. 

Okay I agree with you in part, what I disagree with is, "Can every other issue not be handled and decided by the state government? ", I say NO, that most issues should be up to the individual, not the government. For example I don't need the governor nor the mayor telling me how much salt I can use, and how big my Big Gulp can be, that is up to me. The local city and county governments should run the schools not an agency in DC who has a one size fits all policy. Same with the roads, the locals know what roads they need and where they should go.

If I had my way all the federal government would do is, provide defense, as stated in the Constitution, ensure that states do not violate the Constitution and I don't mean the shit that Holder does, maintain free trade throughout the individual states, and that's pretty much it, everything else needs to be at the local level. I can live with a minimum expectation for education so students that graduate should be able to be accepted to colleges throughout the country, however those standards should only apply to actual academics, not the skills of putting a condom on a banana.

[Mr Mannn]

Well first of all, Ron Paul lost the nomination, so you're outa luck that way.

At this point we need to elect Tea Party Conservatives to challenge the feds on this issue.
Real conservatives.Not libertarians. Not Paulbots. Real conservatives.

[obumazombie]

Well first of all, Ron Paul lost the nomination, so you're outa luck that way.

At this point we need to elect Tea Party Conservatives to challenge the feds on this issue.
Real conservatives.Not libertarians. Not Paulbots. Real conservatives.

Yes, now we are getting to the crux of the matter. Nicely done.

[Possom]

I agree completely in electing tea party conservatives but at times it is difficult to recognize a liberal in a sheep suit riding on the coat tails of the tea party movement.

[Kyle Ricky]

Yeah, Dr. Nuts is out of it, again. Thank God...

[txradioguy]

Then the real question is how do we get back to how the founders intended our country to be run? How can the 10th amendment be revived to place the power back to the states where it should be?

Well electing people that share the same Conservative beliefs like the people here on CC would be a good start.

[Big Dog]

What Possom posted is no where near seditious IMO.  He could have worded it a tad more carefully, but I didn't read his post as advocating the the complete removal of the Federal government, but to reduce their oppressive nature over the past several decades.

Reread the first sentence of the OP's second paragraph.

Wouldn't our country as a whole benefit greatly from the return of states rights and removal of such an oppressive federal government?

-emphasis added

The phrase "removal of such an oppressive federal government" is unequivocal. I stand by my assessment.

[Bad Dog]

I agree completely in electing tea party conservatives but at times it is difficult to recognize a liberal in a sheep suit riding on the coat tails of the tea party movement.

How do you feel about Ron Paul Possom?

[Mr Mannn]

I agree completely in electing tea party conservatives but at times it is difficult to recognize a liberal in a sheep suit riding on the coat tails of the tea party movement.

Nope. Its pretty easy to tell the two apart. Liberals leave a trail of incriminating evidence that any scrutiny will reveal.

and most 90% of liberals can't stay on script...their contempt for ideas not their own breaks out every now and then...

Seriously. You don't have liberal radar? They are beholden to talking points on their side and stereotypes on our side...Libs try to troll here and tip their hand in the first post every time. They just aint that good.

Now a lot of Ron Paul types try to equate libs and conservatives...are you one of em?

[Possom]

How do you feel about Ron Paul Possom?

I think Ron Paul's personally wants what is best for our country which is a small government with little interference into the lives of Americans. I can completely agree with that.

[Mr Mannn]

BS for being deliberately vague in your answer.
He really wanted to know, "Are you a Paul supporter?"

we had a few here lately supporting hijacking the GOP convention, ignoring the vote of the people and forcing Paul onto a ticket he did not win. Personally I'm a little leery of people who claim they are constitutionalists but subvert the will of the people.

[rich_t]

Reread the first sentence of the OP's second paragraph.
-emphasis added

The phrase "removal of such an oppressive federal government" is unequivocal. I stand by my assessment.

You can stand by anything you want to.  I stand by my interpretation of what he posted.  A point that he clarified in his next post (after my post).