Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Threads are pretty much over when Marc drops his trousers and squats over the proceedings.

Lowest common denominators don't get any lower with him.

I thought you guys were pals.

No he's my boy! always has been always will be! He's a little prairie dog that likes to pop his head up once in a while! He's so cute when he does that.

The "no" implies that we aren't pals. Presumably we are pals in the NAMBLA sense of the word - it would explain your strange and continuing fascination with gay sex.

RIDE IT ######! I'm ridin' ya and ya don't even KNOW it! Woohoo!

Crack open another can 'o LAHGAH and gimme another fvckin HOT DOG!

Edited May 27, 2009 by Private Pike

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Threads are pretty much over when Marc drops his trousers and squats over the proceedings.

Lowest common denominators don't get any lower with him.

I thought you guys were pals.

No he's my boy! always has been always will be! He's a little prairie dog that likes to pop his head up once in a while! He's so cute when he does that.

The "no" implies that we aren't pals. Presumably we are pals in the NAMBLA sense of the word - it would explain your strange and continuing fascination with gay sex.

RIDE IT ######! I'm ridin' ya and ya don't even KNOW it! Woohoo!

Crack open another can 'o LAHGAH and gimme another fvckin HOT DOG!

I knew you were buddies.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Threads are pretty much over when Marc drops his trousers and squats over the proceedings.

Lowest common denominators don't get any lower with him.

I thought you guys were pals.

No he's my boy! always has been always will be! He's a little prairie dog that likes to pop his head up once in a while! He's so cute when he does that.

The "no" implies that we aren't pals. Presumably we are pals in the NAMBLA sense of the word - it would explain your strange and continuing fascination with gay sex.

RIDE IT ######! I'm ridin' ya and ya don't even KNOW it! Woohoo!

Crack open another can 'o LAHGAH and gimme another fvckin HOT DOG!

I knew you were buddies.

Son, you gotta learn to keep your fvckin hand outta my fvckin POCKET!

Heres some change. Go buy yourself a LAHTAY!

[mawilson 2,133]

Whoohooo...time to bring back the Articles of the Confederation.

It's time to follow the constitution. Screw the federal government.

[natty bumppo 297]

Whoohooo...time to bring back the Articles of the Confederation.

Um ... the Articles of Confederation were written about 85 years before this photo ....

[almaty 19]

true...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think he was thinking of Constitution of the Confederate States of America.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, I respect the fact that you are not partisan in your critique. Fair enough.

Just out of curiosity --- since you state that federal expansion occurred during the 20th century and you'd like us to return to the era of the Founding Fathers.

What's your view of the decision by Federalist leaders Washington, Adams, Hamilton to have the US government undertake to federalize the Revolutionary war debt from the states in 1790? That set the precedent for the federal government to run a treasury deficit on behalf of all the collective states, and thereby harmonize commerce among them. It was not "in the Constitution", and in fact was subject to very heated debate between northern and southern states on opposite sides of the issue. This was really the first instance of a federal bailout and it happened over 200 years ago.

Debate over the proper role and scope of the federal government has been with this nation since its birth. It's a very legitimate debate. But your sense of outrage that somehow this is something new, something sinister, something that is recent in our times and we need to get back to the old days... that's a myth.

That is going back a ways to make a point. And since the people debating it were the same people that wrote the constitution I would say the solution falls in the category of "original intent". But to the point, financing war debt isn't the same as bailing out private business.

But more to the OP I would say the current anger seen by the states is not because of a lost election but more to the recent trend to nationalize private business. Do you really feel comfortable with the government owning GM? How about the banks and insurance companies? Do you feel comfortable with Washington telling private companies who to have for their CEO's? How about the government telling private companies how much their executives can be paid? Is all that allowed in the constitution? I really doubt it. Now we are being told the government should take over the biggest part of our economy yet attempted, namely the nations health care. These are the recent events that have sparked the outrage and fear that we are seeing. If people from my POV see SS and Medicare as a step closer to socialism what do you think this does? Don't you see the problems I see? The government is out of control and is grabbing power at a rate never before seen.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In this country nationalising a private business is pretty radical - but I honestly that any president would have addressed the issue differently.

The point surely is that we should never have gotten into the position in the first place where we would be forced to do the unthinkable.

[GaryC 7]

In this country nationalising a private business is pretty radical - but I honestly that any president would have addressed the issue differently.

The point surely is that we should never have gotten into the position in the first place where we would be forced to do the unthinkable.

To me, in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. It is wholly in the wrong direction.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In this country nationalising a private business is pretty radical - but I honestly that any president would have addressed the issue differently.

The point surely is that we should never have gotten into the position in the first place where we would be forced to do the unthinkable.

To me, in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. It is wholly in the wrong direction.

It depends what the hard realities of the situation are - if the consequences of letting a huge company like GM (or AIG) fail are worse for the economy in the medium - long-term, this may well have been necessary.

As I say I look at it as a matter of being in a position with limited options (much the same feeling I have with Iraq and Guantanamo Bay).

But I guess it comes down to whether you see this as some sort of liberal/socialist power grab conspiracy or simple pragmatism. I think the latter is rather more plausible.

[scandal 951]

Gary, I respect the fact that you are not partisan in your critique. Fair enough.

Just out of curiosity --- since you state that federal expansion occurred during the 20th century and you'd like us to return to the era of the Founding Fathers.

What's your view of the decision by Federalist leaders Washington, Adams, Hamilton to have the US government undertake to federalize the Revolutionary war debt from the states in 1790? That set the precedent for the federal government to run a treasury deficit on behalf of all the collective states, and thereby harmonize commerce among them. It was not "in the Constitution", and in fact was subject to very heated debate between northern and southern states on opposite sides of the issue. This was really the first instance of a federal bailout and it happened over 200 years ago.

Debate over the proper role and scope of the federal government has been with this nation since its birth. It's a very legitimate debate. But your sense of outrage that somehow this is something new, something sinister, something that is recent in our times and we need to get back to the old days... that's a myth.

That is going back a ways to make a point. And since the people debating it were the same people that wrote the constitution I would say the solution falls in the category of "original intent". But to the point, financing war debt isn't the same as bailing out private business.

But more to the OP I would say the current anger seen by the states is not because of a lost election but more to the recent trend to nationalize private business. Do you really feel comfortable with the government owning GM? How about the banks and insurance companies? Do you feel comfortable with Washington telling private companies who to have for their CEO's? How about the government telling private companies how much their executives can be paid? Is all that allowed in the constitution? I really doubt it. Now we are being told the government should take over the biggest part of our economy yet attempted, namely the nations health care. These are the recent events that have sparked the outrage and fear that we are seeing. If people from my POV see SS and Medicare as a step closer to socialism what do you think this does? Don't you see the problems I see? The government is out of control and is grabbing power at a rate never before seen.

Wow... after the detour into Marc-land last night, I was sure this thread was killed!

I guess it's resurrected back to topic

My point in going way back to the founding fathers and the original debate over federalism is that you seem to feel that back then the scope and role of the federal government was a "settled" issue, and we have created this debate in modern times. That is not so. Yes, Hamilton was the champion of a strong federal government. But on the flip side Jefferson strongly advocated states rights and a much weaker central government. They argued before drafting the constitution, the delegates argued during that hot summer in Philadelphia when it was drafted, and they argued in the aftermath during the ratification battles throughout the states. That argument is still alive and well to this day.

Getting to your point regarding privatizing businesses. No one is happy about seeing the massive government bailouts. No one is happy about we the taxpayers effectively taking ownership of AIG, Fannie/Freddie and GM. That includes the left and the right, advocates of big government and small government. The mess we are in has been brewing over years and is a result of lax regulation, the natural greed of Wall St. and the investment markets, and the ebb and flow of the business cycle. People do expect their government to step in when there is a crisis - you may not want them to, but by and large most Americans do not want their government to stand by idly when the basic foundation of our economy and society is cratering. To their credit, Bush and Paulson and Bernanke reacted last fall. And Obama and Geitner have continued. I hope, I sincerely hope, we can get things stabilized and get the government (aka ourselves) out of this public/private ownership mess. It truly is a mess.

As to the constitutionality of it - by and large, I don't see an issue with these economic moves. Where you and I obviously disagree is on the role of the Legislative Branch - Congress. Congress is an equal branch of government and has the right to legislate. The courts have ruled consistently that Congress has wide and sweeping powers to legislate. The TARP bill is legal. You may not like it, you may think it's unwise. But it's legal and constitutional for Congress to appropriate the funds, and to designate that the Treasury department disburse those funds. That's our system.

Now, your fear about "government out of control and grabbing power" - I actually do have that fear!!!! But not about laws passed in Congress. And not about social programs that have been debated, vetted, voted, approved, signed into law, challenged by the courts, and upheld on appeal. That's not where I have fears.

My fears are in the EXECUTIVE branch. About abusive acts by PRESIDENTS -- most particularly the last one we had in office before our current one -- who acted on a theory of executive privilege that let him issue executive orders for illegal wiretaps of American citizens, illegal detentions without habeas corpus, and myriad "signing statements" attached to legislation passed in Congress, which he signed but had no intent of obeying.

You want egregious and willful examples of violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution? Just look at Bush 43's Presidency. It's Exhibit A on the subject.

Edited May 27, 2009 by uscandual

[GaryC 7]

In this country nationalising a private business is pretty radical - but I honestly that any president would have addressed the issue differently.

The point surely is that we should never have gotten into the position in the first place where we would be forced to do the unthinkable.

To me, in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. It is wholly in the wrong direction.

It depends what the hard realities of the situation are - if the consequences of letting a huge company like GM (or AIG) fail are worse for the economy in the medium - long-term, this may well have been necessary.

As I say I look at it as a matter of being in a position with limited options (much the same feeling I have with Iraq and Guantanamo Bay).

But I guess it comes down to whether you see this as some sort of liberal/socialist power grab conspiracy or simple pragmatism. I think the latter is rather more plausible.

I have a HUGE problem with nationalizing private business for any reason. First on philosophical reasons because it goes contrary to the very foundations of our form of government and second because the federal government has a dismal record for managing its own finances. Let me ask you, would you buy a GM car now? The government now owns 70% of it and is now calling the shots. I see all the money given to them all going down a huge rat hole and never coming back. I mean think about it. The government is running trillion dollar deficits and they are now running car companies, banks and insurance companies. Doesn't that strike you as a very bad idea?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In this country nationalising a private business is pretty radical - but I honestly that any president would have addressed the issue differently.

The point surely is that we should never have gotten into the position in the first place where we would be forced to do the unthinkable.

To me, in this case, the cure is worse than the disease. It is wholly in the wrong direction.

It depends what the hard realities of the situation are - if the consequences of letting a huge company like GM (or AIG) fail are worse for the economy in the medium - long-term, this may well have been necessary.

As I say I look at it as a matter of being in a position with limited options (much the same feeling I have with Iraq and Guantanamo Bay).

But I guess it comes down to whether you see this as some sort of liberal/socialist power grab conspiracy or simple pragmatism. I think the latter is rather more plausible.

I have a HUGE problem with nationalizing private business for any reason. First on philosophical reasons because it goes contrary to the very foundations of our form of government and second because the federal government has a dismal record for managing its own finances. Let me ask you, would you buy a GM car now? The government now owns 70% of it and is now calling the shots. I see all the money given to them all going down a huge rat hole and never coming back. I mean think about it. The government is running trillion dollar deficits and they are now running car companies, banks and insurance companies. Doesn't that strike you as a very bad idea?

It does - but should a philosophical/ideological argument trump the meathook realities of the situation? If doing this prevents a wholesale collapse of the real economy its likely the only reasonable thing that could be done.

What does bother me about the bailout is that there was little public accounting of where the money was channeled - to the extent point that even the government doesn't fully know what it actually owns.

[GaryC 7]

My fears are in the EXECUTIVE branch. About abusive acts by PRESIDENTS -- most particularly the last one we had in office before our current one -- who acted on a theory of executive privilege that let him issue executive orders for illegal wiretaps of American citizens, illegal detentions without habeas corpus, and myriad "signing statements" attached to legislation passed in Congress, which he signed but had no intent of obeying.

You want egregious and willful examples of violating the spirit and letter of the Constitution? Just look at Bush 43's Presidency. It's Exhibit A on the subject.

None of the powers "grabbed" by Bush have been laid down by Obama. He isn't giving up the Patriot act, he hasn't changed the substance of how we gather intelligence and he has only done window dressing as far as Gitmo is concerned. You do realize that we have Gitmo like bases in Afghanistan and other places don't you? Sure a small number of detainees may come to America for trial but that is just to deflect what he hasn't done as far as "cleaning up" the grievances voiced by the people that voted for him. This really illustrates my point, once a power is taken by the government it is rarely given up. Now that the government is taking over private business to cure a "crisis" it becomes all the more easy for them to do it again the next time a crisis comes up. It is a slope covered in greased ice.