Tenth Amendment Movement Aims to Give Power Back to the States

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That is definitely true - and something that bothered me about a lot of what went on under GWB.

[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.

That is definitely true - and something that bothered me about a lot of what went on under GWB.

Hence we must do the unthinkable again. The states must fight for the rights that are rightfully theirs. This isn't something that has started with GWB over the last 8 years. There have been small steps in that direction for almost 100 years. All administrations have been guilty of it. We are just now becoming aware of it because it is accelerating and it is becoming more apparent. I have done a lot of soul searching for the last 6 months. Although I knew some of the things GWB and the reps were doing for the last 8 years were wrong I didn't see how massive the consequences were until then. I have developed a huge mistrust of all politicians regardless of political leanings because I now see there really isn't any difference between them. They are all power hungry and self serving. If we have any chance of regaining the foundations of what has made this country the envy of the world we must make some very hard choices. If that means another depression by letting "to big to fail" companies fail then so be it. We cannot lose our very soul in an effort to save ourselves. IMO it would be much worse in the long run.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

I disagree with you there. Wall Street may be greedy, but market discipline is a powerful force.

The mess we're in is a direct result of government intervention, which started with the bailout

of LTCM in 1998. Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) was a hedge fund which failed spectacularly

in the late 1990s, leading to a massive bailout orchestrated by the Federal Reserve. The bailout

started what is now referred to as the "decade of moral hazard" -- the assumption that the Federal

Reserve would always intervene should a large financial institution fail, thus encouraging them to

assume more risk.

[scandal 951]

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.

Well, we have some agreement here. And disagreement, of course.

The Patriot Act was legal. We can debate whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's an Act passed in Congress and the Law of the land.

Yes, Gitmo is still open, as is Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan. Obama inherited these. The Executive order to close Gitmo was his first official act after taking office.

I do believe that Obama fundamentally and in a very meaningful way wants to bring the Executive branch's activities back in line with the Constitution. His statements about not wanting to sacrifice America's values OR America's national security are not just rhetoric. That's my view - no doubt you disagree. We are still in the early days of this Administration. Time will tell if he is serious about this or not.

He has stated publicly that he is against the usage of Signing statements to change the intent of legislation by Congress, but he has already done so on certain occasions. Here's a recent example: http://www.infowars.com/obama-signing-stat...er-protections/

Obama signing statement weakens “whistle-blower” protections

Tom Eley

WSWS May 21, 20099

When he signed into law a $410 billion omnibus spending bill on March 10, President Barack Obama included a “signing statement” weakening a rider in the bill that would have given protection to government officials who turn over information to Congress.

As a candidate for the presidency, Obama campaigned in favor of broad protection for federal whistle-blowers and against the sort of presidential signing statements that, under the Bush administration, had eviscerated the intent of congressional legislation.

The traditional purpose of signing statements was largely symbolic or pertained to the practical implementation of new laws by federal employees. President Bush used this mechanism more than 1,200 times—a record by far—to interpret and substantially alter the intent of laws, effectively usurping power from both the legislative branch of the government, which the Constitution tasks with creating laws, and from the judicial, which is invested with the power to interpret laws.

Meaning?

He doesn't walk on water. He's not Christ Arisen. He's not Superman. He's a guy, doing a tough job, in tough circumstances. And pretty well overall, I think.

Do governments have a tendency to accumulate power and not release it? Is there "governmental inertia"? You betcha!!! 100% agreement there.

Is the current President fighting that inertia? I think so.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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

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

No sh!t...really? Do you know why the South called themselves Confederates?

[scandal 951]

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.

I disagree with you there. Wall Street may be greedy, but market discipline is a powerful force.

The mess we're in is a direct result of government intervention, which started with the bailout

of LTCM in 1998. Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) was a hedge fund which failed spectacularly

in the late 1990s, leading to a massive bailout orchestrated by the Federal Reserve. The bailout

started what is now referred to as the "decade of moral hazard" -- the assumption that the Federal

Reserve would always intervene should a large financial institution fail, thus encouraging them to

assume more risk.

Point taken. I listed several factors. You've listed an additional one, which I would add to the list, but does not take away from the ones I mentioned.

So, a revised list would be : lax regulation, the natural greed of Wall St. and the investment markets, the ebb and flow of the business cycle, AND inopportune government intervention in the marketplace.

As to LTCM, or the Asian financial crisis in 1997, what would have happened if the Fed had not intervened? At the time those crises seemed of a magnitude as serious as the crisis we hit in the summer/fall of 2008. Hindsight is 20/20.

I think the single biggest factor in the collapse, personally, is that we've had these massive unregulated OTC derivatives markets. All the CDS contracts with notional values into the trillions and which exposed firms like AIG to counterparty trades that insured, then re-insured, then re-re-insured, multiple times over on the same 'bet' that a given underlying instrument would fail.... that was a time bomb waiting to go off. I'm all for derivative contracts. I do believe in the idea of commoditizing risk and trading it efficiently, letting those who wish to bear the risk buy it from those who prefer not to. But we need regulated, organized exchanges to conduct these trades. And we need clearinghouses that manage counterparty collateral on the trades. In short - we need the experience of the Chicago futures and options markets applied to these newer instruments (a little local hometown plug there....)

[GaryC 7]

Uscandual, do you really think it is "constitutional" for the federal government take over and nationalize major chunks of our private business? Think about it. This is the very thing we condemn Chavez for doing. Obama is doing it to "save" us from financial ruin and Chavez is doing it to "protect" his country. The reasons for doing it may be different on the outside but the end result is the same. We both seem to agree that once the government gets its hands on something it rarely gives it back. So it seems from now on 1/3 to 2/3's of the US auto industry will be government run, a huge chunk of the banking industry with be government run and a very large part of the insurance industry will be government run. Please tell me how this fits into the constitution. It just doesn't. You may see a need for these takeovers but it just isn't legal. An analogy may be, my family is broke, my wife needed an operation to save her life so it is OK to rob that bank. There was a desperate need but the solution taken was still wrong.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That is definitely true - and something that bothered me about a lot of what went on under GWB.

Hence we must do the unthinkable again. The states must fight for the rights that are rightfully theirs. This isn't something that has started with GWB over the last 8 years. There have been small steps in that direction for almost 100 years. All administrations have been guilty of it. We are just now becoming aware of it because it is accelerating and it is becoming more apparent. I have done a lot of soul searching for the last 6 months. Although I knew some of the things GWB and the reps were doing for the last 8 years were wrong I didn't see how massive the consequences were until then. I have developed a huge mistrust of all politicians regardless of political leanings because I now see there really isn't any difference between them. They are all power hungry and self serving. If we have any chance of regaining the foundations of what has made this country the envy of the world we must make some very hard choices. If that means another depression by letting "to big to fail" companies fail then so be it. We cannot lose our very soul in an effort to save ourselves. IMO it would be much worse in the long run.

Well I agree with you there - though I am wondering why only now barely 6 months into the new administration that somehow we've somehow been given the straw that broke the camel's back. The whole thing smells of purpose imo - and I agree with the other poster who suggested that a lot of these tea-party events have been stage managed by and for the benefit of elements in the media, in some cases capitalising on pre-existing local issues (the secessionist movement in Texas for example) to add weight to their argument.

Regardless if this was such a big issue going back into previous administrations why have people been content to sit back and allow the Federal government to pass things like the Patriot Act without more resistance?

Why is it only now that this is an issue?

[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.

That is definitely true - and something that bothered me about a lot of what went on under GWB.

Hence we must do the unthinkable again. The states must fight for the rights that are rightfully theirs. This isn't something that has started with GWB over the last 8 years. There have been small steps in that direction for almost 100 years. All administrations have been guilty of it. We are just now becoming aware of it because it is accelerating and it is becoming more apparent. I have done a lot of soul searching for the last 6 months. Although I knew some of the things GWB and the reps were doing for the last 8 years were wrong I didn't see how massive the consequences were until then. I have developed a huge mistrust of all politicians regardless of political leanings because I now see there really isn't any difference between them. They are all power hungry and self serving. If we have any chance of regaining the foundations of what has made this country the envy of the world we must make some very hard choices. If that means another depression by letting "to big to fail" companies fail then so be it. We cannot lose our very soul in an effort to save ourselves. IMO it would be much worse in the long run.

Well I agree with you there - though I am wondering why only now barely 6 months into the new administration that somehow we've somehow been given the straw that broke the camel's back. The whole thing smells of purpose imo - and I agree with the other poster who suggested that a lot of these tea-party events have been stage managed by and for the benefit of elements in the media, in some cases capitalising on pre-existing local issues (the secessionist movement in Texas for example) to add weight to their argument.

Regardless if this was such a big issue going back into previous administrations why have people been content to sit back and allow the Federal government to pass things like the Patriot Act without more resistance?

Why is it only now that this is an issue?

Because of the takeovers in the private industries. When it was national security things it didn't impact most people. We just didn't see it. Now it is in our faces and very public. That didn't make what happened before right but it doesn't make the current reactions any less valid.

[scandal 951]

why have people been content to sit back and allow the Federal government to pass things like the Patriot Act without more resistance?

9/11.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

That is definitely true - and something that bothered me about a lot of what went on under GWB.

Hence we must do the unthinkable again. The states must fight for the rights that are rightfully theirs. This isn't something that has started with GWB over the last 8 years. There have been small steps in that direction for almost 100 years. All administrations have been guilty of it. We are just now becoming aware of it because it is accelerating and it is becoming more apparent. I have done a lot of soul searching for the last 6 months. Although I knew some of the things GWB and the reps were doing for the last 8 years were wrong I didn't see how massive the consequences were until then. I have developed a huge mistrust of all politicians regardless of political leanings because I now see there really isn't any difference between them. They are all power hungry and self serving. If we have any chance of regaining the foundations of what has made this country the envy of the world we must make some very hard choices. If that means another depression by letting "to big to fail" companies fail then so be it. We cannot lose our very soul in an effort to save ourselves. IMO it would be much worse in the long run.

Well I agree with you there - though I am wondering why only now barely 6 months into the new administration that somehow we've somehow been given the straw that broke the camel's back. The whole thing smells of purpose imo - and I agree with the other poster who suggested that a lot of these tea-party events have been stage managed by and for the benefit of elements in the media, in some cases capitalising on pre-existing local issues (the secessionist movement in Texas for example) to add weight to their argument.

Regardless if this was such a big issue going back into previous administrations why have people been content to sit back and allow the Federal government to pass things like the Patriot Act without more resistance?

Why is it only now that this is an issue?

Because of the takeovers in the private industries. When it was national security things it didn't impact most people. We just didn't see it. Now it is in our faces and very public. That didn't make what happened before right but it doesn't make the current reactions any less valid.

Well there are certainly valid concerns about the the way the bad economy has been handled, but not being party to the thinking behind the decisions being made I can't say for whether or not they were correct.

I can appreciate the argument that certain companies are too large to be allowed to fail without adversely affecting other parts of the economy.

If a building is going to collapse would you prefer a partial collapse or a total collapse. Obviously neither are ideal...

[scandal 951]

Uscandual, do you really think it is "constitutional" for the federal government take over and nationalize major chunks of our private business? Think about it. This is the very thing we condemn Chavez for doing. Obama is doing it to "save" us from financial ruin and Chavez is doing it to "protect" his country. The reasons for doing it may be different on the outside but the end result is the same. We both seem to agree that once the government gets its hands on something it rarely gives it back. So it seems from now on 1/3 to 2/3's of the US auto industry will be government run, a huge chunk of the banking industry with be government run and a very large part of the insurance industry will be government run. Please tell me how this fits into the constitution. It just doesn't. You may see a need for these takeovers but it just isn't legal. An analogy may be, my family is broke, my wife needed an operation to save her life so it is OK to rob that bank. There was a desperate need but the solution taken was still wrong.

(BTW - feel free to call me Ron, or as you wish... lately some have been pegging me as "Brother Scandal" )

1. I don't agree with the term "nationalization". I don't believe that is what is actually occurring here. Though I appreciate that this is just word games and semantics.... and others feel differently.

2. I don't think it's in any way comparable to Chavez and Venezuela. That analogy is utterly false on so many levels.

3. I do believe that all of the actions initiated in recent months as part of TARP or TALF or the bailouts before TARP was enacted (Bear Sterns, AIG at the beginning, Fannie/Freddie at the beginning) are constitutional. They can be hotly contested, debatable, advisable or not ..... but they are not Constitutional abuses. Get real here.

4. "Government owned" is not necessarily "Government run". I'm an owner through stock ownership and mutual funds of many American companies - I don't run them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is nationalisation. This sort of thing is fairly common in the UK (and much of western europe) though it rarely extends to taking ownership of banks (usually we're talking about utility companies or public transport etc). When you take over banks you're taking over the means of production - technically that *is* socialist.

UK Govt got into trouble recently with its takeover of Northern Rock.

[scandal 951]

It is nationalisation. This sort of thing is fairly common in the UK (and much of western europe) though it rarely extends to taking ownership of banks (usually we're talking about utility companies or public transport etc). When you take over banks you're taking over the means of production - technically that *is* socialist.

UK Govt got into trouble recently with its takeover of Northern Rock.

Generally the term is reserved to imply a government that actively wants to manage, direct, and operate the enterprise (bank, railroad, auto company, what have you). In a "socialist" model the government is consciously intervening in the marketplace from a sense of social justice - that this is the best way to operate the means of production.

I don't believe that this is what is occurring in the US in the current crisis. I believe that our government (under Bush and Obama) has reluctantly stepped in as a buyer of last resort to prevent a collapse that would be far worse than standing by. They have no interest in running these concerns, no ideology about interfering in the marketplace. On the contrary - I believe that they want to divest these assets just as soon as they possibly can.

Note: All of the para. above are my beliefs about the intents and desires. Clearly if others (Gary, Pike, ...) feel differently, then it's very easy to conclude that this is classic "nationalization".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well as I said I don't see the slippery slope argument here - and I'm skeptical of the sudden opposition to all things Federal (which I think has more to do with the influence of the media talking heads in concert with some politicians playing off of local concerns).

Taking ownership of banks is nationalisation and it is technically socialist (from the point of view of the power it grants to the government - an unprecedented level of government control over the finance industry). Personally I agree that the intent isn't malicious nor is it an attempt to bring about a fundamental shift of political ideology in this country.

Constitutionally it is problematic though - and I can see why people are concerned about it.