And the states. Send 'em all home and stop paying them.
why does religion and politics have to permeate every interesting archaeological find? I take issue with putting down others to prove a point.
I'd love a constitutional convention. Maybe we could get rid of the senate.
That the states are not sovereign under our Constitution is reasonably clear to me.
That the 10th Amendment is generally ignored and the Commerce and General Welfare clauses are massively abused is also reasonably clear.
Without any doubt, the People are the final arbiters of what system of government we choose for ourselves. I think a Constitutional Convention is overdue. We need to sort some shit out.
William Jack Hamilton, thanks for your outspoken criticism of this bill. The insights you have written elsewhere concerning sensible growth, transportation solutions, and ecological concerns of the area are remarkably poignant. Your support of the Occupy Wall Street movement was well measured, untiring and should be much commended.
Good job sir!
Clearly you have no clue about the Constitution.
If states were not seen to a certain degree as sovereign, then in court cases the SCOTUS would simply say the state has no standing or say states have no sovereign rights, but they don't. They find ways around that, like with Obamacare, where they use the commerce clause.
"They're not. They're completely under the heel of the federal government."
Wow! Spoken like a true communist or fascist.
Under our Constitution, the states hold the most power and are most active in the public's lives from a governance standpoint. And ALL levels of government work for the people. You know, a government "for the people by the people".
You folks are pure and simple communists, fascists, lovers of totalitarian government.
This should BE on the front page of the regular news paper!! Even on billboards! Make people be accountable of there actions.
You clearly have no idea what sovereign means Ned.
The Supremacy Clause alone completely debunks any idea that the states are sovereign when it says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Only someone with a severe axe to grind (or dyslexia) could read that and say "yeah mean, the states are sovereign entities." They're not. They're completely under the heel of the federal government.
Bill - Madison admitted that there are some "implied" powers in the Constitution, which are not "expressly" written, but he also firmly held that states had sovereign rights. The Articles of Confederation were indeed replaced by the Constitution, but the Bill of Rights maintained many facets of the original Articles of Confederation.
Furthermore, proof that the Constitution maintains state sovereignty is the fact that the Constitution in Article I Section 10 lists very specifically the powers of the federal government. If states were not sovereign, then there would be no need to be so specific as to which rights the founders deemed exclusive to the federal government.
You have it completely wrong. The Constitution does NOT "strip" powers from the states. It gives power to, and limits the power of, the federal government. The Constitution was not written to limit the rights & powers of people & states, but to limit the power of the federal government.
The people in America hold the power and the government is to serve the people. This is why progressives hate the Constitution. They want an all powerful central government that limits & controls the rights of the people. It is that exact tyranny of a corrupt government that inspired the founding fathers to be so exacting of the limits granted and the checks & balances on federal power. It is why we have the right to bear arms.
This is why progressives fight so hard to radicalize the courts. The founding fathers intentionally made it hard to amend the Constitution with the courts designed to interpret laws, not to make laws. The Constitution explicitly and exclusively grants the power to legislate to Congress. Progressives found it far easier over time to radicalized the courts via activists judges who have turned the courts into law makers thereby subverting the Constitution.
Happy to take up the 10th Amendment issue VaSteve. First, it's worth noting that the wording of Article II in the Articles of Confederation was deliberately rejected by the framers of the 10th Amendment. According to the Articles of Confederation, "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independance, and very power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by the Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." In marked and deliberate contrast, the 10th Amendment, both in Madison's original draft and as ratified by the states, leaves out the qualification "expressly." Hamilton argued, and Chief Justice Marshall accepted as early as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), that this omission confirmed the existence of implied Congressional powers. As for the meaning of sovereign states, it is worth stressing that there is no mention of sovereignty in the 10th Amendment -- again, a marked and deliberate contrast to the Articles. And how could the framers of the 10th Amendment possibly claim the states were sovereign, since Art. I Sec. 10 of the Constitution strips the states of the powers to enter into treaties, print or coin money, tax imports or exports, or maintain armies – all essential attributes of sovereignty. I suggest that you give Madison's Vices of the Political System of the United States a careful read and then ask yourself whether your assumption that the farmers of the Constitution of the United States intended to preserve state sovereignty makes sense. State sovereignty existed under the Articles. The Constitution replaces the Articles, and in the process severely constrains if not eliminates state sovereignty. If the framers cherished state sovereignty above all else, they would have left the Articles in place.
Maybe that Constitutional lawyer could tell us what the 10th amendment meant. Not what the courts of late say it means, what it meant when written. And what exactly does sovereign states mean?
They already have, comrade, the media and Dems in Congress have been bailing on Barry hard this week.
"people are waking up to this insanity."
Waking up, of course, meaning posting barely coherent, broken-record rants to alt-weekly websites. Keep sticking it to the man, Ned! Just a few more tirades from the 101st Keyboardist Cavalry and the LIEberal Alinsky MSM mainstream media will be destroyed once and for all!
teddy - Reminds me of the city that recently elected a Republican mayor for the first time in decades and the Dem controlled city council tried to rewrite the city's bylaws taking all the power from the mayor and giving it to the city council. Or that ass wipe Harry Reid trying to rewrite the long standing filibuster rules of the Senate because the Pubs are filibustering the efforts to put extremists on the courts. Reid says the Pubs are holding up the courts. Oh the irony since one of those empty seats has been open since Bush was in office. Bush tried to fill the seat but was blocked by, wait for it, a Dem led filibuster.
You can't make this stuff up. The Dems are the biggest cheating, most corrupt bunch of liars in politics and when they lose despite all their cheating they try and rewrite the rules. What a bunch of crybaby sore losers. And despite the best efforts of the sell out liberal media people are waking up to this insanity.
"Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats have led the way on Nullification of Federal Marijuana Law starting in California in 1996?"
Great post, if it were true. Unfortunately, there has not been and will not be any nullification of federal drug laws. The feds can still arrest people for using and selling MJ, despite it being legal by state law. And this does happen, even in California. Proponents of legalized marijuana usage are not pushing for federal laws to be nullified. They are pushing to change federal law. Let's also not forget that many Libertarians are pro legalization of MJ. It isn't just a progressive democratic thing.
Personally, I have nothing against nullification of federal laws and mandates, if it is found that the majority of citizens disagree with them. I don't think it should be up to our state politicians to decide what is best for all of us.
Sally Hemmings' lucid examples of Democrats' recent nullification exhibit blatant hypocrisy of those same Democrats wailing against the right's current attempt. Well done, Sally.
The right two sections of the building look OK, but I don't understand why the communist apartment block nude concrete brutalist section is designed to look like it is falling off or down. Admittedly the rest of the building appears to want to shed it and I would prefer it weren't there at all, but the building lacks balance and symetry and would with basic attention to that be fine. I understand they want it to get attention, but this just provokes anxiety.
Bullying in school is believed to be a normal part of school life; however, when people begin to have this mentality, they forget that bullying is physically and psychologically harmful to both the bully and the victim. Therefore, bullying must be eradicated from schools by raising awareness and increasing supervision. We must make a move that will lead the extinction of bullying in the world. Parents should also take part on this situation. We must take a stand in protecting our children and students in this kind of treatment to them. Always keep our children life"Safe and Secure".http://safekidzone.com/#!/page_home
The usual one sided argument. Odd that with all that was written there was no expansion of the fact that the very reason that South Carolina seceded was because the North was "Nullifying" the Federal Fugitive Slave Act. A cursory internet search on an apolitical site will reflect this...simply search "South Carolina Declaration of Secession. I'll make it easy here is a link>>>
As for the rest of the arguments:
2) Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats were Nullifying the Federal Defense of Marriage Act by legalizing gay marriage prior to the US Supreme Court ruling in 2013?
3) Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats have led the way on Nullification of Federal Marijuana Law starting in California in 1996?
4) Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats ignored a US Supreme Court Decision in Gonzales vs. Raich over the legalization of Medical Marijuana that has led to 21 states legalizing it along with 2 states for recreational purposes?
5) Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats have Nullified Federal Immigration Law through "Sanctuary Cities"?
6) Did the author mention that Progressive Democrats have led the way on Nullification of The Real ID Act passed in 2005, effectively stopping it in it's tracks? This was also worked on by conservatives too.
7) Did the author mention that BOTH Progressive Democrats and Conservatives came together in California recently to Nullify the Indefinite Detention language in the NDAA of 2012?
Liberals are stupid. Period. Progressives are Communists in the closet that are doing everything they can to undermine America, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. They won't be happy until America collapses so the government can overthrow democracy and replace it with some form of authoritarian rule.
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper