Comments on: State Sovereignty: A Tale of Two Views

By: bmw120556

bmw120556 — Mon, 11 May 2009 18:52:38 +0000

This is not a Republican issue. The resolution introduced in Kentucky was sponsored by a Democrat and cosponsored by Dem & Rep's alike. Most of the states that have introduced resolution have Dem cosponsors. States are supporting resolutions because the federal governmet is bankrupting them and holding the states hostage with federal funds. This movement started before Obama was elected. And yes, Don Quijote, FEMA is unconstitutional as is federal school funding and the federal government collecting income taxes.

By: slippy01

slippy01 — Fri, 08 May 2009 17:48:23 +0000

Hey Ryan,

I used to not understand the obsession with the founders either but, I did some research and it turns out that a lot of the problems we are having right now were experienced similarly by the founders which is why they created the constitution. Everything from monetary policy to government issues. Here's a link for some excellent lectures on the subject: http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=424

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:57:38 +0000

Mom Blogs – Blogs for Moms…

…

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:26:17 +0000

All interesting discussion points. The issue at hand though, is that OK takes more tax dollars than it contributes. The rest of us, paying some of their bills, have every right to put conditions on our largess. If you give money with no strings, that's charity. Nice concept, but that's not at all what governance is about.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:57:00 +0000

I spent some time last night trying to follow various court rulings over the years on the commerce clause versus the 10th Amendment. (Got bogged down pretty quickly.)

My own view is that the commerce clause has been distorted and stretched beyond the original intent. It does seem as if the 10th Amendment has nearly disappeared. OTOH, I don't believe the Founders envisioned the complex society we have today. Some shifting was both inevitable and necessary.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:55:19 +0000

HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to “get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should “cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

No Problem...

Just don't call us next time a hurricane picks up half of the State and moves it into the other half of the State, after all there is nothing in the constitution about FEMA, or disaster relief...

By: CStanley

CStanley — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:37:16 +0000

Ryan, you can certainly read the writings like the Federalist papers (something which an increasingly worrisome number of adults seemed to have missed doing) to learn the many 'merits' that made the case for a federal government with limited powers over the states. No one is proposing that we should accept the concept based on 'dead guys liking it.'

I think when a lot of people talk about the 'founders' it's used as shorthand for all of the arguments that they made, but unfortunately we can no longer use that shorthand since so many people appear to be ignorant of what the arguments are.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 07 May 2009 15:29:44 +0000

I've never understood the obsession with the Founders. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in 18th-century America (with the minor caveat that it's probably one of the better options in its time) and while it may serve some purpose in determining the purpose of various Constitutional texts, if there's a good reason for states' rights it surely can be made on its own merits, and not because a bunch of dead guys liked it.