Will Obama retaliate against the State of Texas?

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse

It [HCR50] also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

I wholeheartedly agree with that portion of the Texas bill. The Federal Government should never be allowed to blackmail State governments to circumvent the 10th amendment.

I've made the same point for decades, but show me the right-wing poster who said this under Bush. Partisan selectivity on the principle is not principled.

(Fern) Raises his hand ^

Look up my post on states' right, particularly with regards to threads on pot legalization (and others).

I've often posted about the original Constitutional design that states are 'laboratories' where experimentation occurs for the benefit of all (adopt it if it works, shun it if doesn't).

But I don't consider myself right-wing (what's the definition of that anyway) so much as conservative. However I don't recall any so-called 'right-wing' (or conservative) poster here advocating anything other than states' rights.

BTW: I do not recall you, or any other 'lefty' poster, advocating states' rights and less fed power.

Fern

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

My guess is most of them voted for and supported Bush and couldn't say anything then, but now that a liberal is in office it's time to start bleating about small government again.

:roll:

Kind of like the liberals who were against everything Bush did but cheer the same actions from Obama? The hypocrisy and partisan bullshit around here is sickening.

Take your eye-rolling elsewhere you tool, I never said it didn't go the other way too.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea expressed by palehorse, that the act of the federal government attaching strings to funding violates the 10th amendment, is simply wrong and unsupportable.

I'll refer you back to this:

Justice O?Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act ?forced participation of the State?s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,? it was unconstitutional.

What you quoted directly supports Eskimospy's single sentence. TBH I have not read his full post, but the one sentence you quoted of his is supported by your blurb. The blurb says congress can encourage the states by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds. Also commerce power allows them to pre-empt state laws, i.e. EPA mandated efforts come to mind in this case.

The brady handgun violence prevention act was unconstitutional because it simply required states to comply with it, it wasn't legistation built around the commerce law or any kind of conditional funding.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fuck you Texas. I agree with the statement of bloated and invasive government, but you're a state run by selfish cocks who don't give two shits about freedoms, all you care about is the fact that it's a "lefty" government screwing you over the edge of a table in contrast to the past 8 years. Partisan hacks to the max, power level to 9000, ACTIVATE BLUBBERING CONSERVATIVE VAGINA MODE.

Dont you have to be 13+ to register?

What, you don't like the truth? Texas is run by RETARDED ASSHOLES who are mad because the opposing retard-team is screwing them over instead of THEIR retard-team. If they didn't secede from the nation in the past 8 years, they don't get to, now. They've earned their place in this wild ride we're on by being RETARDED. Cry me a river, partisan hack, and I'll laugh in your face.

I applaud your flawless logic.

:roll:

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

actually many were complaining about it.

BUT what how much bush did it and what Obama is are diffrent. Obama is far worse. Bush never took control of any business's.

Yes he did. He took over AIG and nationalized Fannie and Freedie.

That is oversimplifing it. AIG he pretty much gave a gift to. Also Fannie and Freddie were connected at the hip with the government already. And Dodd and Fwrank and the congressional black caucas were thier benefactors in that government.
Bush did get the ball rolling tho.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: lupi
I'd like to see this taken to the courts so we can have clear lines drawn on who doesn't support the consitution.

lupi probably has this insane idea that the GOP are the true defenders of the constitution :laugh:

No Conservatives are. The GOP is reeling from getting away from its conservative roots. They are lost with out a map. It's dark, cold and their batteries are dead. Hell they don't even know where their flashlight is anymore.

That's why I didn't vote for McCain.

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: palehorse
It's nice to know that you're so willing to take a nice steaming pile of shit directly on the U.S. Constitution and the rulings issued by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Unlike you, I've sworn to defend the Constitution against all enemies...

Amazing! So you have been fighting the Bush regime for 8 years with a rifle in your hand? Because you can't disagree that the Bush administration took the biggest, largest, steamiest pile of shit on the US constitution since it was written?

Oh, BTW, the Supreme Court totally supported the right of the Federal Government to attach strings to Federal funding. I know you've been in the jungle fighting the Bush regime all these years, but at least you have Internet connection, you can look it up.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: rudder
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas? Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

?I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,? Gov. Perry said

With Obama now running the auto industry he even has the pro-democrat union workers fearing he could retaliate in Tennessee for being a red state.

Union worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

UAW Local 1853 worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

Do you think other governers will re-assert sovereignty rights or will Obama rescind stimulus money or federal highway funds to shut down this movement?

hahahahahahaa

Where the fuck have you been kid? These things have been happening for a long time in a lot of states - since the GWB days.

They are empty, meaningless proclamations. Why the hell would Obama retaliate?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Mani

Yep, Perry is an incompetent idiot. He may have lost the last election if there weren't 2 challengers splitting the non-republican vote, which is unbelievable considering how red this state is.

well, one of them was a republican who'd been elected to just about every office but governor

Originally posted by: piasabird
If Texas does not like Federal Intervention they can send back all of the federal funding for schools and highways and unemployment benefits.

considering we're a donor state, that's not a bad idea.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Genx87

There is nothing Texas can do unless they either fight for independence or have it granted to them fromthe other 49 states.

If the best Texas can produce is George W. Bush, we might be better off giving it to them and save the rest of us the money we'd otherwise squander on them. :laugh:

shrub is from connecticut.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh how i'd love to see the day the federal government carpet bombs texas (minus austin of course)

I hope you are joking, if not you are a dumbass.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: rudder

Topic Title: Will Obama retaliate against the State of Texas?

Maybe he'll grant them clemency if they promise to secede and keep Bush in a cage, there.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Mani

Yep, Perry is an incompetent idiot. He may have lost the last election if there weren't 2 challengers splitting the non-republican vote, which is unbelievable considering how red this state is.

well, one of them was a republican who'd been elected to just about every office but governor

shrub is from connecticut.

Strayhorn was a RINO. She was a democrat before she became a republican, and then bailed on the republican party to get a crack at the governorship. Pretty much the ultimate political opportunist.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Oceandevi

Originally posted by: Phokus
Oh how i'd love to see the day the federal government carpet bombs texas (minus austin of course)

I hope you are joking, if not you are a dumbass.

He's both.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: manowar821
Fuck you Texas. I agree with the statement of bloated and invasive government, but you're a state run by selfish cocks who don't give two shits about freedoms, all you care about is the fact that it's a "lefty" government screwing you over the edge of a table in contrast to the past 8 years. Partisan hacks to the max, power level to 9000, ACTIVATE BLUBBERING CONSERVATIVE VAGINA MODE.

Dont you have to be 13+ to register?

What, you don't like the truth? Texas is run by RETARDED ASSHOLES who are mad because the opposing retard-team is screwing them over instead of THEIR retard-team. If they didn't secede from the nation in the past 8 years, they don't get to, now. They've earned their place in this wild ride we're on by being RETARDED. Cry me a river, partisan hack, and I'll laugh in your face.

I applaud your flawless logic.

:roll:

How many times can he use the word retard?

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha

Originally posted by: rudder
Gov. Perry Backs Resolution Affirming Texas? Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment

?I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,? Gov. Perry said

With Obama now running the auto industry he even has the pro-democrat union workers fearing he could retaliate in Tennessee for being a red state.

Union worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

UAW Local 1853 worried about Spring Hill, Tennessee plant.

Do you think other governers will re-assert sovereignty rights or will Obama rescind stimulus money or federal highway funds to shut down this movement?

Why would Mr Obama bother? He has bigger fish to fry in trying to keep the country from falling into a depression. If I were the Texas governor, I would be more concerned about what my constituents think about his turning down aid.

I think I understand the psychology behind this thread now. I have seen a number of people on Fox state that anyone who disagrees with Mr Obama is in danger of being attacked. Also I saw signs being held up in the "Tea bag" demostrations that Mr Obama is a fascist.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea expressed by palehorse, that the act of the federal government attaching strings to funding violates the 10th amendment, is simply wrong and unsupportable.

I'll refer you back to this:

Justice O?Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act ?forced participation of the State?s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,? it was unconstitutional.

What you quoted directly supports Eskimospy's single sentence. TBH I have not read his full post, but the one sentence you quoted of his is supported by your blurb. The blurb says congress can encourage the states by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

Actually, no, it doesn't. The key word is "encourage." Their rulings meant that Congress is allowed to encourage the adoption of certain things, but Congress cannot force the States to do those things in exchange for the funds.

Also commerce power allows them to pre-empt state laws, i.e. EPA mandated efforts come to mind in this case.

See above.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The idea expressed by palehorse, that the act of the federal government attaching strings to funding violates the 10th amendment, is simply wrong and unsupportable.

I'll refer you back to this:

Justice O?Connor wrote that the federal government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power (i.e., by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds, see South Dakota v. Dole), or through the commerce power (by directly pre-empting state law). However, Congress cannot directly compel states to enforce federal regulations. In 1997, the Court again ruled that a federal act Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, violated the Tenth Amendment (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)). The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the law violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act ?forced participation of the State?s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,? it was unconstitutional.

What you quoted directly supports Eskimospy's single sentence. TBH I have not read his full post, but the one sentence you quoted of his is supported by your blurb. The blurb says congress can encourage the states by attaching conditions to the receipt of federal funds.

Actually, no, it doesn't. The key word is "encourage." Their rulings meant that Congress is allowed to encourage the adoption of certain things, but Congress cannot force the States to do those things in exchange for the funds.

Also commerce power allows them to pre-empt state laws, i.e. EPA mandated efforts come to mind in this case.

See above.

It directly says it can attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds. I'm not sure how it gets any clearer than that. Also digging into it south dakota vs. Dole ruled that they could stipulate the alcohol requirement as a condition for the highway funding. O'Connor was a dissenting voice there, I'm not sure if you are implying the dissenting opinion is the letter of the law?

*edit* Just to help you out

10th admendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3

The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Robor
I love how the 'small government' people had nothing to say when GWB was expanding the size of government. Dick's been in office since 2000 so he is a hypocrite.

actually many were complaining about it.

BUT what how much bush did it and what Obama is are diffrent. Obama is far worse. Bush never took control of any business's.

Yes he did. He took over AIG and nationalized Fannie and Freedie.

He also gave TARP money to GM and Chrysler after the auto bailout bill failed in Congress.