Will Obama retaliate against the State of Texas?

[Robor]

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.

Uh, huh. And the response is proportional to today, right? Not.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

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.

They did. And I thought you "liberals" would be all for Republicans finally recognizing the errors of their ways and start defending our constitution...

Sure they did. Show me the (R) governors that were attention-whoring like this against GWB.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

Too bad you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. From US v. American Library Association, the US government has 'wide latitude' to attach conditions to federal funding, as grounded in South Dakota v. Dole.

Unlike you, when I swore to defend the Constitution I took a minute to figure out what that actually meant.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Originally posted by: Dari
I think this is a fight Obama can safely ignore. Perry pumping his chest to get the attention he craves.

Yep,

Speaking as a former Texan, Perry is probably the worst thing to happen to Texas government in a long time. Even in Texas he is losing his popularity and is very likely to be strongly challenged for the republican gubernatorial candidacy in the next election.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
It is you who shat and missed.

What do you mean by that?

And never question my patriotism, Asshole.

I do question your patriotism due to your willingness to shit on the Constitution and rulings on the subject passed down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

If you're not willing to fight for the rights laid out clearly in the U.S. Constitution, then, as far as I'm concerned, you're not an American. Period.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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.

Texas can outlaw Federal law, and then it'll be the Fed's choice whether to pick a fight or not.

States do not need your permission to oppose tyranny. The only question you face is whose side you're on.

I misunderstood the intentions of this. I was thinking secession when it is clear they are only going to tell the feds to shove their mandates up their ass. I agree with you on that side.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

Too bad you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. From US v. American Library Association, the US government has 'wide latitude' to attach conditions to federal funding, as grounded in South Dakota v. Dole.

Unlike you, when I swore to defend the Constitution I took a minute to figure out what that actually meant.

The Supreme Court seems to have taken a case by case point on this. They tossed out the feds requirement to have background checks for gun owners in the brady bill. Though every state voluntarily still does it. The court rules the feds couldnt force them to.

And I dont know if this has been challeged but there are sanctuary cities across the country where cities and states wont enforce federal immigration law.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Unlike you, when I swore to defend the Constitution I took a minute to figure out what that actually meant.

You don't know your ass from your elbow.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: CrackRabbit

Originally posted by: Dari
I think this is a fight Obama can safely ignore. Perry pumping his chest to get the attention he craves.

Yep,

Speaking as a former Texan, Perry is probably the worst thing to happen to Texas government in a long time. Even in Texas he is losing his popularity and is very likely to be strongly challenged for the republican gubernatorial candidacy in the next election.

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.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

So you agree wiping shit up is the correct use of the Constitution, because then there is no limit to federal power. Why not disband states altogether?

 

[JSt0rm]

as long as they take a % of the debt with them then cool. ohh and they would have to buy all the federal land in their state, purchase all of the military weaponry and vehicles used by the state guard and purchase all federal buildings in the state. Are they prepared to do all that? or do they just want it all given to them as a handout?

 

[Andrew1990]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
as long as they take a % of the debt with them then cool. ohh and they would have to buy all the federal land in their state, purchase all of the military weaponry and vehicles used by the state guard and purchase all federal buildings in the state. Are they prepared to do all that? or do they just want it all given to them as a handout?

I believe that the citizens of that state pay taxes to buy and build all of that stuff. If their taxes dont cover all of it, I wouldn't mind my some of my taxes going to their cause.

Maybe it will pave the way for all states to show the federal Government who really has the power.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

Wasn't this done with money for roads/bridges in trade for things like seat belt laws, minimum drinking age, etc?

 

[piasabird]

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

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

What then, is the point of the 10th Amendment.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

What then, is the point of the 10th Amendment.

The State doesn't have to accept the federal funds.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

Wasn't this done with money for roads/bridges in trade for things like seat belt laws, minimum drinking age, etc?

Yup.

There would be a problem if they attached strings that were completely unrelated and irrational to the funds.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

Wasn't this done with money for roads/bridges in trade for things like seat belt laws, minimum drinking age, etc?

Yup.

There would be a problem if they attached strings that were completely unrelated and irrational to the funds.

South Dakota v. Dole

I don't see why a rural state like South Dakota should have to have the same drinking age restrictions as a state like California or New York? Seems pretty "irrational" to me?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

What then, is the point of the 10th Amendment.

The State doesn't have to accept the federal funds.

Then the state and it's citizens should have the option to not pay into the federal funds. As I said, if funding can be tied to anything, then there is no limit to federal power and we're fucked, because the feds do not have our interests in mind.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

It's well known in constitutional law that the federal government can 'attach strings' to federal money to some extent.

Wasn't this done with money for roads/bridges in trade for things like seat belt laws, minimum drinking age, etc?

Yup.

There would be a problem if they attached strings that were completely unrelated and irrational to the funds.

South Dakota v. Dole

I don't see why a rural state like South Dakota should have to have the same drinking age restrictions as a state like California or New York? Seems pretty "irrational" to me?

It's supposedly related to the purpose of the funds.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Then the state and it's citizens should have the option to not pay into the federal funds. As I said, if funding can be tied to anything, then there is no limit to federal power and we're fucked, because the feds do not have our interests in mind.

Yeah, that's called not being part of the country.

And the federal power is not unlimited as far as attaching strings to federal money.

The state doesn't have my interested in mind either.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
You guys are a joke.

Federal strings have been attached to money since the country was founded.

If you don't like the requirements don't take the money - simple as that.

Jumping up and down screaming 'blackmail' and 'state's rights' is ludicrous.

Go get a clue.

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...

Too bad you don't seem to have any idea what you're talking about. From US v. American Library Association, the US government has 'wide latitude' to attach conditions to federal funding, as grounded in South Dakota v. Dole.

Unlike you, when I swore to defend the Constitution I took a minute to figure out what that actually meant.

The Supreme Court seems to have taken a case by case point on this. They tossed out the feds requirement to have background checks for gun owners in the brady bill. Though every state voluntarily still does it. The court rules the feds couldnt force them to.

And I dont know if this has been challeged but there are sanctuary cities across the country where cities and states wont enforce federal immigration law.

The federal government doesn't have unlimited ability to attach strings to federal funding, but they do have a pretty large amount of leeway on the issue. 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.

 

[rudder]

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.

That wouldn't be fair. .... unless the IRS said they would not accept any tax revenues from Texas residents.

 

[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:

Originally posted by: waggy

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.

He just abandoned all control over his wealthy Wall Street robber baron contributors, setting up the failures in the financial sector that made such drastic actions necessary. :roll: