Will Obama retaliate against the State of Texas?

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Genx87]

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

 

[Phokus]

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

 

[MovingTarget]

Heh, lotta help Texas was the last time a few of us decided to fight against Washington. :roll:

Oh, and nice unrelated jab at unions ya got there...

 

[Dari]

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

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Oh, and nice unrelated jab at unions ya got there...

Not jabbing at unions. Just pointing out that their fate concerning employment could be determined in part by they way the majority of the state voted in the last presidential elections.

I am curious to see how this fight will sort itself out.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The Gov didn't seem to be complaining over the last 8 years as Texas became the largest recipient of Federal education funding ...

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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:

 

[heyheybooboo]

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.

You will lose.

If you don't want the mandate you may feel free to not accept the money.

 

[SP33Demon]

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.

Yep, I agree with it as well.

Link

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.

Obama can retaliate all he wants but I doubt he'll do that over something so constitutionally clear cut, and in addition just because they're a "red state".

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

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.

You will lose.

If you don't want the mandate you may feel free to not accept the money.

So you support blackmail?

I'm going to take what belongs to you, and you'll get it back when you do as I tell you?

If you believe that then there is no limit to federal power and the Constitution might as well be toilet paper.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

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.

You will lose.

If you don't want the mandate you may feel free to not accept the money.

Federal blackmail of the States is f'n unconstitutional. Period.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

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.

You will lose.

If you don't want the mandate you may feel free to not accept the money.

Federal blackmail of the States is f'n unconstitutional. Period.

I can agree on this. The drug laws, drinking ages, driving speed limits, and other measures were all introduced on the state level via blackmail of federal funding.

 

[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.

 

[trenchfoot]

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.

Although I'd like to agree with you as I've seen time and again how this issue can tie the hands of a State whereby certain conditions unique to that State may conflict with Fed Regs, I've also seen it where States are sharing common borders, natural resources ie - lakes, rivers, air quality, etc. yet are poles apart on other issues ie - political ideologies that create conflicting POV's on how their shared natural resources are utilized or affected, where the Fed's have to enjoin or adjudicate the issue, using Fed Reg's as the standard.

No Child Left Behind is one other contentious issue of the many others whereby Fed Reg's have to exist to enforce equal compliance across the board.

Yet, I've also seen it where certain States will turn a blind eye to Fed Reg's, especially in the area of Clean Air and Water Acts if it suits their needs.

Needless to say, I'm just addressing a shallower view of this topic, as I'm sure a host of deeper issues come into play here.

 

[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.

 

[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...

 

[bamacre]

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:

:laugh:

But you probably have this insane idea that the DNC are the true defenders of the constitution.

:laugh:

 

[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...

 

[heyheybooboo]

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...

Save your self-serving pablum & BS for the sheep.

In case you missed it, we live in a representative democracy.

It is you who shat and missed.

And never question my patriotism, Asshole.