How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Life, the universe, and everything.
Forum rules
- No personal attacks against players or staff members - please be civil!
- No posting of mature images/links, keep content SFW. If it's NSFW, don't post it on these forums.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:19 pm

Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Corth » Thu Sep 02, 2010 9:39 pm

This article illustrates one of the underhanded ways that the Federal government asserts itself against states and municipalities. Withholding vast amounts of Federal money that ordinarily rain down from the heavens. It allows them to intervene in places that do not usually fall within Federal power.

The best example is the 21 year old drinking age. It used to be 18 in almost every state until the Federal government decided it wanted to change things up. Never mind that this is clearly something that the Federal government has no authority over under the Constitution. It didn't stop them. They forced each individual state to pass a law making the drinking age 21 - threatening to withhold billions of dollars in Federal highway funds if they refused to. So you tax us a up to 39% of income, and then you refuse to give it back to us unless we comply with your further demands. Very nice...

Somehow Justice O'Connor, in one of the worst Supreme Court decisions since Roe v. Wade, found this type of thuggery Constitutional. What it means is the US government can do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what the Constitution says. It could raise the income tax rate to 60% for instance and then give it all back to us in the form of services (school funds, road funds, police, etc), so that local taxes go way down. But if you fuck with them and refuse to do what they want - recognizing gay marriage for instance, then you get none of those funds back at all and have to finance your own schools, roads, police, etc - on top of the 60% rate you are already paying. It would be an impossible situation, and the Constitutional restraint on the Federal government vis a vis the states would be meaningless.

So yes, it is completely unfair to the taxpayers of Maricopa county for the US government to withhold funds because it doesn't like what their Sheriff is doing. There are ways to get Sheriff Joe to cooperate without punishing the entire county. Just a lot of heavy handed bullshit really...
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:01 pm

"What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the.. or the title to your business or property, if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists!"

- Ronald Regan
A Time for Choosing
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Sarvis » Fri Sep 03, 2010 6:20 pm

teflor the ranger wrote:"What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the.. or the title to your business or property, if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists!"

- Ronald Regan
A Time for Choosing


Government always holds the power of life and death AND property rights. You have a right to property only because of the government. Otherwise any thug could just come in and remove you.

The only right you have that isn't granted by the government is the right to defend yourself physically. Everything else you would need to fight for.

In fact, we DID fight for the rights we have now.
kiryan
Sojourner
Posts: 7275
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
Contact:

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby kiryan » Fri Sep 03, 2010 10:34 pm

I think the foundation of our nation was based on being free. Not to replace an English king with an American one...

Corth's point is so scary that it should make EVERY single American's blood curdle liberal and conservative alike. There is no check on Federal government's reach and power if they can hold your own money hostage.

What if feds made a law requiring states to round up and deport illegals or they'd lose billions in education/medicare/transportation dollars? You have no problem with them having and using this power huh?
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Sep 07, 2010 1:18 pm

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:"What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the.. or the title to your business or property, if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists!"

- Ronald Regan
A Time for Choosing

Otherwise any thug could just come in and remove you.

You mean our government?
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:01 pm

kiryan wrote: There is no check on Federal government's reach and power if they can hold your own money hostage.



It's called voting.

It's "No taxation without representation." Not "No Taxation."
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:13 pm

By that argument we should allow the Federal Government to unconstitutionally limit free speech because we retain the ability to vote them out (for now). Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean that the goernment should be allowed to violate law at will.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 07, 2010 5:55 pm

Corth wrote:By that argument we should allow the Federal Government to unconstitutionally limit free speech because we retain the ability to vote them out (for now). Just because it's a democracy doesn't mean that the goernment should be allowed to violate law at will.


You can't control people Corth. The best you COULD do is vote them out. That is our only power over the government other than an armed revolt.
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Corth » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:01 pm

Hrmm. Not exactly. You can enforce the constitution against the legislative and executive branches of government through the independent court system.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Sarvis » Tue Sep 07, 2010 9:34 pm

Corth wrote:Hrmm. Not exactly. You can enforce the constitution against the legislative and executive branches of government through the independent court system.



Voting them out is probably faster and more reliable. :P

Besides, how independent is a court filled with judges granted their position by the President? And do you think the GOP or Democratic Party don't all weigh in on the nominees?

Really, I'm not sure the whole Supreme Court Justice selection part was very well thought out...
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby Corth » Wed Sep 08, 2010 1:04 am

There are plenty of examples of Judges not doing what the person who nominated them might have expected or wanted.

Justice William Brennan was nominated by Eisenhower. Justice John Paul Stevens was nominated by Ford. Justice David Souter was nominated by Bush I. These are probably the three most liberal Supreme Court judges of the past 50 years, and yet each one was nominated by a Republican. Oops.

At least in the Federal system, once a judge is confirmed in the Senate he is there for life unless he provides a suitable cause for impeachment, which is exceedingly rare. This completely insulates Federal judges from politcal pressure from the legislative and executive branch.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Re: How Obama Adm. Deals With Americans Trying to Solve Problems

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:37 pm

That's what the Republicans get for nominating independent judges rather than conservative ones.

It's a mistake I doubt they'll continue to make, seeing as how the left looks for ideologically compatible judges.

Return to “T2 General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest