Wyoming challenges 10th Amendment

[dead0man]

link

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Great news.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Good. Nullification is something more states need to be using more often.

[Free Palestine]

Nullification, you say?



Seriously though, more power to them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.

So are you are "no fan" of decentralization?

[Mint]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification.

Seems totally contradictory.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.

Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.

Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before.

Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we?

Suddenly Obama criticizing a ruling written by Anthony Kennedy and insulting the Supreme Court to their faces doesn't seem very bright, does it?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

[Marokai Backbeat]

A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.

Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before.

Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we?

No, I fear this pursuit of a teenage libertarian's dream would lead to a disaster of a society and further fear no one actually cares about how society works or making it work well, preferring their federalist fantasies.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Seeing as how he was actually not present at the Creation, and the Louisiana Purchase doesn't really gel with those "principles."

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Seeing as how he was actually not present at the Creation, and the Louisiana Purchase doesn't really gel with those "principles."

The Creation? We're not talking about the Bible here.

[Free Palestine]

A new era of states rights, free from the racist bigotry of the Segregationist and originating out West and not in the South. I think this is a great development.

Yeah, federalism has never ever been a bad thing before.

Fearing a new interpretation of the commerce clause that actually upholds the founders intant might cause a lot of federal programs to be rendered unconstitutional are we?

No, I fear this pursuit of a teenage libertarian's dream would lead to a disaster of a society and further fear no one actually cares about how society works or making it work well, preferring their federalist fantasies.

How exactly would it be a disaster if gun laws and other things were left to the states, so that the people of those states can have laws that suit their ideals, and not those of people from other states?  The only disaster I see in a weakened federal government, is for the demagogues who want their views imposed on the whole of the American people.

And it seems like everyone labels an ideology they don't like as "teenage."  As if everyone will adhere to their ideology when they grow up and "realize" how the world works, as if entering the "real world" would make everyone embrace big government.  What people don't seem to realize is that there are a lot of older libertarians, anarchists, socialists, and others - people who adhere to ideologies that are labeled as "teenage rebellion."

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.

So are you are "no fan" of decentralization?

     On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale.

[Free Palestine]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.

So are you are "no fan" of decentralization?

     On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale.

Well then, it's possible to work at the state level to further devolve power.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     While I am no fan of federalism, I applaud any & all attempts at nullification. It would be good to see the folks in D.C. sweat.

So are you are "no fan" of decentralization?

     On the contrary, decentralization is great. However, I think those powers should devolve to the people, without exception. States are just the same collectivist entities as the federal government, only on a smaller scale.

Well then, it's possible to work at the state level to further devolve power.

     I'm open to doing what it takes to devolve it. If doing it on the state level happens to be more efficient on a particular issue, consider me a supporter of doing it on the state level.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

[Free Palestine]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

I do not believe the Constitution is a "sacred document" above amendment.  The Constitution has a method by which it can, and should, be amended.  The problem is that it isn't, because whoever is in power knows it would be far easier to pull a justification out of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, than it would be to pass an amendment.  For example, do you think that a Constitutional amendment to provide for public health care would pass with a two-thirds majority in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states?  Certainly not.  So instead, Congress passes a bill and says with a sneer, "Oh, Commerce Clause."

[SvenssonRS]

This is why I love Wyo.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

I do not believe the Constitution is a "sacred document" above amendment.  The Constitution has a method by which it can, and should, be amended.  The problem is that it isn't, because whoever is in power knows it would be far easier to pull a justification out of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, than it would be to pass an amendment.  For example, do you think that a Constitutional amendment to provide for public health care would pass with a two-thirds majority in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states?  Certainly not.  So instead, Congress passes a bill and says with a sneer, "Oh, Commerce Clause."

I am actually pretty ignorant of the constitution, but I understand the economic views of the founding fathers.

[k-onmmunist]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

Lol.

[Free Palestine]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

I do not believe the Constitution is a "sacred document" above amendment.  The Constitution has a method by which it can, and should, be amended.  The problem is that it isn't, because whoever is in power knows it would be far easier to pull a justification out of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, than it would be to pass an amendment.  For example, do you think that a Constitutional amendment to provide for public health care would pass with a two-thirds majority in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states?  Certainly not.  So instead, Congress passes a bill and says with a sneer, "Oh, Commerce Clause."

I am actually pretty ignorant of the constitution, but I understand the economic views of the founding fathers.

You can find plenty of information here, as well as here.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

The idea of nullification is absurd, and contrary to the foundation of the United States.  I'd have a more eloquent response, but somebody already came up with the best possible response.

This guy knew much better what principles constituted the "foundation of the United States."

Thomas jefferson supported progressive taxation you know.


Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Thomas Jefferson (on reform of the Virginia Constitution)

I do not believe the Constitution is a "sacred document" above amendment.  The Constitution has a method by which it can, and should, be amended.  The problem is that it isn't, because whoever is in power knows it would be far easier to pull a justification out of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, than it would be to pass an amendment.  For example, do you think that a Constitutional amendment to provide for public health care would pass with a two-thirds majority in both houses, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states?  Certainly not.  So instead, Congress passes a bill and says with a sneer, "Oh, Commerce Clause."

I am actually pretty ignorant of the constitution, but I understand the economic views of the founding fathers.

You can find plenty of information here, as well as here.

only the second link works, and I disagree with some of the things that the link says. For example they outright say that the income tax is unconstitutional. I disagree with this though because I think the income tax is constitutional because:
1)The Income tax was originally ruled unconstitutional in the 1890's, because it was considered a "direct tax". In reality though the income tax is now considered constitutional because it is a indirect tax, and does not rely on population.

2)Springer vs the united states ruled that income tax's are constitutional if they are indirect tax.


Thus the income tax has always remained constitutional unless it was ruled a direct tax. The sum of several supreme court rulings have shown that a direct tax on income was constitutional even before the 16th amendment. Thus how can the 16th Amendment be considered unconstitutional if it is backed by precedent where judges in these cases each used a strict interpretation?