-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
United Airlines kerfuffle
- Thread starter mikeyb
- Start date
utbagpiper
Banned
+1
I actually wonder whether any State that did not ratify the 17th amd can actually be forced to abide it.
Notice that Article 5, dealing with Amendments clearly limits amendments in the following regard:
Article 5 said:
No doubt, some will argue (and probably most all judges would rule these days) that the States still have 2 federal Senators, they are just elected by the residents of the State rather than appointed by the legislature. I would argue, that having 2 Senators elected from within the borders of my State is materially different than having them selected by the State as an entity.
Take an extreme case just as an idea to consider. If 48 States pass an amendment that said Virginia and New York will have their Senators elected by voters in DC and Puerto Rico, would we still claim that Virginia and New York have their equal suffrage in the Senate? Or would it be clear that DC and Puerto Rico now have Senators who must claim residency in Virginia and New York?
Turns out Virginia and New York, as entities distinct from the residents who live within their borders, do not have representation in the US Senate. Rather, the residents/voters living within the borders of those States have representation.
Of course, my argument is moot because the majority of voters these days fail to understand what they have lost in being "given" a popularly elected Senate. Like the proverbial monkey with his hand caught in a jar because he won't let go of the shiny trinket, voters would gain greater freedom by letting go of the popular vote for Senate, returning that power to their elected legislators.
If we could also dump the 16th and fund the federal government via apportionment among the States based on population, we'd get a much more fiscally conservative, and much less intrusive federal government. How many State legislators would retain spendthrift federal Senators if the State legislature had to raise the money to submit to congress to meet federal obligations?
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
Many folks ignore the fact that The Founders deemed the several states to be sovereign of, and not subordinate to, the federal government...especially those we have elected to represent us in the federal government.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
The Constitution is, first and foremost, a grant of power to the federal government. The Fathers consciously sacrificed STATE SOVEREIGNTY in the interest of National unity.. The Federal Constitution is the " law of the land".. Hence a" more perfect union" that would " promote the general welfare."
No where in the Constitution does it say, make the federal government as small as possible...
I, naturally am in favor of a smaller government, like most here also are, however, the Constitution said nothing about the size of our Federal Government..
My .02
Regards
CCJ
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Here's why..
Because the big smart boys are still pontificating on the Constitution and rights vested thereunder. Legal issues and discourse, do not cease simply because a few like your-self cannot see past the issue at bar.. Settlements leave much room for debate. I suggest you read and learn, opposed to wasting your time and air on a subject, that is past your thought process.. Thank you for letting us know that the case was settled, most of our caves are not yet equipped with 21st century technology.
WW, I still have that box with your monogram thereon..
CCJ
OC for ME
Regular Member
Wasting your time. As I have been.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
That is why I stopped wasting my time on him. Nothing he posts is worth a reply, sometimes ignoring someone who's only purpose is to stir up scat is the best response.
JamesCanby
Activist Member
+1s to you all... but it's time to close this unproductive thread.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
" New opinions are always suspected and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common".. Locke
A message to my new found fan club, Nightmare, WW, JamesCanby, OC for ME.
" It is folly to argue against determined hardness, eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the year of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice". Paine
Bogart and Bergman had Paris, Us five have the 2nd amendment..
Regards
CCJ
A message to my new found fan club, Nightmare, WW, JamesCanby, OC for ME.
" It is folly to argue against determined hardness, eloquence may strike the ear, and the language of sorrow draw forth the year of compassion, but nothing can reach the heart that is steeled with prejudice". Paine
Bogart and Bergman had Paris, Us five have the 2nd amendment..
Regards
CCJ
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Old word-salad, you do indeed say the nicest things.. You must be getting soft in old age..
CCJ
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Again. taking your ball and going home.. SAD
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
UA is probably in violation of Federal occupancy laws, probably all airlines actually are.. Think, one bathroom for over say 100/150 people.. Ill do some research and case law on Federal Occupancy laws..
Interesting case.
Regards
CCJ
Interesting case.
Regards
CCJ
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Please explain how the 17th Amendment violates individual rights..
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and each Senator shall have one vote.. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures..
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; Provided,That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This Amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution..
Regards
CCJ
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Not a big reader of the Constition, I guess. Perhaps you've heard of the Tenth Amendment? It goes like this -
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
If that's not a limitation on the size and power of the United States I don't know what is.
If I tell my bank they have the authority to invest my money in stocks and bonds, that doesn't give them the authority to contribute that money to political causes, medical research or party for executives with hookers and blow.
The Federal Government's power (as stated in the Constitution and later perverted by that same Federal Government) grants Only certain Limited and Enumerated powers.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
It's not a violation of individual rights, it's a violation of States Rights and an usurpation of rights that previously belonged to the states.
Industry has representatives in Congress in the way of lobbyists
Foreign countries have representation in Congress by way of Ambassadors and Embassies
The People have representation in Congress by way of Representatives... and since 1992 by way of Senators. (Which begs the question as to why the People need to have two separate systems for representation in Congress, but I digress.)
Now... who represents the State's interests in Congress?
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
It's not a violation of individual rights, it's a violation of States Rights and an usurpation of rights that previously belonged to the states.
Industry has representatives in Congress in the way of lobbyists
Foreign countries have representation in Congress by way of Ambassadors and Embassies
The People have representation in Congress by way of Representatives... and since 1992 by way of Senators. (Which begs the question as to why the People need to have two separate systems for representation in Congress, but I digress.)
Now... who represents the State's interests in Congress?
Ok, so you don't feel the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
CCJ
since9
Campaign Veteran
No, CCJ, they most certainly DID NOT.
What they did was cede a very limited amount of power and authority to the feds while retain the vast majority of the powers and authority to the states and the people, respectively, a fact they hammered home in the 9th and 10th amendments. I suggest you read them. Get yerself some edumuhkashun.
That Constitution and its Amendments is what reserves most powers to the states.
Ninth and tenth Amendments, bub. Read 'em.
Dude... What the heck have you been reading all these years? It says LOADS about limited federal government.[/quote]
Apparently ain't worth squat if you can't read and follow our founding documents with half a brain.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Gosh, gee willikers, Joe, I can't help but notice how you seem to be trying to dodge the question I asked.
So, I'll ask it again, "Who represents the State's interests in Congress?"
Answer mine and I'll be happy to entertain an answer to your question. Ignore mine and I'll feel no guilt in ignoring yours in return.
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
Apparently ain't worth squat if you can't read and follow our founding documents with half a brain.[/QUOTE]
Where in the document, does it say, the federal government must be small?
I see no mention of size either small or large in the text.
since9
Campaign Veteran
In most sections and clauses, as well as in "the 9th and 10th amendments. I suggest you read them. Get yerself some edumuhkashun."
I'm not kidding, CCJ: It's ALL OVER the place.
Now you're just intentionally being dense. Either that, of you're refusing to go back and read it. Here... Let me give you a leg up:
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
Or do we have here a situation where we can lead a person to the Constitution but we can't make them read it? I'm increasingly inclined to believe the latter, and if that's the case, I'll just add you to my ignore list, as that sort of behavior isn't worth anyone's time.
What'll it be? Are you going to read it?