Why is this thread still sucking air? United has already settled with Dr Dao.
the O2 masks dropped ...
ipse
Why is this thread still sucking air? United has already settled with Dr Dao.
...
But, this concept is foreign to those who believe in a unwritten constitution.
Like the 16A, the 17A is how power was taken from the people and the states.
Article 5 said:...Amendments ... shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution....Provided ... that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
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....
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
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.
Here's why..Why is this thread still sucking air? United has already settled with Dr Dao.
Wasting your time. As I have been.The Constitution of the United States was first and foremost a restriction on the powers of the government that it established.
Wasting your time. As I have been.
Wasting your time. As I have been.
Yes, I know. Country Club Liberal Joe is invincibly ignorant, to put it as nicely as possible.
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.
Yes, I know. Country Club Liberal Joe is invincibly ignorant, to put it as nicely as possible.
It seems that the moderator gives preference to requests by the original poster for his thread to be closed. He has been agreeable to my requests for closure.
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.
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..
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.Please explain how the 17th Amendment violates individual rights.
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?
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...
Gosh, gee willikers, Joe, I can't help but notice how you seem to be trying to dodge the question I asked.Ok, so you don't feel the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land?
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.
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.