What Happens in California, Stays in California...

California wants new laws concerning gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana and what not, fine. We don't care what happens in California. That's California's business.

What happens in California, stays in California.

If Arizona wants stricter illegal immigration controls, then California protestors stay in California. Stay out of Arizona. Mind your own state business.

There is no simpler or purer definition of the intent of the Constitution than the Tenth Amendment.

Throw in the First and Second Amendments and we've got ourselves a good set of principles which to live by.

It works for Las Vegas. It can work for California.

[edit on 10-8-2010 by earl call]

reply to post by earl call


Sir, the clear problem with your thesis is that we can not have collectivized looting on a state by state basis.

For example:

Lets say communists in the state of CA agitate for state run healthcare.

In order for CA to have its own socialized healthcare program, it would have to drastically raise taxes and enact all manner of tyranny.

Thus, the productive citizens of CA would leave CA for NV or AZ. This would leave only illegal immigrants and bums left to pay for the program. Since neither of those groups pay state taxes, the state will implode much like the former Soviet Union.

Thus, in order to have nationalized healthcare, one must prevent people from having the option of moving out of state.

Hence, your argument in favor of the 10th amendment is ridiculous.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
[
Sir, the clear problem with your thesis is that we can not have collectivized looting on a state by state basis.

For example:

Lets say communists in the state of CA agitate for state run healthcare.

Well, then, if that is your argument, California can't have gay marriage and legalized marijuana. Because both issues are against federal laws.

If California wants gay marriage and legalized marijuana, then California must exert its Tenth Amendment state's right.

You got to make up your mind which you want. Cause you can't have both.

As for ObamaCare and the issue that the federal government can mandate citizens purchase health insurance of anything for that matter, that's probably going to end up in the Supreme Court. that's hardly a closed matter at this juncture.

Health care is a state's rights' issue, according to the Tenth Amendment.

reply to post by mnemeth1




You mean like, uh. MediCal?
Communists eh?
Do you know what decade it is?

The biggest problem I see here is the misconception that a single state is self sufficient.

Corporations are international...everywhere.

Government, these days, is a by product of those interactions...

Originally posted by MemoryShock
The biggest problem I see here is the misconception that a single state is self sufficient.

Before Schwarzenneger became governor, California was the fifth largest economy in the WORLD. Not the United States, but the WORLD.

Texas has all the economic and natural resources to suvive without the other forty nine states. Ask any Texan or anyone who does business in or with Texas.

Actually the problem with the op is the 10th Amendment.

Congress has the authority under Article I Section 8 to regulate and enforce immigration.

Meanwhile, states have the right to regulate what plant life is legal in their state.

The marriage issue is actually the fact that banning same sex unions is against equal protection under the law.

The 10th Amendment doesn't give states absolute power. It gives them a LOT of power, but not absolute power.

Arizona cannot change the federal immigration law, they can in fact however enforce it. The problem with Arizona's immigration law is that it is different than the federal law.



[edit on 8/10/2010 by whatukno]

The problem here OP is that you are only picking and choosing what parts of the US Constitution you like. Specifically you are picking the parts that give you expression, guns and state's rights.

You are forgetting things that trump state's rights and create a federalized republic. The United States are not 50 sovereign nations under a union like the way the European Union is set up, but instead are a union of 50 constituent states within a sovereign nation. This union is indivisible and so the powers granted to the federal government in your nation's constitution overrule individual states decisions. The Federalists won.

reply to post by earl call


Then Texas can secede and fight the Mexicans on their own. I could care less for their "screw-you" mentality towards the rest of the country.

Ditto on Arizona.

I'm reminded of the Russian scholar (I think) who predicted that the U.S would eventually split apart into 4 distinct regions. I think that's the best solution and it would certainly eliminate some of the useless political bickering.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Leave it up to a Brit to school an American on the Constitution.

It's true though. That's why the Feds are going after Arizona's law. Federal law trumps state law, as unfair as it may seem to some. This applies to marijuana and gay rights as well.

Originally posted by The Sword

Then Texas can secede and fight the Mexicans on their own. I could care less for their "screw-you" mentality towards the rest of the country.

Bless your little heart. You talk as though that's a bad idea. When can we start. It's not like you could do anything for Texas, anyway.

As for your title.

Hopefully their debt and

illegal immigrants ALSO!


[edit on 10-8-2010 by Tyrannyispeace]

reply to post by textex


The first sign that you've lost an argument is when you attempt to belittle other posters in order to boost your lack of endowment down there.

Originally posted by The Sword

Leave it up to a Brit to school an American on the Constitution.

It's true though. That's why the Feds are going after Arizona's law. Federal law trumps state law, as unfair as it may seem to some. This applies to marijuana and gay rights as well.

W'all, I'll be go to Mexico to steal some horses. Someone around here understands how the law works. Yes, sir. If one state can pass a law making smoking Mexican green legal while two boyfriends are having fun, then another state can pass a law that their policemen can ask for a driver license. Quid pro quo.

Happy to see someone understands that little principle of life in America.

Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It takes only 38 of the 50 States to convene a Constitutional Convention.



An idea whose time has come!





For years and years we have been complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could:









1)Retire with the same pay after only one term.





2)Do not have to pay into Social Security.





3)Have specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws.





4) The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform in all of its forms.









I truly don't care if a senator or congressman is a Democrat, a Republican, or an Independent. The self-serving, self-interest must STOP .



PLEASE DO YOUR PART:





Contact a minimum of twenty people on your address list; in turn ask each one of them to do likewise.



In just days, most people in The United States of America will have the following message:



Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:





"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ."



Take heart. We, the people, CAN take back our country and the principles upon which it was founded! Congress is NOT an elite organization. Every single one of them was elected to SERVE the people of this great country and it is time every single one of them understands this.









You are one of my 20.

On the subject of marijuana law reform, I can understand that. I think it is very anti democracy when that can't be legal all across the country.

On the subject of marijuana law reform, I can understand that. I think it is very anti democracy when that can't be legal all across the country.

Originally posted by earl call

There is no simpler or purer definition of the intent of the Constitution than the Tenth Amendment.

Throw in the First and Second Amendments and we've got ourselves a good set of principles which to live by.

It works for Las Vegas. It can work for California.

I think this right here highlights the fallacious reasoning used by many to support unconstitutional legislation.

You can't simply pick 3 amendments you like and say "screw the rest of them". That's not how the Constitution works, and you know it. You either take it all, or you move out of the country. As long as you are on US soil, you are protected by the entirety of the Constitution, and nothing less. And so is everyone else.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Your post is illogical. If California votes as a state for socialized healthcare, it gets what it gets. It will probably get just what you described.

If the US government passes nationalized healthcare, then it applies in every state.

But the US government has limited power according to the constitution. According to legal arguments now being heard, the national healthcare is unconstitutional for various reasons. If that is correct, then it means we cannot have national socialized healthcare of the Obamacare type.

And that means in practical terms that Obamacare will not exist anywhere in the USA. That's the way it is, and there's nothing wrong with it.

There's an alternative too, which has no constitutional problem (it's not been challenged successfully in many years) and is not fascistic: medicare for everyone. Do it right or don't do it at all.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You mean like, uh. MediCal?
Communists eh?
Do you know what decade it is?

blogs.forbes.com...

Good piece here on how San Francisco Bay Area millionaires are taking their gold out of the Golden State.

“The Bay Area’s wealth boom is producing an explosion of millionaires–in Nevada, Wyoming and perhaps Canada. Wealth managers and other advisers to the well-heeled say “wealth migration”–taking the money and running–is behind a surprising drop in the number of Bay Area millionaires.”

The net loss of millionaires knocks the extremely rich and fertile Bay Area down near the bottom of a millionaire creation list with laggards such as Detroit, Pittsburgh and Cleveland.

Of course, the middle classes have been fleeing California for years. High house prices have been the main culprit. Long commutes and deteriorating public services are two more reasons.

But the flight of millionaires is something new. The reason? You guessed it. Taxes.

hmmmm...