What Happens in California, Stays in California...

reply to post by textex


I'm going to take a wild guess here and say you're not 100% certain on what you're talking about. I have to ask for further proof of your claims if you're going to make them, specifically these points, which I'll try and clear up for you:

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

Federal employees are eligible for retirement pay after 5 years of employment at age 62. At which point, I'm almost positive it's not at the same rate they earned as a member of congress.

For more information check out Federal Employees' Retirement System and Civil Service Retirement System.

2)Do not have to pay into Social Security.

I refer you to Public Law 98-21; Social Security Amendments of 1983 - Title I, Part A, Amends title II of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to provide mandatory coverage under the Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance program as of January 1, 1984, for: all Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984; the President; the Vice President; all elected officials and political appointees; judges; Members of Congress; and all legislative branch employees who are not participating in the Civil Service Retirement System as of December 31, 1983.

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.

I'm going to have to ask for a source, I'm not going to bother looking into such a vague accusation.

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

Once again, I have to ask for a source because that's totally untrue. More information can be found at snopes.com

Originally posted by kyle43
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.

And there you have the conundrum. Obamunist liberals are getting behind marijuana legalization in California, despite the federal law banning marijuana use.

While Obamunist liberals protest against Arizona who is only trying to ensure federal immigration laws are enforced.

Iowa legalized gay marriage. In Illinois, no such luck for gays.

Meanwhile, Obamunists decry that American can't have fifty different laws, while states pass individual laws that Obamunists favor. While Obamunists protest the laws they dislike.

Getting back to the core of the Tenth Amendment, I'm all for it. If California wants gay marriage, that's their truck. I don't live in California. It's none of my business.

But what happens in California stays in California. What happens in my state, then I participate in the vote.

The federal government has over reached.

reply to post by textex


The power to nullify federal laws is only good if it is used to protect gay drug abusers.

Any other attempt to nullify criminal federal laws is bad.

Praise Mao.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Actually Praise Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Something you really need to brush up on if you are going to debate topics like this. I urge you to PLEASE read the Constitution.

www.archives.gov...

There you go. A transcript of the United States Constitution. That way you can Deny Ignorance.

How secure is the Arizona border?

I don't know. Ask this guy. Cause he has plans to bring nuclear and biological agents across the border to make 9/11 look like a small terrorist attack.

www.tangle.com...

And Obamunists don't want anyone to protect the border. Go figure, huh?

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Actually Praise Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.

Something you really need to brush up on if you are going to debate topics like this. I urge you to PLEASE read the Constitution.

www.archives.gov...

There you go. A transcript of the United States Constitution. That way you can Deny Ignorance.

So you think all those examples I listed are constitutional?

Is that what you're trying to tell me?

You agree with slavery?

What happens in Arizona is Sheriff Joe's business...

Firepower in Maricopa County



Sheriff Joe Arpaio Protects Arizona from Illegal Alien Invaders & Drug Smugglers with a .50 Cal!
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by mnemeth1


What I am saying is, I think you are insane and need help.

The Federal Government has powers, they have the right to do certain things.

What rights the constitution does not give the federal government according to the 10th Amendment is the states rights, then the people.

See, to your crazy mixed up Anarchist mind, government is slavery, but we the people are this government, (although the people have been electing some real douches for a long time) That's not the Governments fault, that's the people's fault, do you want to know why? Because We the People elect these other people into office. Despite what you read on ATS about the scary NWO and Shadow Government, it's the PEOPLE that elect these PEOPLE to this government and who are really responsible for all the problems in this country.

It's not slavery, it's the way this country works. Now, if you want to live in a complete Anarchy like you want the rest of us to live in. Might I suggest Somalia. It would be perfect for you, no laws, survival of the fittest, warlords.

Originally posted by textex

Originally posted by kyle43
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.

And there you have the conundrum. Obamunist liberals are getting behind marijuana legalization in California, despite the federal law banning marijuana use.

While Obamunist liberals protest against Arizona who is only trying to ensure federal immigration laws are enforced.

Iowa legalized gay marriage. In Illinois, no such luck for gays.

Meanwhile, Obamunists decry that American can't have fifty different laws, while states pass individual laws that Obamunists favor. While Obamunists protest the laws they dislike.

Getting back to the core of the Tenth Amendment, I'm all for it. If California wants gay marriage, that's their truck. I don't live in California. It's none of my business.

But what happens in California stays in California. What happens in my state, then I participate in the vote.

The federal government has over reached.

Well I'm also going to come down on the side of questioning where you are getting your sources because you clearly do not understand the issues you are talking about.

Now I have no idea what an "Obamunist" is beyond a completely vacuous political buzz word used by the right to equate Obama with Communism. So I won't speak to that one except to say that if you think Obama is a Communist you have absolutely no understanding of Communism. No listening to Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing hit media does not count here.

As for the issue of same-sex marriage, did you read the court ruling? This is not a case of California wanting it for themselves, this is a federal judge ruling that the law violated the civil rights of same-sex couples. If this ruling stands (and trust me it's going to go all the way to the Supreme Court) then same-sex marriage would have to be legalized in all 50 states based upon how the ruling was stated.

The 10th Amendment only gives to the states powers not prescribed to the federal government in the Constitution (including other amendments) and those powers are quite a lot actually. You seem to be totally ignoring the actual text even of the 10th Amendment here. It is a federalist amendment, it does create legal grounds for the federal government to be superior to the states. There is also of course the Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause, and Reconstruction Amendments that make this even clearer though.

In the case of Arizona, no they were not simply trying to enforce federal law, that is in fact why parts of the law were struck by federal courts for not being in line with federal law. See the Supremacy Clause here for exactly what Arizona violated.

Now in the case of Texas, which you seem so dearly fond of. You cannot be independent, contrary to urban myth there is no legal deal stating that Texas can leave the union. Your state uses more federal money than you generate through taxes, you also have over 250,000 federal employees, and your economy is supported by massive federal government installations such as military bases, and the headquarters of NASA.

To say the rest of the states and the federal government do nothing for Texas is just completely and totally false, so care to lower your state flag a bit below the Stars & Stripes, you know like every other state does?

More and more Americans are standing behind our police, border patrol and our men and women in uniform.

It's the Constitutional way. Something our forebears taught us.

It's in the history books, in case any of you are curious as to how it all came about.

You know, talk about the First, Second and Tenth Amendments. It's all there. In big old large print.

antitank rocket fire surprises soldier
www.youtube.com...

Yep, Patriots, freedom is indeed worth fighting for. And if the other side doesn't want to fight......say, what do you do with the prisoners?



There's a right way to do things...

And there's a wrong way to do things....

Then there is the French way to do things...
And here's how the French do it...
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by textex


Funny, the Right Wingers only invoke the 1st Amendment till someone else uses their 1st Amendment rights. Then y'all are ready for that one to fly right out the window.

2nd Amendment, yea, y'all love that one too, till someone reminds y'all of Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. (go ahead, look it up, see what it says about militias.) Then y'all aren't so fond of following the letter of that Amendment are ya?

10th Amendment, somehow you all think that the 10th Amendment is a free for all for States to do whatever they want.

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.

Do you all ever actually read the constitution? Or do you just assume what it says? Please people, it's obvious you can all read, give it a try.

United States Constitution
Bill of Rights

Oh, and by the way, there is a LOT of other stuff besides those 3 Amendments to the Bill of Rights, fact is, there's 7 more in just the bill of rights alone. (GASP!) And OMG! They WROTE MORE!

Amendments 11-17 OMG 17 MORE AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION!

I know that's a whole lot of readin' for a Texan, and y'all ain't too keen on doin' all that thar book lernin'. But really, I think it might be in your best interest to at least try, do one a day, keep it small, that way you don't overwork yourself.

Yes, sir.....never underestimate the firepower of our boys in uniform.


Watch for the Ricochet - Shrapnel rains down!
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by textex
More and more Americans are standing behind our police, border patrol and our men and women in uniform.

It's the Constitutional way. Something our forebears taught us.

It's in the history books, in case any of you are curious as to how it all came about.

You know, talk about the First, Second and Tenth Amendments. It's all there. In big old large print.

antitank rocket fire surprises soldier
www.youtube.com...

I've got no problem at all supporting law enforcement and military, I do as well and think others should too, they put themselves on the line for us, the citizens and take the risks for us.

I believe however in rule of law as well, and when it comes to the United States Constitution that means all of it, not just the parts that are politically advantageous to my views at the moment.

The other thing I have a problem with here in your recent posts is your glorification of violence and war. I am all for a strong defense, but that doesn't mean that I want to see it used unless it's absolutely needed. Remember that everyone killed in war is in fact a human being. That is someone, like you or me, who has died.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy

The other thing I have a problem with here in your recent posts is your glorification of violence and war. I am all for a strong defense, but that doesn't mean that I want to see it used unless it's absolutely needed. Remember that everyone killed in war is in fact a human being. That is someone, like you or me, who has died.

It's not really his fault, he's a Texan, it's like taking a Cro-Magnon man and giving them a full frontal lobotomy. They really can't help it. For example, look at George W. Bush.

I know that 'War by Pillow Fight' has some credence among a certain segment of American life.

Those who believe that 'Pillows' make for effective protection devices are welcome to give their theories a go.

Florida AG proposes tougher illegal immigrant curbs
www.reuters.com...

This is just a question form a Canadian trying to understand your legal? system.

If California legalizes marijuana, which is illegal under the federal law, is that any different than Arizona enforcing a modified immigration law?

Aren't both of these illegal?

Shouldn't the federal law trump both?

Or did am I missing something?

Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by textex
I know that 'War by Pillow Fight' has some credence among a certain segment of American life.

Those who believe that 'Pillows' make for effective protection devices are welcome to give their theories a go.

I never said I was against modern military weapons, but I do not have to wish for war to think that my nation and her allies should have the best fighting systems they can.


Just because I am a liberal does not mean I am soft on defense.

Originally posted by peck420

If California legalizes marijuana, which is illegal under the federal law, is that any different than Arizona enforcing a modified immigration law?

Aren't both of these illegal?

The use of marijuana is illegal under federal law. If California wants to legalize marijuana, California has to figure out a way to legalize marijuana while justifying not following federal law.

Arizona simply repeated the wording of the federal law on immigration. Arizona basically used the same state law that is in effect in states like Rhode Island and Virginia and other states.

More to the point, if California is granted the right to legalize marijuana regardless of federal law, than other states have the right to pass their own state laws regardless of federal law.

Last I heard, the gay marriage issue is still relatively on hold in California.

And before someone shouts, "Equal Rights Amendment,".....remember, the Equal Rights Amendment has been sitting in Congress for about thirty years waiting for someone to vote on it. There is no 'Equal Rights Amendment' in America.