![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fantastic_jackieThe excitement is palpable. I can barely contain my joy! Even if the current movements fail, in the long run, we've already scored a victory with just the movements' existences.
Unless you watch Fox, you're not gonna know about this stuff, but I swear to you, it's gonna get big.
Three major things are happening right now:
1) The Call for a Constitutional Convention
2) States' Gun Rights: The fight for States' Rights - Liberty or Secession
3) Texas' Stance on the Constitution
1) Across the nation, people are beginning to pick up on a movement to call a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of abolishing the 16th Amendment. - That's the Income Tax. - The reason is to starve Washington so they can't spend anymore.
For those of y'all outside of the US and not familiar with our governmental ins and outs in the US, suffice it to say that this is BIG. If it happens. If 2/3rds of the States call for the CC, then it MUST take place.
Even if it's a failure in terms of either not enough states participating or, in the case that it is called, the motion to abolish it falling through, it will still be a victory for us. Reason: If Washington fears that we'll take their candy away, they may start cutting back on their own.
This is the longest shot of the three here, but keep your eyes peeled for it.
---------------
The next two are the responses of State legislatures to the Stimulus Package and the TEA Parties!
If y'all remember about the Stimulus Package, the democrats included a provision within the legislation that superceded the State Governors' powers. It stated that if the governor rejected the funding or parts of the funding, the state legislatures had to go around him/her and accept it anyway. This was, obviously, a huge finger to States' Rights. So the legislatures across the nation are fighting back as detailed below...
2) Yesterday, the Governor of Montana - a Democrat, by the way - signed into law a piece of legislation that does the following:
Any firearm that is manufactured in the state of Montana, that remains within the state and is fired with ammunition made within the state is NOT subject to federal regulation, restriction, or legislation. It is subject to STATE regulation, restriction, or legislation, and the federal government has NO PLACE regulating it.
Texas has the exact same piece of legislation in the works right now, and Utah is currently looking over the law to see if they can strengthen it any further before presenting it in their legislature.
In Montana, this goes into effect in October. It will be kicked up to the court system immediately thereafter. The specific purpose is to get it to the Supreme Court. And the Montana governor has gone as far as to say that if the Federal Government tries to take this away from the people of Montana, they will secede.
Seems strange, huh? Over gun regulation? What's this really about?
In school, y'all should have learned about some important court cases. One that you may remember would involve a farmer growing wheat; the precident for interstate commerce as it is used today. - Interstate Commerce is regulated by Congress per the Constitution. Intrastate Commerce is supposed to be regulated by the States: See 10th Amendment. - The case is better known as Wickard vs Filburn. Here's the basic gist that should trigger your memory:
In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Filburn's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to feed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
Source
What does this have anything to do with anything? Well, think about it. This is widely recognized as a poor decision by the Supreme Court by just about everyone. And yet, this very decision has been the basis by which the Federal Government has regulated and overseen many things that we have today. They say, "Interstate Commerce" as defined in this court case and the power is granted.
The purpose of this going to the courts is to overturn this ruling! And if that happens, do you know what happens then??
Oh, I'm so giddy! It's the return of States' Rights!
Something you might understand immediately is if I say EPA. - The Environmental Protection Agency. - If this is overturned, the EPA loses a BUTTLOAD of power over the citizens!! Something else you might easily recognize is the minimum wage! That power is relinquished to the STATES where it belongs! Oh, HAPPY DAY! :D
---------------
But of course, Texas always has to take it a step further... ;)
3) In conjunciton with the above gun legislation, Texas has another one pending that basically says the following:
Texas is a soveriegn state in the US. It is subject to its own constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States. If the federal government, by means of legislation, policy, or anything else, violates the US Constitution, Texas will NOT adhere to it.
How absolutely AWESOME is that?! XDDD
I LOVE my state!
And you'd better believe the libs will have Texas in the courts if that passes!
---------------
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't quite know where we are in terms of President Jefferson's scale here, but I can say that if things continue to go this way, with the continuing TEA Parties and mounting pressure from the States - this is spreading - there's going to be a shift in the US.
They are punch drunk with power on Capitol Hill, and people have finally had enough. This is only the beginning! You can COUNT on at least #2 going to the Supreme Court.
Could we lose the battle? Yes, I suppose we could. But then, I don't think Americans will sit by and allow all of our rights to be dictated by the beaurocrats in Washington DC, to abdicate all things intra and inter state to the the federal government.
If this is overturned, so many threads of the Federal government are cut off in an instant! So many things that the Progressive Movement has shoved down our throats on the federal level. - And there is a difference between Liberals, modern day "Progressives," and the Progressive Movement. The PM has infiltrated the Republican Party, as well.
We are witnessing history, guys! Don't you want to be a part of it? :D
Unless you watch Fox, you're not gonna know about this stuff, but I swear to you, it's gonna get big.
Three major things are happening right now:
1) The Call for a Constitutional Convention
2) States' Gun Rights: The fight for States' Rights - Liberty or Secession
3) Texas' Stance on the Constitution
1) Across the nation, people are beginning to pick up on a movement to call a Constitutional Convention for the express purpose of abolishing the 16th Amendment. - That's the Income Tax. - The reason is to starve Washington so they can't spend anymore.
For those of y'all outside of the US and not familiar with our governmental ins and outs in the US, suffice it to say that this is BIG. If it happens. If 2/3rds of the States call for the CC, then it MUST take place.
Even if it's a failure in terms of either not enough states participating or, in the case that it is called, the motion to abolish it falling through, it will still be a victory for us. Reason: If Washington fears that we'll take their candy away, they may start cutting back on their own.
This is the longest shot of the three here, but keep your eyes peeled for it.
---------------
The next two are the responses of State legislatures to the Stimulus Package and the TEA Parties!
If y'all remember about the Stimulus Package, the democrats included a provision within the legislation that superceded the State Governors' powers. It stated that if the governor rejected the funding or parts of the funding, the state legislatures had to go around him/her and accept it anyway. This was, obviously, a huge finger to States' Rights. So the legislatures across the nation are fighting back as detailed below...
2) Yesterday, the Governor of Montana - a Democrat, by the way - signed into law a piece of legislation that does the following:
Any firearm that is manufactured in the state of Montana, that remains within the state and is fired with ammunition made within the state is NOT subject to federal regulation, restriction, or legislation. It is subject to STATE regulation, restriction, or legislation, and the federal government has NO PLACE regulating it.
Texas has the exact same piece of legislation in the works right now, and Utah is currently looking over the law to see if they can strengthen it any further before presenting it in their legislature.
In Montana, this goes into effect in October. It will be kicked up to the court system immediately thereafter. The specific purpose is to get it to the Supreme Court. And the Montana governor has gone as far as to say that if the Federal Government tries to take this away from the people of Montana, they will secede.
Seems strange, huh? Over gun regulation? What's this really about?
In school, y'all should have learned about some important court cases. One that you may remember would involve a farmer growing wheat; the precident for interstate commerce as it is used today. - Interstate Commerce is regulated by Congress per the Constitution. Intrastate Commerce is supposed to be regulated by the States: See 10th Amendment. - The case is better known as Wickard vs Filburn. Here's the basic gist that should trigger your memory:
In July of 1940, Mr. Filburn was told of his allotment permitting him to grow a limited amount of wheat during the 1941 season. Mr. Wickard grew 239 bushels, which was more than this allotted amount of wheat permitted, and he was charged with growing too much wheat by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the authority of its Secretary Wickard.
None of the wheat was sold in interstate commerce. In fact, all the wheat was fed to Filburn's cattle on his own property. Thus, the wheat grown by Filburn never actually left his farm and was not sold in intra-state, much less interstate commerce.
The fact that Farmer Filburn never sold any of the wheat, but merely fed it to his cattle, meant that this was not really commerce, either. Filburn argued that Congress was attempting to regulate merely the "consumption" of wheat -- not commerce (marketing) of wheat. Thus, Filburn argued, the regulation should fail both because (a) the activity was not interstate, and (b) it was not commerce.
Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the regulation as constitutionally authorized under the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court's reasoning was that the growing of wheat that never entered commerce of any kind, and did not enter interstate commerce, nevertheless potentially could have an effect upon interstate commerce. That is, had Farmer Filburn not grown his own wheat to feed his cattle, he would have bought wheat, which might have been intra-state commerce purely within Ohio, but could possibly have traveled in inter-state commerce.
Source
What does this have anything to do with anything? Well, think about it. This is widely recognized as a poor decision by the Supreme Court by just about everyone. And yet, this very decision has been the basis by which the Federal Government has regulated and overseen many things that we have today. They say, "Interstate Commerce" as defined in this court case and the power is granted.
The purpose of this going to the courts is to overturn this ruling! And if that happens, do you know what happens then??
Oh, I'm so giddy! It's the return of States' Rights!
Something you might understand immediately is if I say EPA. - The Environmental Protection Agency. - If this is overturned, the EPA loses a BUTTLOAD of power over the citizens!! Something else you might easily recognize is the minimum wage! That power is relinquished to the STATES where it belongs! Oh, HAPPY DAY! :D
---------------
But of course, Texas always has to take it a step further... ;)
3) In conjunciton with the above gun legislation, Texas has another one pending that basically says the following:
Texas is a soveriegn state in the US. It is subject to its own constitution as well as the Constitution of the United States. If the federal government, by means of legislation, policy, or anything else, violates the US Constitution, Texas will NOT adhere to it.
How absolutely AWESOME is that?! XDDD
I LOVE my state!
And you'd better believe the libs will have Texas in the courts if that passes!
---------------
"When people fear their government, there is tyranny. When government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
I don't quite know where we are in terms of President Jefferson's scale here, but I can say that if things continue to go this way, with the continuing TEA Parties and mounting pressure from the States - this is spreading - there's going to be a shift in the US.
They are punch drunk with power on Capitol Hill, and people have finally had enough. This is only the beginning! You can COUNT on at least #2 going to the Supreme Court.
Could we lose the battle? Yes, I suppose we could. But then, I don't think Americans will sit by and allow all of our rights to be dictated by the beaurocrats in Washington DC, to abdicate all things intra and inter state to the the federal government.
If this is overturned, so many threads of the Federal government are cut off in an instant! So many things that the Progressive Movement has shoved down our throats on the federal level. - And there is a difference between Liberals, modern day "Progressives," and the Progressive Movement. The PM has infiltrated the Republican Party, as well.
We are witnessing history, guys! Don't you want to be a part of it? :D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 06:33 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-05-09 10:43 am (UTC)By the way, when I say fascism, don't confuse it with genocidal racism or even the religious zealotism it's come to mean today. Fascism is simply a form of massive government. It's just a nationalist movement - a State religion, if you will - in which, for the good of the people, everything is in the State and nothing is outside of the State. If the State does it, it must be good because the State acts in the best interest of the people. Fascisms change depending upon from where they come. For instance, Italian Fascism was far different from German Fascism. In fascism, you have the government in charge of everything from healthcare to the economy to education to culture. The State takes over the corporations - has the power to, for instance, fire CEOs. Sound familiar?
Back in the day, before Hitler marred the governmental form for all time, Fascism was just another form of government - and one that the left in this country was fascinated by. They were starstruck by it, what it did, and by Mussolini in Italy. They incorporated different things into their movement to reflect what they liked from it. They thought it was the future of government, the next greatest thing since the Founders had concieved our Constitution. Those tendrils still exist today, tendrils of the "nanny state" - because American Fascism isn't vicious, put prays on societal needs and shortcomings - and they didn't just infiltrate the democratic party.
As for my reference to "Progressives," many on the left have taken to calling themselves Progressives again. While they share the same designation, it wouldn't be exactly fair to lump today's progressives with the ones of the past who were interested in prohibition and eugenics. - Though... some have drawn a paralell between eugenics and abortion today.
Minimum Wage... You can tackle this a few different ways. Personally, I do not believe in the minimum wage period. I'd like it to be abolished completely; let the market set wages instead of beaurocrats. It artificially raises the amount of capital being distributed which adversely affects the market as people suddenly have more money to spend. It also trivializes the people who have worked up to the minimum wage, or rather increases to it. The people who work for minimum wage... well, let's just say that it's not as terrible for them as folks in Washington would have you believe.
But. It's also a States' Rights issue. So if you want your state to have one, rock on. It's better determined that way, anyway. Because $7 an hour in Texas is a lot different from $7 an hour in California; the cost of living is much higher there, so it won't go as far. All the more reason for states to set their own, which most of them do, but Texas is one that doesn't do anything to increase the minimum wage because we probably wouldn't have one without the federal government.
Maybe then the government (not that I've ever liked them to begin with) will finally sit up and take notice of the people they're supposed to be protecting/helping right?
Here's the fundemental difference between you and I - we can trace probably just about every difference of political opinion back to this: I don't believe the government is the solution to our problems. I believe that it is the problem. I believe in the power of the individual. You let the individual remain free and unobstructed, and he will flourish. But burden him with regulations and legislation, and he has to work harder to accomplish his goals.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-10 03:21 pm (UTC)As for the government thing (and here's where I might contradict myself), I don't think it's right for us to be completely dependent on the government to the point that we can't function but I do think we need some rules in place. Does that make any sense?
Maybe it'd be better if the Big Wigs at Washington didn't decide our every little move but until they lose most of that power, we can only hope that things start to look up.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-10 10:06 pm (UTC)You're actually exactly right about government; the question is how much government is that? Each person is gonna have a different answer. The key thing to remember is that the more power the government has, the less freedoms you have, because government derives its power from you - your freedoms. Your freedoms are endowed to you by our Creator. The government is only a steward.
And you know, the Founders didn't get this question right the first time around. You remember the Articles of Confederation, right? They didn't work. From their perspective, they were running away from tyranny; tyranny was the reason settlers founded Jamestown in the first place. So the Founders had a healthy fear of large governments; they'd seen what they were capable of, and never wanted the States to be at the mercy of such again. With this in mind, they authored the Articles of Confederation; it was very tiny government. It was too close to Anarchy. As time passed, the States were falling apart as a nation. So in 1787, they had to come back together to establish the Constitution. Which they literally believed was a case of divine Providince when it was finished. - You don't learn that part in school. It's amazing how much God and Christianity was involved in their thinking and the establishment of this nation. - The Constitution, brilliant as it was, was only a little stronger that the Articles of Confederation.
Check this out - this is a preview what Wednesday's conversation is gonna be about. (I'm finally well enough and have enough free time to pick them up again!) This is how the government actually looks like - and where the Democrats and Republicans are. This is gonna change your understanding of politics to be more accurate than most people today.
Not quite the same thing you learned in school with Communism on one side and Fascism on the other, huh? ;) It never made sense to me back then, how they could be opposites; this chart is why. - Why that didn't make sense, that is. What we all learned in school is wrong.
Now you just can't wait for Wednesday, huh? XP