Yes, I am actually being serious...

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233804
Dang, you are not making a lot of sense today.
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.
Hello? So if the constitution doesn't grant the federal government the power to do something that power is given to the states or the federal government? What would be the point of making that clause in the constitution? Is there no aspect of our lives that was intended to be left to our own discretion, we the people?
This is where having to interpret what the Framers intended with this Amendment comes in. When you look at the context of the punctuation, you can interpret the meaning different ways. Using the punctuation, I read this statement like this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the people"
To me, this means that any powers that are not stated in the Constitution or prohibited by any individual State, are granted to the people of the United States. So which 'powers' would thus be?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3233827
No, if anything, people are the state governments.
The framers deliberately limited the scope of the federal government in order to prevent the type of thing that is happening now from happening.
The articles of confederation state that each state maintains its sovereignity, and basically everything that is not specifically granted by the constitution as a power of the federal government is reserved to the states.
The early members of government believed so strongly that this would be needed that some 15 years later they passed the 10th amendment to restate it. You can't get much clearer than that.
Ultimately, the framers envisioned that this type of thing could happen, that we'd be stuck in a political quagmire where corruption and self-serving polititians were so rampant that it could get nearly impossible to get them out of office in sufficient simultaneous numbers as to effect real reform in Washington. So, they limited the scope of the federal government to keep such a situation from FUBARing the entire country. They knew that ultimately, the principle of "vote them out of office" sounded good in principle, but would not work in practice - the situation we are in now. So, they set it up so the states handle most government functions, so if you don't like the state you are in, you can move to another one while still staying within a country run by the same basic framework.
Unfortunately, they never realized or foresaw that the federal government would pass laws where they could manipulate the state government through federal funding restrictions et al in order to force the states into doing what they want, as well as literally give the constitution the finger while they did whatever bought them the most votes.
Are they? I see your interpretation of the 10th. However, we do have more power than you've described. Why do you feel we can't "vote them out?" What exactly is there to stop us? If anything, it's because most Americans could care less whose in office, and are ignorant when it comes to knowing exactly what the Representatives do for them. There's absolutely nothing to stop the American people from replacing every single person in Congress if they chose to do so. The problem is, 80% or more of the American people aren't even willing to try. Look at the percentage of people who can register to vote in your own town, and how many of them actually vote. I'd be willing to bet it averages between 10% - 15% participation in regional elections (mayor, city council, etc.), and maybe 20% - 28% for State and National elections (State Reps, governor, House, Senate, etc.) When it comes to State and National elections, most people vote by name recognition. That's why your Kennedy's, Strom Thurmond's, and every other national politician is in their respective offices for 20 or more years. The Framers had the right idea when they wrote the 10th, but if the American people would actually use their "power of the vote" in the way it was intended, the 10th wouldn't be needed.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233682
Actually your take on the SCOTUS ruling isn't quite accurate. Corporations cannot donate to a campaign period.
My understanding of the effect of the ruling is quite the opposite in that corporations, having been deemed "persons" as a result of the ruling, are now allowed to contribute directly to campaigns.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233819
I just wish the news media would call these politicians on their crap.
Why would they? They're all in bed together.
Politics and "News" are both business. There is no vested interest in the two being at odds with each other. As long as news reporting is financially motivated, there can be no such thing as independent truth.
To quote one of my least favorite conservatives:
Beware the Government/Media complex.
Michael Savage

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233873
Are they? I see your interpretation of the 10th. However, we do have more power than you've described.
I'm not saying that people do not carry most of the power. I'm saying that between the people, state government, and federal government, the federal government should carry the LEAST.
The federal goverment is not provided any constitutional authority to do most of the things they are doing. Assuming for a moment that goverment should play a role in things such as health care, it should be state governments doing it. It allows citizens the choice of where they want to live while still being afforded the protections of the federal umbrella (common defense, bill of rights, etc).
Why do you feel we can't "vote them out?" What exactly is there to stop us? If anything, it's because most Americans could care less whose in office, and are ignorant when it comes to knowing exactly what the Representatives do for them. There's absolutely nothing to stop the American people from replacing every single person in Congress if they chose to do so.
Absolutely we can vote everyone out. My point was that it wouldn't happen in practice. If you were to poll 10,000 Americans across all states and congressional districts, you'd probably find that Americans generally feel like "Oh, I think we should vote all of them out... except my guy.. he's okay." Why? Because they bring home the bacon. Representatives stuff bills with pork to take home and buy votes. They are buying votes that guarantee nothing will ever change. Reform the laws to stop the pork? Fat chance. Obama sure failed the promise on that one just like the endless march of Democrats and Republicans alike who came before him. Reforming the laws ends their abilities to buy votes.
Also see "chance, fat."
Look at Murtha. He was one of the most corrupt politicians in Washington, and the only thing that got him out of there was his own death. Why? Because he brought home more pork than anyone else.
Look at the percentage of people who can register to vote in your own town, and how many of them actually vote. I'd be willing to bet it averages between 10% - 15% participation in regional elections (mayor, city council, etc.), and maybe 20% - 28% for State and National elections (State Reps, governor, House, Senate, etc.) When it comes to State and National elections, most people vote by name recognition. That's why your Kennedy's, Strom Thurmond's, and every other national politician is in their respective offices for 20 or more years.
I agree with the sad state of participation in the electoral process. However, again, I think that vote buying and pork play a BIG role.
The Framers had the right idea when they wrote the 10th, but if the American people would actually use their "power of the vote" in the way it was intended, the 10th wouldn't be needed.
Ahh perhaps... but they did write it... and for a reason. They apparently knew the American population pretty well.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233860
This is where having to interpret what the Framers intended with this Amendment comes in. When you look at the context of the punctuation, you can interpret the meaning different ways. Using the punctuation, I read this statement like this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the people"
To me, this means that any powers that are not stated in the Constitution or prohibited by any individual State, are granted to the people of the United States. So which 'powers' would thus be?
Your post is a perfect example of how our country has gotten so screwed up, People presuming to interpret what the framers meant. There are other supporting documents to define what was intended but the language and intent is pretty obvious in this case.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3233902
My understanding of the effect of the ruling is quite the opposite in that corporations, having been deemed "persons" as a result of the ruling, are now allowed to contribute directly to campaigns.
Nope. This just says corporations can run their own ads. They still cannot donate directly to a campaign nor coordinate with the campaign. They just threw out part of Mclame Finemold which was only the law of the land a short time anyway.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233961
Your post is a perfect example of how our country has gotten so screwed up, People presuming to interpret what the framers meant. There are other supporting documents to define what was intended but the language and intent is pretty obvious in this case.
Where's the presumption? How do you misinterpret punctuation? Did they use comma's differently in the 1700's than they do today? Look at it line by line:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution -
Define 'United States' in the context of this sentence. Is this the branches of government, or the citizens of the US? What 'powers' is this statement defining? What other powers are there that aren't defined in the Amendments of the Constitution?
nor prohibited by it to the States,
What is the word 'it' referring to in this statement? The 'powers', the United States, or the Cosntitution?
are reserved to the States respectively,
This statement seems understandable. The powers, whatever they are, that aren't defined in the Constitution, are reserved to the States as well. I chose the words 'as well' because I'm not sure what definition the Framers were trying to convey by using the word 'respectively'. I suppose you can use the Merriam-Webster defintion of respectively - : in particular : separately <could not recognize the solutions as salty or sour, respectively>
or to the people.
This is the confusing one. The Framers put this comma after 'the States', and referenced 'the people' as well. So if you disagree with my original interpretation, then who are 'these people' they were referring to? What's the difference between 'The States' and 'the people'? Aren't they one in the same?

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by SCSInet
http:///forum/post/3233922
I'm not saying that people do not carry most of the power. I'm saying that between the people, state government, and federal government, the federal government should carry the LEAST.
This is what I see as the disconnect. Aren't 'the people', 'state government', and the 'federal government' all the same entities? State and Federal Government's aren't these magical institutions run by demi-gods (even though most of them think of themseleves as gods). They are the same AMERICAN CITIZENS as you, me, and every other US citizen in this country. The only difference between a politician and me is a politician went out and convinced a majority of people to allow him to represent those people in our government and political system. When the people elected these individuals, it was on the premice that they would follow through with what they promised their constituents when they got elected. I vote for a candidate that follows my beliefs and what I feel is best for me and my family, and also what benefits my community. If that person doesn't follow through, he/she doesn't get my vote the next time. That's the way our political system was designed. But all these people today that are so adamately against what today's Federal Governemnt is doing, is looking at it with an 'us versus them' attitude. The problem with this logic is the 'them' IS 'us'. They are one in the same.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarmhttp:///forum/post/3233992
Where's the presumption? How do you misinterpret punctuation? Did they use comma's differently in the 1700's than they do today? Look at it line by line:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution -
Define 'United States' in the context of this sentence. Is this the branches of government, or the citizens of the US? What 'powers' is this statement defining? What other powers are there that aren't defined in the Amendments of the Constitution?
nor prohibited by it to the States,
What is the word 'it' referring to in this statement? The 'powers', the United States, or the Cosntitution?
are reserved to the States respectively,
This statement seems understandable. The powers, whatever they are, that aren't defined in the Constitution, are reserved to the States as well. I chose the words 'as well' because I'm not sure what definition the Framers were trying to convey by using the word 'respectively'. I suppose you can use the Merriam-Webster defintion of respectively - : in particular : separately <could not recognize the solutions as salty or sour, respectively>
or to the people.
This is the confusing one. The Framers put this comma after 'the States', and referenced 'the people' as well. So if you disagree with my original interpretation, then who are 'these people' they were referring to? What's the difference between 'The States' and 'the people'? Aren't they one in the same?
What is confusing?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You tell me where "people" is used to refer to anything but citizens in any part of the bill of rights.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233965
Nope. This just says corporations can run their own ads. They still cannot donate directly to a campaign nor coordinate with the campaign. They just threw out part of Mclame Finemold which was only the law of the land a short time anyway.
Ok, fair enough - if that is indeed the question.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...te-free-speech
The question to me is this: Is a legal entity the same thing as a person - Constitutionally?
Should it be?
It seems to me that conferring a personally guaranteed, constitutional right upon a governmentally created entity is the first step on the road to Fascism.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3234058
Ok, fair enough - if that is indeed the question.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...te-free-speech
The question to me is this: Is a legal entity the same thing as a person - Constitutionally?
Should it be?
It seems to me that conferring a personally guaranteed, constitutional right upon a governmentally created entity is the first step on the road to Fascism.
The corporation is ran by some of we the people. Don't those in charge deserve to use their assets as they please?
Personally I like the idea of having the true sponsors of ads identified in them. However, I believe the only people who should be allowed to provide any material support to a campaign is someone who is illegible to vote in said election. It will never happen so it doesn't do any good to get worked up about it. The best we can hope for is to get as much transparency into the system as possible so we will have an idea who's stings the puppets are dancing at the end of.

 

[browniebuck]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3233819
I just wish the news media would call these politicians on their crap.
As far as I am concerned, if a politician runs on a specific platform...they should address that area. If they fail to make improvements in that area, they should not be allowed to run for re-election and they should have to pay their salary back to the city, state, or the country that elected him/her.
Our governor here in the great state of Ohio ran touting "education reform" as the education funding system in Ohio has been deemed unconstitutional for well over 10 years. People gave him a pass after his first year in office...saying, what can you expect him to accomplish in his first year...he is getting his feet wet. Then the second year there was a budget issue, so he got another pass (I wish I was allowed to take a year to figure out my budget!). Now there are unemployment issues that are he is allegedly trying to fix (though the number keeps getting higher each month).
So far, the only things that have been done for education are to increase the amount that teachers have to pay to renew their teaching licenses, increase the amount of money it costs teachers to get background checks, and decrease the number of calamity days from 5 to 3 and then eventually to 0 (HELLO....this is Ohio, we are going to have days that require the closing of school for the safety of the students as well as the staff members). And now....we are starting our re-election campaign with one of the areas that he wants to improve being....wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...
EDU-FREAKING-CATION!!!!!

 

[scsinet]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234007
This is what I see as the disconnect. Aren't 'the people', 'state government', and the 'federal government' all the same entities? State and Federal Government's aren't these magical institutions run by demi-gods (even though most of them think of themseleves as gods). They are the same AMERICAN CITIZENS as you, me, and every other US citizen in this country. The only difference between a politician and me is a politician went out and convinced a majority of people to allow him to represent those people in our government and political system. When the people elected these individuals, it was on the premice that they would follow through with what they promised their constituents when they got elected. I vote for a candidate that follows my beliefs and what I feel is best for me and my family, and also what benefits my community. If that person doesn't follow through, he/she doesn't get my vote the next time. That's the way our political system was designed. But all these people today that are so adamately against what today's Federal Governemnt is doing, is looking at it with an 'us versus them' attitude. The problem with this logic is the 'them' IS 'us'. They are one in the same.

Well let me answer your question with another question...
You contend that the governments and the people are the same thing. Fair enough. My question is... is that how it's being run?
There is a difference between how something reads on paper and how it will actually work in practice. The framers knew this, which is why they built a check in place to prevent it from happening. Unfortuantely, they didn't count on elected officials trampling on the constitution or the population failing to call them out on it.
Ultimately, when it comes down to it, we can blame Obama... blame Bush, blame anyone, but the ones we have to blame are ourselves. We as a people have forgotten the absolute importance of the principles upon which we were founded. People are too complacent about giving up constitutional rights and governence if it means they can get something for nothing. They are all too willing to throw away their feedom of health care providers if it means that the government will take money from rich people at the point of a gun and hand it to them, and countless other examples. We catapulted our current president into office based almost entirely on an unsubstantiated claim of "change" and the argument that he won't raise taxes on the middle class. Nevermind how he is going to pay for his dreams and schemes, if he doesn't raise my taxes, I'm fine with it.
We've forgotten the virtues of risk/reward, of hard work paying off, and have settled into a culture of entitlement and government handouts, and tend to elect the candidate who is most likely to give us the most stuff with us working the least to get it. We are all to willing to ignore the fact that you can't give money to ME without depriving someone ELSE of life, liberty, and/or property.
Instead, we prefer not to think about the idea of wanting something and working hard to get it. We are an instant gratification, fast food, high speed, have it now, pay for it later society. A candidate who comes along and tells people these hard facts stands 0% chance of getting elected. We're all to eager to elect a candidate who can scratch that itch... nevermind the long term implications, that's tomorrow's problem. The problem is that you can't sustain a system like is in place now. Sooner or later (probably sooner), the govermnent will collapse on itself, and we'll begin anew with the "lessons learned." Sound familiar? Like in 1776?
Any politician who is willing to help do that is not serving his country, he is serving himself because he's willing to sell his soul for the sake of getting elected. Ultimately though, it's our fault for electing him, and until that changes, the problem isn't going to go away. Vote them out of office? Sure, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by browniebuck
http:///forum/post/3234132
As far as I am concerned, if a politician runs on a specific platform...they should address that area. If they fail to make improvements in that area, they should not be allowed to run for re-election and they should have to pay their salary back to the city, state, or the country that elected him/her.
Our governor here in the great state of Ohio ran touting "education reform" as the education funding system in Ohio has been deemed unconstitutional for well over 10 years. People gave him a pass after his first year in office...saying, what can you expect him to accomplish in his first year...he is getting his feet wet. Then the second year there was a budget issue, so he got another pass (I wish I was allowed to take a year to figure out my budget!). Now there are unemployment issues that are he is allegedly trying to fix (though the number keeps getting higher each month).
So far, the only things that have been done for education are to increase the amount that teachers have to pay to renew their teaching licenses, increase the amount of money it costs teachers to get background checks, and decrease the number of calamity days from 5 to 3 and then eventually to 0 (HELLO....this is Ohio, we are going to have days that require the closing of school for the safety of the students as well as the staff members). And now....we are starting our re-election campaign with one of the areas that he wants to improve being....wait for it, wait for it, wait for it...
EDU-FREAKING-CATION!!!!!
And you wonder why the Constitutionlists want the states to have more power. They want to have less Federal Govt. involvement, yet State Govt's are just as corrupt and screw 'the people' more than the Feds do. I just read an article this morning that state tax revenues are at an all-time low due to the recession. So their only alternative is to RAISE TAXES. But you don't hear these Tea Baggers screaming and complaining about their state governments raising taxes, creating tolls for roads that are already paid for, forcing kids to take State mandated tests, or raising fees for state services. Texas has one of the lowest performing educational systems in the nation, but my local school board is wanting yet another $500 million bond to build even more schools. They want $25 million of it to go to an outdoor Olympic-style Natatorium (one with the high diving platforms, auditorium seating, etc.) This is for HIGH SCHOOL'S. We just had a $750 million bond package two years ago. They do these bond initiatives every two years, and they pass with flying colors. Yea, state and local governments are great.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3234137
And you wonder why the Constitutionlists want the states to have more power. They want to have less Federal Govt. involvement, yet State Govt's are just as corrupt and screw 'the people' more than the Feds do. I just read an article this morning that state tax revenues are at an all-time low due to the recession. So their only alternative is to RAISE TAXES. But you don't hear these Tea Baggers screaming and complaining about their state governments raising taxes, creating tolls for roads that are already paid for, forcing kids to take State mandated tests, or raising fees for state services. Texas has one of the lowest performing educational systems in the nation, but my local school board is wanting yet another $500 million bond to build even more schools. They want $25 million of it to go to an outdoor Olympic-style Natatorium (one with the high diving platforms, auditorium seating, etc.) This is for HIGH SCHOOL'S. We just had a $750 million bond package two years ago. They do these bond initiatives every two years, and they pass with flying colors. Yea, state and local governments are great.

I find it hilarious you are complaining of taxes. Especially in Texas. You guys are ranked 48th in total tax revenue taken per individual per capita. The average individual taxes collected per year per individual is around 1700 dollars. Compare that to other states and then to the federal government.
This is why when Texas talks tax increase the people don't complain...because your taxes in the country are considerably lower than every one else state to state. California brings in about 3200 per person.
Yet at the federal level each texan averaged out pays a little over 9000 in taxes per year. The average federal tax paid out per citizen across the country is about 8500.
So tell me again, which entity is truly raking your Texas ass over the coals for taxes?

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3233693
Name calling? Don't look at me. Blame the media for that one. I believe the organization is called the Tea Party Coalition or something. Whenever you see one of their rallies, the people attending wear these hats with tea bags stuck to them (i.e The Boston Tea Party). That's why they are called Tea Baggers. I know what you're referring to. Why don't you get your mind out of the gutter when talking politics.

Nice attempt at justifying your need to belittle someone. If the media started calling Obama supporters Obamatards would you start using that derogatory term? Would you be fine if a conservative started calling you that regularly? The tea bagger term was coined by mathews at the start of the protests as a derogatory term. The only "media" that uses that term are Mathews, Maddou, and their ilk. I have yet to read a news story about tea bag protesters where the journalist uses that term to refer to them. Only the opinion/bloggers use this term.

 

[darthtang aw]

I find it intriguing to see the same people that have called a few conservatives on here racist for not supportting Obama, are now considering Ron Paul....

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3234184
I find it hilarious you are complaining of taxes. Especially in Texas. You guys are ranked 48th in total tax revenue taken per individual per capita. The average individual taxes collected per year per individual is around 1700 dollars. Compare that to other states and then to the federal government.
This is why when Texas talks tax increase the people don't complain...because your taxes in the country are considerably lower than every one else state to state. California brings in about 3200 per person.
Yet at the federal level each texan averaged out pays a little over 9000 in taxes per year. The average federal tax paid out per citizen across the country is about 8500.
So tell me again, which entity is truly raking your Texas ass over the coals for taxes?
don't worry I complain about taxes here! If they wanna raise taxes in texas there is usually hell to pay...
Although fortunately for me, our tax system is fairly regressive. So although I pay it in rent. We don't have the property price problems that they see in other more regulated states.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3234197
don't worry I complain about taxes here! If they wanna raise taxes in texas there is usually hell to pay...
Although fortunately for me, our tax system is fairly regressive. So although I pay it in rent. We don't have the property price problems that they see in other more regulated states.
True, but at the same point, you guys maintain 0 or very little of a budget deficit when compared to the rest of the country. California has a higher tax revenue and brings in about 60 billion more dollars than texas, yet only has 13 million more people. Yet California runs a deficit of about 25 billion..........