Well this is interesting.

[SeaCat]

I wonder just how far this will go and I would love to see/hear any response from someone in the Justice Department.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html

Cat

 

[DesertPirate]

"IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government."

So much for the UN anti gun campaign

Actually the Constitution of the U. S. states that the individual states have ALL powers not acually given to the Feds in the Constitution. The Federal Govt. is only supposed to do things the states can't do for themselves, ie foreign trade agreements, National defense...

 

[incubus666]

Aint the idea grand and glorious? Wanna bet some money? 50:1 against it ever coming to a vote. !00:1 against it being passed if it ever comes to a vote. Sorry to be such a cynic but, NH voted solidly for President Obama.

Despite my cynicism the principals stated in the resolution are well within the Constitution. I am just sad it will never come to a vote and that so many states are unable/unwilling to control their own budgets. Thus they come whinning to big government to give them more money. I will also say "unfunded federal mandates" are part of the problem.

In the end they are willing to take from others to make their lives better and end giving up their freedoms to a huge overwhelming central government,

I just saw an article today that the Gov. of PA wants a 2.5% increase in spending despite their budget being $2 billion in the hole.

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of the United States.

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

Mike S.

 

[rgraham666]

That's surprising. I thought the next push for 'States Rights' would be in the South, again.

The more I look the less certain I am that the U.S. will be a viable political entity for much longer. It's reminding me more and more of Yugoslavia.

 

[DesertPirate]

That's surprising. I thought the next push for 'States Rights' would be in the South, again.

The more I look the less certain I am that the U.S. will be a viable political entity for much longer. It's reminding me more and more of Yugoslavia.

The rebellion against England started more in the North East, why would this surprise you? They are as stubborn as anyone else in the U. S. and more protective of their freedom than most.

 

[incubus666]

"I snip
Actually the Constitution of the U. S. states that the individual states have ALL powers not acually given to the Feds in the Constitution. The Federal Govt. is only supposed to do things the states can't do for themselves, ie foreign trade agreements, National defense...

DP the operative word is "supposed" but, big fed has taken over many of these states rights.

Why do we have a U.S.D.A with a budget of billions that tells individual states what they may grow and how to do it. U.S.D.A. pays "gentlemen farmers" who live in NYC subsides for not growing crops on land they own that has produced nothing for years.

Then there is H.E.W. that dictates to the schools what they will teach and how to teach. Yet each every state has it's own Dept. of Education.

The federal has sucked the life out of the individual states. The feds take taxes from the individual states and re allocates them to the states the congress thinks needs them. For Christs Sake let the states decide how much to tax according to their needs. Should the citizens of that state decide the taxes are too high for the benifits they recieve then they can move to another state.

My state is a good example. Arizona wanted what is called the "Central Arizona Project." We took billions of dollars of other states tax payers money to pay for a water way from way up north to south central Arizona farmers. If Az needed the project so badly for agruculture why in the hell not tax the people of AZ. Why tax the farmers of NJ, OH, Wi, CA etc?

In the west there is an old saying. "Whisley is for drinking and water is for fighting over." Well we do. Fight over water. The Colorado river water is the water in question. The states of CO, NM, AZ, CA, NV, and maybe a coupla more and some Indian tribes also.

The feds have been involved in the water rights fight ertween the states for a very long time. The Indians are rather late comers. So why in the hell were the feds involved in a disagreement between several states? Let the states fight it out. When with words, fists or guns. It was only been between the states.

So you say well the poor Indians. They have a bunch of their own water rights lawyers. The Indians are damn well not under represented. Except in the eyes of the fed. So the fed decides the Indians get a lot more waten then they can use so they can sell it back to the white man. Oh yeah, CA also gets to continue to pump more then their fair share of the river, then they may decide to reduce the water they pump. That may happen in 50 years.

So where in the Constitution does it say the fed has any right to interfere in disputed between individual states?

The list is endless should you be willint to look. .

Thanks for reading.

Mike S.