THE COMING CLASH; RISE OF 10TH AMMENDMENT

Assup’s spastic sphincter is dribbling-blather, spouting shit and foaming spatter! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Cited below are posts documenting Assup when he gets hysterically agitated:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=36

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...2&postcount=34

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...5&postcount=24

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=39



BTW, this report (cited below) is still an excellent source document, and a document full of sources, for those of you who have not read it: “The Right To Keep And Bear Arms Report Of The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress.”
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

You people are on drugs. How on earth is the Federal government "out of control?" That's just some focus grouped phrase that apparently people fall for. Just like "out of control taxes," that's not related to reality as Federal taxation is lower than it has been in over sixty years. Look around you and get a fucking grip. You're being manipulated into acting against your economic interest.

Unless you were around in 1776, I don't see how that is true. Originally Posted by ExNYer

The below graph tells the story of how the federal government is out of control......The federal government has grown from 12% of GDP in 1950s to 24% today....doubling. Where is the brake this to this runaway train ?

You people are on drugs. How on earth is the Federal government "out of control?" That's just some focus grouped phrase that apparently people fall for. Just like "out of control taxes," that's not related to reality as Federal taxation is lower than it has been in over sixty years. Look around you and get a fucking grip. You're being manipulated into acting against your economic interest. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Someone mentioned Lucy and her football... The states that are not implementing portions of the health care law etc, are not doing so in order to take a stand on the grounds of the 10th amendment. They are doing so on the grounds of political bargaining in order to get something else out of the feds.

If these states truly wanted to use states rights as a means of forcing change they would gather together to hold a constitutional convention. It only takes 34 states to require a constitutional convention. The states are complicit in the corruption of the federal government. They gave up their representation in Congress when they ratified the 17th amendment. The states are afraid the feds will stop giving them money and will rarely mount a serious challenge to Federal Supremacy.

Interesting take on this, FF. What do you think the states are hoping for? I'll admit, I took them at face value when they opposed Obamacare, but the likelihood of an ulterior motive is very possible. I don't trust any of them.

And God help us if they ever call for a Constitutional Convention. It would be disastrous. We just need to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, and bring the federal government back within its enumerated powers, and we'll be fine.

Here is an excellent analysis of the State's hesitation to set up healthcare exchanges.......it has everything to do with economics and very little to do with politics.

OBAMACARE AND THE STATES — ANOTHER LOOK

POSTED ON DECEMBER 14, 2012 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF at Powerlineblog.com

In the post below, I discussed the news that most states apparently are unwilling to establish health insurance exchanges, a key element of Obamacare. Accordingly, it will be up to the federal government to set up an exchange for individuals living in these states. But Congress didn’t allocate money for administering federal exchanges. Moreover, it can be argued that the law as written seems to prohibit federally run exchanges from providing subsidies to individuals.

But some analysts, including some conservatives, believe that governors will be making a big mistake if they don’t set up exchanges. Douglas Holtz-Eakin, for example, has warned Republicans that they will be “outfoxed and overrun” if they leave the exchanges to Obama administration officials. He warns that the administration could impose too many regulations, ultimately ruining the exchanges and opening the door to a “Washington takeover of health care.” “If conservatives allow it to happen,” says Holtz-Eakin, “they will be consenting to an unprecedented and potentially irreversible intrusion into states’ economies and health-care systems.”

This assumes that the Obama administration will find the money to set up the exchanges and that court challenges will fail. Moreover, if the feds “ruin” their exchange, wouldn’t it require new legislation to replace it with a full “Washington takeover of health care?”

But all of this aside, it’s easy to understand why governors are unwilling to enlist in the exchanges project. As Chris Christie said when he vetoed legislation that would have set up an exchange in New Jersey, “I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a State-based Exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options, and how much control they will give the states over this option.”

Just because Congress is willing to pass legislation without knowing what it says doesn’t mean that state governments should buy a pig in the poke from the feds.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive...other-look.php

I haven't the slightest idea what the "states" would want. It is the leaders that will be looking for something, whether it is federal dollars for some program they want or just to be selected for a seat at the table, etc. I would not be surprised if some of these governors are suddenly appointed to high level positions and the replacement sets up the exchange. These are the types of things I was eluding too.

The states could get together and repeal the 16th and 17th at a constitutional convention. Of course, the risk is that the same thing that happened last time would occur and we would get a whole new government.

I think the states want greater clarification at this point. They are clueless what the costs will be. Like Gov. Christi said:

“I will not ask New Jerseyans to commit today to a State-based Exchange when the federal government cannot tell us what it will cost, how that cost compares to other options, and how much control they will give the states over this option.”