Cinnoman Janett Berry

yeah socialists do things like mandating government run healthcare plans like romney did when he was governor of massachusetts

states =/= federal

i'm for states rights, small federal gov't, jackass. let the states take care of their own. it's even in the constitution. the federal gov't taking over the issue of healthcare where some states we successful with state-run healthcares, was unconstitutional as it was not an unresolved issue that the federal gov't had to take over. states are states. they are supposed to have a bit of sovereignty, as stated in the constitution, one reason the south was so pissed back in the 1800's.

[maks]

states =/= federal

i'm for states rights, small federal gov't, jackass. let the states take care of their own. it's even in the constitution. the federal gov't taking over the issue of healthcare where some states we successful with state-run healthcares, was unconstitutional as it was not an unresolved issue that the federal gov't had to take over. states are states. they are supposed to have a bit of sovereignty, as stated in the constitution, one reason the south was so pissed back in the 1800's.

oh so it's ok to pass a shockingly socialist bill so long as it's at the state level? so if idaho decided to redistribute everyone's wealth and pay every worker the same wage and put the hammer and sicle on their flag that wouldn't be communist behavior because idaho isn't a country, is that the gist of what you're saying?

oh so it's ok to pass a shockingly socialist bill so long as it's at the state level? so if idaho decided to redistribute everyone's wealth and pay every worker the same wage and put the hammer and sicle on their flag that wouldn't be communist behavior because idaho isn't a country, is that the gist of what you're saying?

god damn you're thick...

ugh, now i gotta pull out my constitution...

the idea is that the fact that is was a socialist bill, but it was something that the state saw was an issue that needed to be resolved so they may serve their citizens. redistribution of wealth is not an issue that would be plausible for a state to consider. states, however, make laws about wages (using the federal as a guideline). for example: waitresses in tennessee get paid about $2.13/hr + tips because they rely on their tips for most of their wage, yet tennessee chose to not have a state income tax. montana, however, passed a law that waitresses are paid the $7.-something federal base minimum wage plus their tips and they chose to have no sales tax, but a heavy income tax. these are examples of states taking care of their own as they see fit, and how thick headed of you to try to hover on the point of they type of bills states pass, when taking care of their own is what i stated is the actual point.

let me show you the constitution, so you can be a constitutionally informed libertarian instead of trying to regurgitate the little boy who cried socialist, and know what you're actually talking about.

"Article IV - The States
Section 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."

"Amendment 10

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."

amendment 10 is nice... chain of "command" as it would be for an unresolved issue would go: the people, the city, the county, the state AND THEN to the federal gov't.

My reason for being a secessionist is because nowhere in this living document is there fine print that says "future leaders of our great nation, please use every future opportunity to grow the power of the federal government's influence over the rights of the individual states to govern themselves at every available opportunity until you become so bloated and inefficient in your attempts to become a totalitarian sovereign authority that you inadvertently cause the demise of our great land."

no due to the constitution, the south had all right to secede, except they did it illegally, but there really was no was to do it legally since lincoln invaded his own country... but as much as i hate to admit it, the south seceded illegally because per the constitution, they would have had to have representatives of all states agree to disband a state or states in this case because the signing on the constitution was a binding contract amongst all the states...