Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wkmac Question
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 714577" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>More,</p><p>I'm not familar with what the good governor of our state meant but I'll take a stab and you can take it or leave and I promise it will only be 999,999 words. <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Foremost, I do think his words were political grandstanding. I posted a vid with Judge Naipolatano (that spelling doesn't look right) somewhere in this forum where he talked about some of the states suing to stop the healthcare thing and he said also it was grandstanding but moreso he felt at this point the States lacked standing because as of yet they've been damaged. It's so early in this whole process yet that not much has come down to where an actual damage has taken place if you will so how do you claim standing in court? "Your honor, I'm here today to seek relief from a theft that has yet to occur." We have established pre-emption as a damage but I'm betting the gov't won't turn that ideal on itself.</p><p> </p><p>Sovereign would also refer back to a type of States' Rights posture or even more to a pre-Constitution framework where each state under the Articles of Confederation were seen as an actual sovereign state but operated in a Confederation of mutual cooperation and self defense alliance. Even under our current Constitution some of that framework was attempted to be held in place with the 9th and 10th amendments but IMHO those amendments what little power they may have held were put asunder by the 14th amendment, Commerce Clause abuse and International Treaty adoption. Even if for example we wanted to get rid of Social Security on pure Constitutional grounds, we couldn't because of various international labor treaties we've entered into over the years. I earlier noted in another thread about the Art 6 Supremacy Clause in that very reasoning. </p><p> </p><p>I'm concerned buried in the languages of NAFTA or even some WTO document is our deathnail as it pertains to Constitutional recourse from a States' rights position as much as I love it if there was some way to take that approach to stop it. I have studied some treaty law in relationship to US law from the early half of the 20th century and even some tax law up into the 80's but since then I don't know. Past practice tell me something really bad is laying there and another reason I think a court action would fail but it also might uncover something that would open more eyes so it could prove to the good also.</p><p> </p><p>There is a action is nature where some animals will try and make themselves bigger than they really are to fool surrounding threats. IMO in the case of our good governor in Georgia, I think this is just such a case. Besides, this fool can't even tell the Federal gov't to go "friend" themselves when it comes to the very water that originates here and fellow Georgians here will know what I'm talking about. Why has he not pulled the States' Rights eg Sovereign State card there?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/surprised.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":surprised:" title="Surprised :surprised:" data-shortname=":surprised:" /></p><p> </p><p>Hope that answers some of your question in a timely and "conservative" use of words!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>BTW More: If you want to see the Judge vid and didn't, PM me and I'll dig it up for you. Sorry I couldn't remember where it was. Don't expect it today as I'm about to go out and work on the garden. Ah vacation! Now if I could just ditch this work dispatch my wife gave me.</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 714577, member: 2189"] More, I'm not familar with what the good governor of our state meant but I'll take a stab and you can take it or leave and I promise it will only be 999,999 words. :happy-very: Foremost, I do think his words were political grandstanding. I posted a vid with Judge Naipolatano (that spelling doesn't look right) somewhere in this forum where he talked about some of the states suing to stop the healthcare thing and he said also it was grandstanding but moreso he felt at this point the States lacked standing because as of yet they've been damaged. It's so early in this whole process yet that not much has come down to where an actual damage has taken place if you will so how do you claim standing in court? "Your honor, I'm here today to seek relief from a theft that has yet to occur." We have established pre-emption as a damage but I'm betting the gov't won't turn that ideal on itself. Sovereign would also refer back to a type of States' Rights posture or even more to a pre-Constitution framework where each state under the Articles of Confederation were seen as an actual sovereign state but operated in a Confederation of mutual cooperation and self defense alliance. Even under our current Constitution some of that framework was attempted to be held in place with the 9th and 10th amendments but IMHO those amendments what little power they may have held were put asunder by the 14th amendment, Commerce Clause abuse and International Treaty adoption. Even if for example we wanted to get rid of Social Security on pure Constitutional grounds, we couldn't because of various international labor treaties we've entered into over the years. I earlier noted in another thread about the Art 6 Supremacy Clause in that very reasoning. I'm concerned buried in the languages of NAFTA or even some WTO document is our deathnail as it pertains to Constitutional recourse from a States' rights position as much as I love it if there was some way to take that approach to stop it. I have studied some treaty law in relationship to US law from the early half of the 20th century and even some tax law up into the 80's but since then I don't know. Past practice tell me something really bad is laying there and another reason I think a court action would fail but it also might uncover something that would open more eyes so it could prove to the good also. There is a action is nature where some animals will try and make themselves bigger than they really are to fool surrounding threats. IMO in the case of our good governor in Georgia, I think this is just such a case. Besides, this fool can't even tell the Federal gov't to go "friend" themselves when it comes to the very water that originates here and fellow Georgians here will know what I'm talking about. Why has he not pulled the States' Rights eg Sovereign State card there? :surprised: Hope that answers some of your question in a timely and "conservative" use of words! :happy-very: BTW More: If you want to see the Judge vid and didn't, PM me and I'll dig it up for you. Sorry I couldn't remember where it was. Don't expect it today as I'm about to go out and work on the garden. Ah vacation! Now if I could just ditch this work dispatch my wife gave me. :happy-very: [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Wkmac Question
Top