Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
"New Politics" in Action
Old 03-23-2009, 12:48 PM   #1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
"New Politics" in Action

SC governor Mark Sanford wanted to use some stimulus money to pay down debt. He got his answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html"
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-23-2009, 01:19 PM   #2
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 11,044
Perhaps he should have kept his opposition to the stimulus bill a bit more quiet...
__________________

__________________
FIREd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 01:24 PM   #3
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
One of the worst things to happen to the 10th Amendment since the Civil War was the rise in the use of "federal funds" as an end run around states' rights.

They effectively blackmail the states into passing laws the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force on them. And even if they don't comply, the feds have no issue with taking the tax money of that state's residents even as the feds punish the state for not caving into federal demands by withholding "federal funds" from that state.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 01:25 PM   #4
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
SC governor Mark Sanford wanted to use some stimulus money to pay down debt. He got his answer:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123759827524401409.html"

careful, ha...
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-23-2009, 02:06 PM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
One of the worst things to happen to the 10th Amendment since the Civil War was the rise in the use of "federal funds" as an end run around states' rights.

They effectively blackmail the states into passing laws the federal government has no Constitutional authority to force on them. And even if they don't comply, the feds have no issue with taking the tax money of that state's residents even as the feds punish the state for not caving into federal demands by withholding "federal funds" from that state.
Hmmmmm, the 10th Amendment is trumped by the first 9 Amendments to the Constitution as well as the 13th, 14th (which brought in the first 9), 15th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Seems like the 10th Amendment does not have alot of significance in our modern times, perhaps it merely states an obvious tautology. Oh, and I forgot there are other clauses in the original Constitution that also trump the 10th Amendment as well.
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 07:55 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
Oh, and I forgot there are other clauses in the original Constitution that also trump the 10th Amendment as well.
It doesn't work that way. The Amendments CHANGE or CLARIFY the Constitution not the other way around.

Gov Sanford is making sense. His reasoning is also why my Gov and the Gov from the neighboring state have refused federal funds for programs that will continue after the federal funds stop. Many of Clinton's' highly tauted 100,000 newly minted police officer positions suffered the same fate. As soon as the federal money stopped coming in many of the positions were eliminated. Fortunately many agencies knew when the funds would stop and just didn't fill a position when one became vacant, so few officers lost their job.

A lot of the federal money is for programs that must be funded after the money runs out. I would hold that much of the money for the programs would be spent in the ramp up and not actually spent on the program. So the state would spend a bunch of federal money on ramping up and be stuck holding the bag for the implementation. Sounds kind of like the government paying all of your fees to obtain a mortgage you don't really need, but then leaving you paying a mortgage you can barely, if at all, afford and really don't want.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 08:29 AM   #7
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
It doesn't work that way. The Amendments CHANGE or CLARIFY the Constitution not the other way around.
You're overstating the case for Amendments. In some cases, they do not alter or clarify embedded Clauses in the Original Consitution. (A good example is the Privileges and Immunities Clauses contained in Article IV of the Original Constitution and in the 14th Amendment, both of which are directed at the States and prevent the States from discriminating against citizens of the States. The same Clause in the 14th Amendment does not change or clarify the comparable Clause in Article IV.) You might ask, why an Amendment? Some Amendments (as well as many that have been proposed in the past)might have an affirming quality to them: they might just state the obvious and not alter current legal relationships.

My point here is that the 10th Amendment does not, if you read it carefully, alter the Necessary and Proper Clause (and the doctrine of implied powers of the Federal Government that the US Supreme Court espoused many years ago) of the Original Constitution. And that Clause when tied to other provisions of the Original Constitution in Article I augments the Federal Government's authority to operate in many areas that the States might also operate or to condition the State's acceptance of Federal dollars on compliance with Federal initiatives.

So, in a sense, the 10th Amendment doesn't change anything in the Original Constitution! In fact, I'm not sure it clarifies anything!
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 08:58 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
It absolutely clarifies the fact that any power not granted to the federal government or the states is the responsibility of the states or the people. The reason it was put into the Amendments was so the federal government couldn't come in years later and implement programs, claiming that since it isn't stipulated to the be the responsibility of the states or the people it was the responsibility of the federal government. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government. You are correct that later court decisions have essentially negated the power of the 10th Amendment, but that is for another discussion.
__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 09:09 AM   #9
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
It absolutely clarifies the fact that any power not granted to the federal government or the states is the responsibility of the states or the people. The reason it was put into the Amendments was so the federal government couldn't come in years later and implement programs, claiming that since it isn't stipulated to the be the responsibility of the states or the people it was the responsibility of the federal government. It was designed to limit the power of the federal government. You are correct that later court decisions have essentially negated the power of the 10th Amendment, but that is for another discussion.
No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 10:19 AM   #10
gone traveling
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,864
Where is Texarkandy when we need him most?
__________________
Westernskies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 10:35 AM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
FinanceDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,484
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).
Why are we talking about the Constitution when most if not all judges don't follow it anyway??
__________________
Consult with your own advisor or representative. My thoughts should not be construed as investment advice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results (love that one).......:)


This Thread is USELESS without pics.........:)
FinanceDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2009, 12:51 PM   #12
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinanceDude View Post
Why are we talking about the Constitution when most if not all judges don't follow it anyway??
Oh you mean like John Marshall, who was around when the Constitution rolled off the printing press, right?
__________________
Someday this war's gonna end . . .
ChrisC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 12:43 AM   #13
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 595
There is a larger war going on in the govt these days. I have been seeing it with more frequency that ever though. For some... there is an active attempt to make the meaning of words meaningless. There are people out there that will debate with you all day long about how what words mean... are not REALLY what they mean. THey will twist and turn and ultimately try to convince you that the dictionary itself is wrong, and printed word can mean anything that you want them to.

It is an attempt to re-write reality. Of course it is not really possible to do that, but lots of folks continue to try.
__________________
armor99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2009, 06:47 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisC View Post
No, it's not a basis for another discussion because what preceeded this statement is a view that has not been accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court or any serious Constitutional scholar (and I wouldn't consider Ron Paul to be one).
Sadly your position is true now. It started around the end of the 1800's and has continued in that vein until modern days, where for all intents and purposes the 10th has no meaning at all. To see the changes in thought look at the 13th and 18th amendments. The 13th outlawed slavery, with the exception of a punishment for a crime. This could have easily been passed as a law. I can also see where this was implemented as an amendment simply to make it difficult to repeal but this is the first time slavery had been dealt with in the Constitution. The 18th outlawed alcohol. We have similar laws, not amendments, for marijuana, hashish, LSD, etc. and they didn't require an amendment to the Constitution. Why not? It was the change in Constitutional thought.

The 10th amendment was put into the Constitution to ally fears that the federal government would attempt to take more power than people were willing to give it. The word "expressly" was not put into the amendment so the Constitution had room to breath. This was done so 200 years later the people who believe in a strict reading of the document could not limit the government to what was happening in the 1700's. The founding fathers knew technology would advance into areas they didn't even know existed. Take interstate highways, for example,they are used for the commerce of the United States, but are not expressly authorized by the Constitution as a power of the federal government. Because they are for the commerce of the US, the federal government is authorized to provide funding for the highways.

Now that this thread has been throughly hijacked, I'll not speak on the Amendment topic again, in this thread.

Edited to add: If the Supreme Court says an eraser is a duck it is a duck. The arguement is over. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the 10th Amendement doesn't say anything, so it doesn't say anything.
__________________

__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama and the politics of race samclem Other topics 4 03-18-2008 05:46 AM
No Politics Rustic23 Other topics 52 08-01-2007 06:47 PM
PPT "corporate action" buyout ? JohnEyles FIRE and Money 1 06-12-2007 06:54 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:45 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.