Increasing Number of States Declaring Sovereignty
- Thread starter mjolnir131
- Start date
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Tho I agree with the movement, I disagree with the reason. The reason should not be unfunded mandates; but rather, the federal government doesn't have the authority to be sticking their noses in the states' business outside of what the Constitution allows them.
The government is very restricted in its abilities, according to the Constitution. That being military and diplomacy. I see a few things they could add by amendments, but the powers that be refuse to go that way. Why adhere to it when ppl think its obsolete?
What I really see this as is when the feds come in and completely take over, these states can say "at least we tried". It's the Constitution's last stand.
The government is very restricted in its abilities, according to the Constitution. That being military and diplomacy. I see a few things they could add by amendments, but the powers that be refuse to go that way. Why adhere to it when ppl think its obsolete?
What I really see this as is when the feds come in and completely take over, these states can say "at least we tried". It's the Constitution's last stand.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Well from a states rights point of view, the way the system works is that the states have the right to pull out of the union based on their treaty with the US government. The US government doesn't own a state and when a state is up for statehood, there is a treaty that is signed with the US government spelling out a lot of things. People think I am making this up but Texas is a perfect example, they can in all intent and purpose split themselves up into five different states because of the treaty they have as a republic with the US government. The same goes for Wyoming and California and it was Lincoln who decided to ignore the 10th amendment and the sovereignty issues in the first place to build a more perfect 'Union'
See the real problem sits with the 17th amendment, direct election of state senators. The way it was supposed to work and it did for a long long time was the people are represented by a group that was elected every two years, this allowed for them to be in contact with the people they represent. The states were also considered sperate entities and they were represented by the senators who were elected every 6 years. The people have the power, the rights go from God to the people to the states and to the federal government - not the other way around as most marxist and screwup people think. By allowing the people to choose the senator directly, the state now loses its reprsentation and this is where mandates and other things get shove in. The right of the state to elect its senator has always been there but the right of the senator to be elected by the governor or the legistlator was also there before the 17th amendment.
To add to this, we have people in DC who are using the words "taxation without representation" which is not their right to use. by allowing them representation, undetr the 23rd amendtment, and then full status to elect officials equal to a state, then it trashes the consitution and negates further states rights under the 10th amendment. The district was formed for a special purpose, to quote Wiki - note I don't normally do this "James Madison expounded the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in his "Federalist No. 43", arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security." but that was not the only reason, the other has to do with coruption within the city because of it being the center of government.
See the real problem sits with the 17th amendment, direct election of state senators. The way it was supposed to work and it did for a long long time was the people are represented by a group that was elected every two years, this allowed for them to be in contact with the people they represent. The states were also considered sperate entities and they were represented by the senators who were elected every 6 years. The people have the power, the rights go from God to the people to the states and to the federal government - not the other way around as most marxist and screwup people think. By allowing the people to choose the senator directly, the state now loses its reprsentation and this is where mandates and other things get shove in. The right of the state to elect its senator has always been there but the right of the senator to be elected by the governor or the legistlator was also there before the 17th amendment.
To add to this, we have people in DC who are using the words "taxation without representation" which is not their right to use. by allowing them representation, undetr the 23rd amendtment, and then full status to elect officials equal to a state, then it trashes the consitution and negates further states rights under the 10th amendment. The district was formed for a special purpose, to quote Wiki - note I don't normally do this "James Madison expounded the need for a federal district on January 23, 1788, in his "Federalist No. 43", arguing that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety. An attack on the Congress at Philadelphia by a mob of angry soldiers, known as the Pennsylvania Mutiny of 1783, had emphasized the need for the government to see to its own security." but that was not the only reason, the other has to do with coruption within the city because of it being the center of government.