State Of The Disunion

Ironic; I was just discussing with my 15-year old daughter last night the difference between Canada, where "residual" powers vest with the feds, and the US, where they (supposedly) vest with the states. She asked me what was better, and I told her I thought it was best to allow smaller individual units (states/provinces) to experiment with different approaches to problems, rather than have some poobah in Ottawa or Washington try to determine what's best for the entire country. I hope this movement picks up steam and the Supremes back it.

"Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California, and Georgia have all introduced bills and resolutions declaring sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. Colorado, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine, and Illinois are considering such measures."

http://www.infowars.com/resources/states-rights.html

Texas is a wonderful place. 25 million people and a GDP bigger than Canada.

most of the women have big hair ,big boo bs and enough teeth for two.

This is a very interesting development. Sounds like independant minded Americans have made choices as to what type of government they prefer. Nanny statism imposed from away does not seem to be the prevailing direction of American political thought. The MSM is pooh poohing the Tea Parties as local agitators being used by neocons. I think they have failed to talk to the people involved and the reasons why they are upset with big government and big taxes. I've always been a fan of Texas independant thinking and cheer their efforts to reaffirm the right of a free people to make unhindered choices of how they want to be governed.

Let's see if I have this straight...

Americans as a whole elected someone who made no bones about wanting to move the United States towards greater federal control of everything, and the most prominent blue states are planning or have introduced bills to assert their 10th Amendment rights?

Obama was right... change you can believe in. I don't think that this was the change he was looking for.

This is the revolution that the MSM and politicians have been trying to squash.

Let us not forget that the original American Revolution of 1776 was a TAX revolution. Its happening again, thanks to Mr. Obama.

Mr. Harper sir, please pay attention! Tax cut now.

Let us see now.
An unnamed persons in the particular department are free to decide simply who they don’t like, to be extreme group.
Sound like socialist/fascist totalitarian clique is running business in the US government.

Interesting dichotomy between Canada and the US as alluded to by KevinB in the first post. I remember discussing politics with a fellow fifteen years my senior (I was in my early 30's at the time). My point was that we, the people, should be the ones who decided how our money was spent and that our MPs/MPPs/Councilmen were nothing more than OUR mouthpieces in their respective political chambers. His response floored me. His belief (and it would seem a large number of Canadians), was that we paid these MPs/MPPs/Councilmen to make decisions for us and whatever they decide we should abide. I stopped pressing my point for two reasons:

1) Out of respect for my colleague's opinion, which although is totally wrong--he has a right to hold; and

2) If Canadians, in fact, held this view of their public SERVANTS then all was lost.

Thank you for showing me that there are others here in Canada who share my point of view.

~~favill~~

"Americans as a whole elected someone"

Andrew, not quite right, 52% voted for Obama, and half of that 52% didn't even know who Biden was. It has become painfully obvious the Democrats can vote in Socialism, Bailouts, Healthcare, Welfare and 20 Million Plus Illegal Mexicans.

The Republican Party may be over as we know it.

Meaningless nonbinding posturing.

I think if you look into this, you'll find states have been passing these things for over 10 years now (or in presidential terms, all the way back to the Clinton administration). Fat lot of good they've done. Get back to me when the states start actively rejecting federal funding, unfunded federal mandates, etc, and in large enough numbers that it makes a real dent in the behemoth.

Governor of Texas just another "rightwing extremist":

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/04/constitution-is-subversive-manifesto.html

Yesterday I heard mention of a US Government document just beginning to see the light of day – "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment"

It’s supposed to be a Homeland Security document that will be making the rounds pretty quickly: the people reading this may in fact have already gotten an email on the subject. If they haven’t, they will.

As defined by this document, rightwing extremism is defined as follows:

“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

Before the liberals of the world rejoice, they should take note that other single-issue promoters include such things as gay marriagse, legalized marijuana, PRO abortion proponents AND global warming etc…

Welcome the vast rightwing conspiracy potheads, gays of America – and global warming alarmists too!!!

It seems that his is the second document of this type introduced in the USA in only a few weeks. Missouri published a report calling for vigilance in eyeballing people who voted for third party political candidates like Ron Paul, US Congressman.

It actually seems to me like the US Government feels threatened by people with critical thinking capacities who do not rely of network anchors to tell them what to think, believe, say (or not say) and who one should vote for.

George Orwell, author of 1984, would feel sick to his stomach to see what America is becoming in 2009.

Obama's aggressive statist collectivism is alienating anyone who is a constitutionalist.

Before Texas gave DC the jurisdictional finger, Washington, New Hampshire, Main, Vermont, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Georgia, South Carolina, have all introduced bills and resolutions reminding Washington DC that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limiting the power of the federal government.

These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansions. intrusions and unconstitutional legislating and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

...then there is the growing state secessionist congress that has 15 states and growing.....but the teleprompted light-giver responds by directing police and military to see patriots as "terrorists" and forcing debt driven "stimulus" payola down their throats.

Don't knock these State resolutions intended to remind Washington that they're not in charge of everything.

It's a start, and it isn't going unnoticed in Washington nor around the country.

In the end, this guy's wings are going to be clipped but good.

In the USA, the feds finance at least 95% of major highways. Are the "blue states" willing to give that up too?? It was just a thought.

tom burch - I've got two comments in the Reader Tips on this DHS (department of homeland security) document that is just out. It's an extremely dangerous document, for it defines anyone who objects to the federal policies on, in particular, immigration, minorities and gun control..as an extremist. As an extremist right winger. And, as someone who might be prone to violence.

But a few excerpts show that this is not about extremism, i.e., irrationalism, rejection of debate and even violence. It's about dissent against the federal authority.

Here's their definition: "Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

What's wrong with this definition? It's inclusive of EVERYTHING. It's so broad that it is meaningless. And dangerous. How can you lump these 'sets' together?

The Set that is based on emotional irrational hate; the Set that rationally considers that federal and state jurisdictions must not compete; the Set that intellectually rejects all and any government.

How can one definition logically incorporate all three such disparate meanings? How can you call dissent against federal intrusion on state's rights - an act of 'right wing extremism'? Yet - this is what this document does.

And it then, in the rest of this document, focuses on this Set, this Set that dissents on policies and programs....not the two Sets that are based on irrational emotionalism and intellectual utopianism. This document focuses on anyone who questions the federal role in government policies'.

Furthermore, it refers to the First Amendment, which is the Right of Freedom of Speech in a cautionary tone, warning that such 'freedom' might lead to violence.

And, it also refers to the Tenth Amendment, which gives all unnamed Rights to the States, in an equally cautionary term, disparaging those people who promote State's Rights.

It's an extremely dangerous document and in my view, is part of the Obama campaign to deliberately disempower the people, and to deprive them of the freedom and moral and intellectual right - and capacity - to question and debate federal policies and programs.

Notice how this document doesn't refer to the people's questions and rejection of the Obama govt policies of pork stimulus, trillion dollar deficits, foreign policy dead ends, because the Obama administration's actions here are indefensible and can't be sloughed off by blaming YOU, the people, and telling you that your questions are irrational and based only on your bigotry.

So, instead, a climate of guilt about questions is being developed. This climate is geared to suggest that doubts and questions are irrational and bigoted. Furthermore, a deliberate attempt is being made to establish a massive new electoral voting bloc - the illegal immigrants, and the new 'pay no taxes and get all services' class. These will be used to redefine the electoral map of the USA - and if you question this, this document says, already, that you do so only because you are a bigot and prone to violence.

Next step? Introduce measures to reduce freedom of speech, reduce the rights of states?

Jack Frosst
"In the USA, the feds finance at least 95% of major highways. Are the "blue states" willing to give that up too?? It was just a thought."
A bit of restructuring and citizen revolt against Federal taxes resolves that problem.....but is defacto seccession.....Fort Sumpter anyone????

ET, you mean to tell me I'm officially an extremist right winger as per the US gubmint?

YES! Finally some recognition!

One more chess piece moved in Obama's endgame to impose actual fascism on the USA. We may yet get to see if the Second Amendment is sufficient to secure the US constitution.

Just to be clear, I really do NOT want to see that. But considering the alternative...

Texas is a wonderful place. 25 million people and a GDP bigger than Canada.

Oh, foo. Canada GDP 2007: 1.2 trillion Texas: 1.07 trillion (all figures US$). More than 1 in 10 jailed prisoners in the US are in Texas, which suggests Texans are either 1) more apt to break the law, or 2) Texan authorities are more apt to bend the law to meet their goals. Neither of which makes me want to live there, although I will admit I've enjoyed my visits to the Lone Star state.

PET's Collectivism/Statism Is Buried in the PET Cemetery.
...-

""We're a government (that) respects provincial jurisdiction and that goes for more than just working constructively," Baird said."

"So what we're trying to do is work constructively, make decisions and then get out of the way," Baird explained.

We'll be judged at the end of the day by our record, and I'm quite comfortable with that."

...-

"Provinces, cities must oversee infrastructure projects, says Infrastructure Minister John Baird"

OTTAWA — The Harper government is counting on provinces and cities to prevent its multi-billion-dollar infrastructure plan from being exploited by organized crime or unravelling into a boondoggle, says the federal minister responsible for transport, infrastructure and communities.

"We're not the ones that write the contracts, we're not the ones that hire the contractors," said John Baird, in an exclusive interview with Global National and Canwest News Service. "I think if the federal government became involved at hiring crane operators and construction workers, we'd never get anything in infrastructure done."
urlm.in/ccho

Sadly, it might be a little too little and too late -- the federal gov't. has a three day march on any state or group insisting on constitutionally granted rights here, and I believe they will be ready, willing, and able to clamp down hard.

Slightly o/t, but check this out:
it appears as though some IL carriage drivers are getting their constitutionally granted rights to due process, property, and possibly a fair trial tromped on thanks to some PETA types having the ear of the local politicos

http://fuglyhorseoftheday.blogspot.com/

they also appear to be willing to fight it, so if anyone would care to take a look at this, I'm sure they and the rest of us who own property in IL would be most appreciative.

Or maybe KevinB, JUST maybe, the good folks in Texas actually ENFORCE the law?

"Or maybe KevinB, JUST maybe, the good folks in Texas actually ENFORCE the law?
Posted by: AtlanticJim at April 14, 2009 12:55 PM "

ENFORCE the law????? My gawd,atlanticjim. Are YOU some kind of right wing nut?....heh.

And for the rest.Has everybody forgotten how the Feds downloaded health care onto the provinces(gotta balance that budget),but then stuck their pig noses into every thing else??

This blogpost is not important. Oprah is interested in sex-change in Alberta. Actually, she just wants to know why Alberta is de-listing the operation from medicare.

Here in Ontario, I have to pay for an eye examination. I think I should go for a free long-schlong instead.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Oprah+expresses+interest+Canadian+change+surgery+decision/1492932/story.html

I'm proud to say Brandon Creighton is my state representative and the Guv is one of my fellow Aggies.

Come next Spring, Perry will face a tough battle in the Repub primary, as he's being challenged by Sen. Kay Bailey "Nitwit" Hutchison, who has decided she wants to return to Texas rather than stay in the District of Change. She recently adopted two daughters & desires to raise them in Texas. While her motive for returning is understandable, she would take a corporate job if she weren't a narcissistic Longhorn. (Yes, I realize that phrase is redundant, but folks in Canada may not appreciate how self-centered the graduates of Texas University are.)

I completely agree with texan. Hutchison is almost a RINO, and as a teasip is not to be trusted.

I'm glad to see Texas stand up for states' rights. Here in Virginia, we have elected fools.

It's maybe not the best comparison but isn't this where Harper was going with his "firewall" thinking. How he has turned into a socialist.

Atlantic Jim, justnotthinking:

When you have 8% of the population but 15% of the prison population, something's out of whack. And if you don't think Texans make up law to suit them, I suggest you visit slashdot.org, and look up the actions of the Eastern District of Texas court, where patent law seems to be made up in the men's room before trial.

Say there, Kevin, are you aware the Eastern District of Texas is FEDERAL court, not a state court?

State law has nothing to do with patent law, nor the appointment of judges to the federal bench.

And, what leads you to think the prison population should be proportionate to the population? Has it been written into the natural law of the universe that a fixed percentage of every population commits crimes?

Re: Texas prison population statistics out of whack --

Texas also generates CO2 and other emissions 'way out of proportion to its population compared to other States, and for the same reason.

When the Congresscritters, their staffers, and the bureaucrats who promulgate the regulations go out for a party, both the cocaine they snort and the gasoline that got them there came, with high probability, via Texas, as does the weed they blow and the natural gas that keeps the lights on.

Texas law enforcement takes a dim view of the drug trade, although in compliance with Ric's Rule #2 ("Markets Happen Anyway") there is a good deal of corruption and payoffs happening. The overwhelming majority of Texas's prison inmates got there by being caught in some phase of the drug trade.

We jail 'em so the snobs can display clean hands, just as we refine and transport the fuels so they can have a clean environment. Part of what's driving the Lege, as endorsed by Governor Perry, is that they're now lifting their snotty noses at the measures we're being forced to take to support their habits, both as regards recreational pharmaceuticals and as maintaining the traffic jams on I66, I64, I95, and the Beltway.

Regards,
Ric

KevinB, I think that the southern border of Texas being with Mexico might have something to do with that prison population you mentioned. Have a look at Arizona, it will be right up there to.

Hint for your brain, Janet Napolitano was previously governor of Arizona.

Maybe Western Canada should build a moat in Manitoba to keep Ottawa out of our business and out of our pockets.

Sorry to see all the damage being done to unlucky Red River Valley residents though.
Hope you guys have some better days coming.

Yes, where do Albertans and Saskatchewanians sign up for 10th Amendment rights?

50 million plus americans are armed. well armed and the army will not fight against them for a pres and gov that is in violation of the constitution. pay attention folks all will not unfold as the idiot obama thinks.

You want to talk about exceeding Constitutional authority? Who was it that elected and re-elected a party that cheer-led an illegal war? That drove us back into debt? That ignored an economic crisis until it was too late to stop it? That stripped us of habeas corpus? That tortured people? That opened secret and not-so-secret prisons overseas to prevent the LAW from being able to touch them?

Oh, that's right. You and your ilk. And now, because the cheque for the last 8 years of drunken frat brother partying has finally come due, but that it's a Democrat that has to do the tax raising and ask the hard questions, now you're mad? Now? Just now? Where were you people six years ago? Four? Two?

Please. Wake the hell up. The same people that got us into this mess are stoking the populist fires so they can get back into power and get right back on the gravy train to hell.

Now if Texas or Perry actually had ANY Balls he would have made this statement 2 months ago and rejected ALL Federal Money. But he doesn't and can pander to a certain crowds with meaningless "resolutions" that get them all fired up but will amount to nothing.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

That's from the Declaration of Independence, just in case anyone doesn't know.

I think that the US is heading towards a civil war. There are many well armed Americans who take that statement very seriously.

Looks like most of our Southern cousins have as much faith in their Federal Government as the Canada's do. From the West to the East.
Provincial rights here is a call to arms.
The Feds continualy try to over ride them.
With Obama I don't blame the States for the intrusions planned to make uniformity by their Federal Mandrins.

JMO

I think I beat ET to it:

Herb

"illegal war?" Proof? No laws were broken.

"party that cheer-led"

Dude, what about the vast majority of Democrats that "cheer-led" the so called "illegal war". Here is a short list: Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Joe Bidden (just to name a few).

"That drove us back into debt? "

When were the Americans out of debt? If you're talking deficit, GWB increased the deficit >500 billion during his mandate while fighting two wars. BO will increase that to 10 Trillion.

Before I say something about Rick Perry, let me briefly mention something about our prison population.

As an important border state, we are currently deeply involved with operations against Mexican narco-traffickers.

There are 4 primary cartels dominating the narcotics manufacturing and distribution in Mexico that are directed toward the United States.

Mexican narco-traffickers make about $32 billion a year, and the bulk of it (20% or more) goes for bribes and other illegal activities involved in getting the products to market here in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.

There are Mexican organization Las Zetas who are members of the Mexican army that have trained by US special forces. They are a very efficient and professional military force. No sooner were they trained than they hired themselves out to narco-traffickers.

They hire out to Texas gangs like the Texas Syndicate to do hits and carry out other criminal activity on this side of the border.

I could go on about this, but suffice it to say that we are very pleased to lock up offenders here in Texas. With the drug wars raging and the kind of money that the cartels have to carry on virtual wars in border towns, the best thing that can happen is for them to be in jail.

Rick Perry probably speaks for most Texans. We are one of the redder of the red states and therefore we didn't vote for Obama in the first place.

If Obama thought it was going to be easy to run over us, he has another 'think' coming.

We don't accept his values, his policies, or his heavy authoritarianism.

While I don't expect a secessionist movement to succeed, it might be interesting to Albertans to find that we actually do have a secessionist movement in Texas that has grown up because of the issues raised by the Obama administration.

It also might be of interest to remember that Rick Perry was George Bush's Lieutenant Governor. And now George and Laura Bush live in Dallas.

Don't think for one second that Rick Perry took this position without full consultation with Bush and other influential politicians at the state and federal levels.

A lot of high-level support is behind Rick Perry.

Stay tuned. It could get interesting.

Indiana Homez:

OK, points taken (though Iraq we will disagree on ... why did they invade again?).

How about the rest of the points? How about the Patriot Act? Warantless Wiretaps? Or are those things constitutional?

Why wait until now? What about two years ago?

Care to address all my points instead of cherry picking?

The USA is toast - not because of Obama, but because of the unregulated Investment Banks (and this is coming from a former Republican).

Seriously, if a Canadian Bank opened up a branch in my city tomorrow, I would transfer all of my (remaining) assets in a heartbeat!!!

Kate, considering that Obama's poll ratings with the US public are more than double what W's were when he left office, I think it *is* just right-wing radio. 'Kay?

Greg:

While I don't expect a secessionist movement to succeed, it might be interesting to Albertans to find that we actually do have a secessionist movement in Texas that has grown up because of the issues raised by the Obama administration.

It is probably a little too early for the following idea to take shape, but what are your thoughts on splitting North America into four countries?
1) Western Blue States (inc HI) and British Columbia
2) Red States (incl Alaska) Alberta and Saskatchewan (maybe Manitoba), YK, and NWT
3) Eastern Blue States and Eastern Canada minus Quebec, and Nunavit
4) Quebec

Although hypothetical at this time, I am asking the question in a serious tone.

"bleet" is in for a rude wake-up call tomorrow. if the MSM says "hundreds of thousands", then we know we will have a "Million-Man March" against big government.

"Warantless[sic] Wiretaps" have been re-authorized by Mr. Hope-and-Change. I've even heard they're more draconian now.

Option 2: Nine Nations of North America

"...cheer-led an illegal war?"

Just because you dislike something does not make it illegal. I've yet to hear anyone actually explain how the Iraq War was "illegal." The UN approved dozens of resolutions, all of which Saddam violated, and then Congress authorized the President to use force. Good or bad policy is debatable, but it appears to be the legal formalities were more than met. Indeed, since there was never a peace treaty or even an armistice between the US and Iraq, just a ceasefire, the Iraq War was legally a resumption of hostilities from the Gulf War, and a state of war existed in the entire time in between. Saddam repeatedly violated the ceasefire by engaging in overt acts of war against the US, most notably by targeting our aircraft in the no-fly zone.

"That drove us back into debt?"

Score one for you on that point: of course, I despised Bush for his profligate spending, but Obama has gone orders of magnitude beyond him.

"That ignored an economic crisis until it was too late to stop it?"

The Bush administration did not ignore the factors leading up to the subprime meltdown. They were trying to amend the CRA and to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as far back as 2003. People like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd blocked any such action, and were saying there was nothing wrong less than a year ago.

"That stripped us of habeas corpus?"

When? Where? Since when did the writ of habeas corpus extend worldwide to enemies captured on the battlefield? Since the courts conjured new jurisdiction for themselves from whole cloth in Rasul and Boumedienne, and somehow claimed not to be overruling Eisentrager? If that had been the law at the time, hundreds of thousands of Axis POW's would have had access to the civilian federal courts to challenge their detentions during WWII. That would be ludicrous. The courts have taken over America's foreign policy, an area in which they have neither competence nor legitimacy.

"That tortured people?"

Still no actual evidence of this.

"That opened secret and not-so-secret prisons overseas to prevent the LAW from being able to touch them?"

1) the law and the courts are not one and the same and 2) how about we put them up at your place instead?

"How about the rest of the points? How about the Patriot Act? Warantless Wiretaps? Or are those things constitutional?"

What specific provisions in the Patriot Act are you contending are unconstitutional? Or is the entire statute in valid just because you don't like it?

As for warrantless wiretaps, the 4th Amendment does not require warrants: it requires that searches and seizures not be "unreasonable." Again, something is not unconstitutional simply because you or I may think it's bad policy.

"The USA is toast - not because of Obama, but because of the unregulated Investment Banks..."

WTF are you talking about? There ARE no American investment banks left. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers went under. Merill Lynch and Morgan Stanley were swallowed up by commercial banks. And Goldman Sachs turned itself into a commercial bank.

From what I understand in the US Constitution, Federal Power is evolved from the individual States' willingness to do so for specific national interests and efficiencies. The 10th Amendment has been mentioned. I'm not familiar with the text.

According to a guest on George Noory's show the States have the power to deny those powers granted to the Federal Government if a majority of states agree to deny those powers. I'm not sure of the majority required (35 states?), but this would cause the Federal Government to be dissolved and a new election to be called.

herb

Sorry man, I got a ride to work yesterday and had to book, didn't have time to finish. I'm just reading comments now.