The Repeal Amendment

[Soonerfan88]

I know SicEm is probably already working on this campaign but I just read about it today in an article concerning the Missouri legislature. I do believe that Congress and the Supreme Court have been going farther away from state's rights but am still on the fence about this amendment.


Picture
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
http://www.repealamendment.org/

It was written by a Georgetown law professor. It's being supported by elected officials in Virginia, Utah, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Minnesota, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina.

[sperry]

I know SicEm is probably already working on this campaign but I just read about it today in an article concerning the Missouri legislature. I do believe that Congress and the Supreme Court have been going farther away from state's rights but am still on the fence about this amendment.


http://www.repealamendment.org/

It was written by a Georgetown law professor. It's being supported by elected officials in Virginia, Utah, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Minnesota, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina.



Can't get behind that. Circumventing congress is not a good thing.

[Blue]

I like it.

[delhalew]

This needs to be done because Congress in the past has ignored petitions for a Constitutional Convention, which the founders believed we would need when Congress inevitably became oppressive. They really did foresee almost every way in which this government could wander astray. They did not, however, foresee our apathy.

Edit. I suppose Franklin did foresee our apathy when he answered the question of what sort of government had been created by saying "a republic, if you can keep it".

[AlbqSooner]

Can't get behind that. Circumventing congress is not a good thing.

Congress circumventing the will of the people seems to me a far worse thing.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Declaration of Indepence. IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

[1890MilesToNorman]

Amendments don't mean anything any more, they will ignore this one like they do the rest of them.

[Soonerfan88]

Congress circumventing the will of the people seems to me a far worse thing.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Declaration of Indepence. IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

This is my biggest argument argument also. I am hesitant only because I think the amendment as written is a little too broad. I'm not sure the states should have the right to repeal everything Congress does but, IMO, they have ALL left the people behind and are working for special interests and not what is best for this country.

State legislatures are a little better in that they are much more connected to their districts and must still work & live among their constituents.

[Half a Hundred]

This is silly. The South lost the damn war. This is just a gussied-up version of nullification.

[Soonerfan88]

And a couple of my favorite quotes from by Thomas Jefferson:

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.


All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

[delhalew]

This is silly. The South lost the damn war. This is just a gussied-up version of nullification.

Wherever you got these ridiculous ideas, retrace your steps. All the back to the beginning, and start over.

Not only did the founders intend us to have recourse, but it is incredibly difficult to get 2/3rds of the states to agree on anything. I think all the federal government chores can calm down.

Why don't ya'll just start an amendment to abolish the states? You act like the federal government created the states.

[Half a Hundred]

Wherever you got these ridiculous ideas, retrace your steps. All the back to the beginning, and start over.

Not only did the founders intend us to have recourse, but it is incredibly difficult to get 2/3rds of the states to agree on anything. I think all the federal government chores can calm down.

Why don't ya'll just start an amendment to abolish the states? You act like the federal government created the states.

Here's the thing - it's not 1789. As a result, while what the Founders intended may have some persuasive value, it by no means is binding. The reason why I said "the South lost the damn war" is because the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed how the United States works as a whole. If you think I'm devaluing the states, you're absolutely right - they're a historical accident that has little to no bearing on how most of the country works as a whole, and ends up being a large headache for people trying to do business across state lines. There is no reason a Senator from Wyoming representing 250,000 people should have the same voting power as one from California representing 17,500,000. Especially when that Senator has the power to block legislation.

Do I think there needs to be regional government with powers separate from the Feds? Absolutely. Do I think they should look anything like the states today? Absolutely not.

Finally, if you are still going by intent of the Framers, well, they put the Supremacy Clause in there for a reason.

[delhalew]

Here's the thing - it's not 1789. As a result, while what the Founders intended may have some persuasive value, it by no means is binding. The reason why I said "the South lost the damn war" is because the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed how the United States works as a whole. If you think I'm devaluing the states, you're absolutely right - they're a historical accident that has little to no bearing on how most of the country works as a whole, and ends up being a large headache for people trying to do business across state lines. There is no reason a Senator from Wyoming representing 250,000 people should have the same voting power as one from California representing 17,500,000. Especially when that Senator has the power to block legislation.

Do I think there needs to be regional government with powers separate from the Feds? Absolutely. Do I think they should look anything like the states today? Absolutely not.

Finally, if you are still going by intent of the Framers, well, they put the Supremacy Clause in there for a reason.

Oh, I fully understand were your idea of what we are comes from. Thank God not everyone shares that view.

Thank you for coming out and admitting you don't wish us to be a republic. Since states rights took that hit, we have seen how effectively 300 million people can be governed by a central ruling body on the east coast. That alone should give you pause.

[SpankyNek]

I know SicEm is probably already working on this campaign but I just read about it today in an article concerning the Missouri legislature. I do believe that Congress and the Supreme Court have been going farther away from state's rights but am still on the fence about this amendment.


It was written by a Georgetown law professor. It's being supported by elected officials in Virginia, Utah, Florida, Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Minnesota, Georgia, Texas and South Carolina.

I think it is important that we do not absolve the voters in each state of the responsibility to elect congressional representation that will vote the way they want them to.

State representation in congress is an extension of the will of the people, not a reflection of each state's legislative body.There are very few instances (including the healthcare vote) where constituencies were not represented in the way the electorate voted. Oklahoma's delegation voting against and California's voting for are prime examples.

[NormanPride]

Here's the thing - it's not 1789. As a result, while what the Founders intended may have some persuasive value, it by no means is binding. The reason why I said "the South lost the damn war" is because the Fourteenth Amendment fundamentally changed how the United States works as a whole. If you think I'm devaluing the states, you're absolutely right - they're a historical accident that has little to no bearing on how most of the country works as a whole, and ends up being a large headache for people trying to do business across state lines. There is no reason a Senator from Wyoming representing 250,000 people should have the same voting power as one from California representing 17,500,000. Especially when that Senator has the power to block legislation.

Do I think there needs to be regional government with powers separate from the Feds? Absolutely. Do I think they should look anything like the states today? Absolutely not.

Finally, if you are still going by intent of the Framers, well, they put the Supremacy Clause in there for a reason.

That's pants-on-head retarded.

[MR2-Sooner86]

If you think I'm devaluing the states, you're absolutely right - they're a historical accident that has little to no bearing on how most of the country works as a whole, and ends up being a large headache for people trying to do business across state lines. There is no reason a Senator from Wyoming representing 250,000 people should have the same voting power as one from California representing 17,500,000. Especially when that Senator has the power to block legislation.

That's why we have the House of Representatives.

[soonercoop1]

Can't get behind that. Circumventing congress is not a good thing.

Congress drastically needs circumventing at this point...

[EnragedOUfan]

Do any of you states rights supporters read history? If you did, you should know why the Constitution came in effect.......because the Articles of Conferederation was flawed in so many ways. The founding fathers realized that the states being in charge was not the most effective way at running a country. It was chaos. Thus, the Federal government was formed. Later on, a group of states decide that they want to succeed from the Union and there you have the Civil War.......So why do we want to repeat history, give the states the authority to run the county yet again, and create a problem that we will come to light and causes problems yet again??????? I believe America will become its own demise down the road.........With Republican control and eventually a Republican controlled Senate and President, I'll have to worry about kids at my daughters school bringing their fully loaded hand guns to class. Then eventually, they'll lose their seats, the Democrats will regain control, and the process will repeat itself.........Its crazy.....

[sappstuf]

Do any of you states rights supporters read history? If you did, you should know why the Constitution came in effect.......because the Articles of Conferederation was flawed in so many ways. The founding fathers realized that the states being in charge was not the most effective way at running a country. It was chaos. Thus, the Federal government was formed. Later on, a group of states decide that they want to succeed from the Union and there you have the Civil War.......So why do we want to repeat history, give the states the authority to run the county yet again, and create a problem that we will come to light and causes problems yet again??????? I believe America will become its own demise down the road.........With Republican control and eventually a Republican controlled Senate and President, I'll have to worry about kids at my daughters school bringing their fully loaded hand guns to class. Then eventually, they'll lose their seats, the Democrats will regain control, and the process will repeat itself.........Its crazy.....


http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-jihad-fail.jpg

[Blue]

Well since Obama doesn't like to wait for congress or the American peoples approval for his laws (see executive orders: epa-cap and trade, prolonged detention without due process, bank bailouts, etc) then this should balance it out a little bit.

[EnragedOUfan]

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/fail-owned-jihad-fail.jpg

Um, I won't be surprised when fully loaded weapons are allowed on college campuses.......one of our good ol Oklahoma Republican Senators believes thats an excellent idea.........And when a weapon is accidentally discharged in the classroom and strikes an unfortunate victim, then what?

[soonerscuba]

Well since Obama doesn't like to wait for congress or the American peoples approval for his laws (see executive orders: epa-cap and trade, prolonged detention without due process, bank bailouts, etc) then this should balance it out a little bit.God, it must be fun to just throw **** out and hope people believe it. You are aware that cap and trade doesn't exist, Bush enacted the current detention process and, sadly, you're among the 47% of Americans who falsely believe that Obama is responsible for bank bailouts.

Not only does cap and trade not exist, the idea was put forth by Republicans as a market based solution at one point, Obama is a disappointment on the detainees, and the bailouts were authorized by Congress. Jeez.

[Sooner5030]

you're among the 47% of Americans who falsely believe that Obama is responsible for bank bailouts.

dude....senator obama voted yea on TARP. So he is partly responsible along with the others.

[soonerscuba]

dude....senator obama voted yea on TARP. So he is partly responsible along with the others.One can't choose where the buck stops based on who is in office. I'm not saying it's good policy, just that believing it to be an Obama initiated piece of legislation is patently false. Regardless, it still wasn't placed by executive order.

[Blue]

God, it must be fun to just throw **** out and hope people believe it. You are aware that cap and trade doesn't exist, Bush enacted the current detention process and, sadly, you're among the 47% of Americans who falsely believe that Obama is responsible for bank bailouts.

Not only does cap and trade not exist, the idea was put forth by Republicans as a market based solution at one point, Obama is a disappointment on the detainees, and the bailouts were authorized by Congress. Jeez.

Cap and trade plans- http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-using-executive-orders-to-implement-radical-agenda/

As far as the bailouts(which were opposed by the people) and detention, I didn't agree with Bush either.

So it seems my **** sticks. Are you on the DNC payroll or something? You seem to agree with every damn thing they do. Jeez.

[soonerscuba]

Cap and trade plans- http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/obama-using-executive-orders-to-implement-radical-agenda/

As far as the bailouts(which were opposed by the people) and detention, I didn't agree with Bush either.

So it seems my **** sticks. Are you on the DNC payroll or something? You seem to agree with every damn thing they do. Jeez.Bush planned to privatize social security so candy and nuts, basically it's going to take more than a blog by a political opponent to convince me of the agenda set forth by an administration.

Just because I pointed out 2 of the 3 things you mentioned weren't enacted by executive order doesn't mean I'm a shill of the party, it means I'm a fan of heightened discourse.

[Blue]

Fair enough. It was off the top of my head and I shoulda thought better about including the bailouts. The majority of Americans were against them though.

Fact is if they want and need something done, they will do it. Repubs and Dems.

Giving the states a little more say so these days wouldn't be a bad thing, imo. It'll never happen though. We're owned.

[SicEmBaylor]

At least HaH is honest about the fact that he thinks the Constitution should essentially be scrapped in favor of something new more "relevant" to today's political circumstances. I admire that more than people who claim to uphold the Constitution while advocating beliefs that undermine its spirit, letter, and very foundation. The fact that judicial review isn't explicitly Constitutional or that the 14th Amendment itself was not constitutionally ratified is a debate for another day, but as I said I admire his honesty.

FWIW, I totally disagree. The contentious nature of our politics today is not a result of a Constitution that is outdated, but the result of a constitution that has been bastardized, undermined, and ignored. The solution to our social and political problems is not to scrap the Constitution but a return to its roots.

YES, give the states more power. Let the states handle its own domestic affairs. Let the states become incubators of progressive social change at a speed and manner consistent with the beliefs of the citizens of those states. We're such a broad and diverse country that nobody should believe a Federal "one size fits all" solution is the best means for running a Republic of 350 million people. If the people of Vermont want to create a government sponsored healthcare system, then they should absolutely have the right to do so free of Federal intrusion. Likewise, if the state of Texas has no interest in such a program then why should a government that is theoretically supposed to represent the people force a program on those people who have no wish for one?

Allow the states to experiment with different social programs and allow them to do it without being hindered or limited by a million pages of Federal regulations and laws. Let states examine what other states are doing to see what works, what doesn't, and what best fits the citizens of those individual states.

I'm not saying there isn't a role for the Federal government -- the role and powers of the Federal government is clearly enumerated. The Supremacy Clause still has to remain consistent with the enumerated powers of the Federal government -- in other words, laws passed by the Federal government are supreme over the states but those laws still have to be within the Constitutional limits of power assigned to the Federal government. If the Supremacy clause was an "all you can eat buffet" of Federal power over the states then the Framer's would neither have enumerated the powers of the Federal government nor reserved those not enumerated to the states or as rights of the people directly.

As for this proposal, I think it's a fantastic idea. The problem with nullification is that it was never explicitly constitutional (though neither is judicial review). Why should the Supreme Court have a monopoly as the final and absolute arbiter of what is Constitutional especially when that court is itself an entity of the Federal government and thus has a vested interest in maintaining the power of that government?

[delhalew]

Um, I won't be surprised when fully loaded weapons are allowed on college campuses.......one of our good ol Oklahoma Republican Senators believes thats an excellent idea.........And when a weapon is accidentally discharged in the classroom and strikes an unfortunate victim, then what?

Where the **** is your twisted mind trying to take you? Go where you want. I'm staying here in reality.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Um, I won't be surprised when fully loaded weapons are allowed on college campuses.......one of our good ol Oklahoma Republican Senators believes thats an excellent idea.........And when a weapon is accidentally discharged in the classroom and strikes an unfortunate victim, then what?

The laws are to allowed people with concealed carry permits to carry onto college campuses. It's a good idea. Had such laws been in place Virginia Tech would not have happened. In Colorado, Colorado State and the University of Colorado are different as one has these has laws to allow students to carry and one doesn't. Guess who has fewer problems? The one allowing students to carry.

If you'd like to start a new thread topic and debate this I'm fine with doing so and handing you your ***, with the trimmings, on the subject.

[delhalew]

At least HaH is honest about the fact that he thinks the Constitution should essentially be scrapped in favor of something new more "relevant" to today's political circumstances. I admire that more than people who claim to uphold the Constitution while advocating beliefs that undermine its spirit, letter, and very foundation. The fact that judicial review isn't explicitly Constitutional or that the 14th Amendment itself was not constitutionally ratified is a debate for another day, but as I said I admire his honesty.

FWIW, I totally disagree. The contentious nature of our politics today is not a result of a Constitution that is outdated, but the result of a constitution that has been bastardized, undermined, and ignored. The solution to our social and political problems is not to scrap the Constitution but a return to its roots.

YES, give the states more power. Let the states handle its own domestic affairs. Let the states become incubators of progressive social change at a speed and manner consistent with the beliefs of the citizens of those states. We're such a broad and diverse country that nobody should believe a Federal "one size fits all" solution is the best means for running a Republic of 350 million people. If the people of Vermont want to create a government sponsored healthcare system, then they should absolutely have the right to do so free of Federal intrusion. Likewise, if the state of Texas has no interest in such a program then why should a government that is theoretically supposed to represent the people force a program on those people who have no wish for one?

Allow the states to experiment with different social programs and allow them to do it without being hindered or limited by a million pages of Federal regulations and laws. Let states examine what other states are doing to see what works, what doesn't, and what best fits the citizens of those individual states.

I'm not saying there isn't a role for the Federal government -- the role and powers of the Federal government is clearly enumerated. The Supremacy Clause still has to remain consistent with the enumerated powers of the Federal government -- in other words, laws passed by the Federal government are supreme over the states but those laws still have to be within the Constitutional limits of power assigned to the Federal government. If the Supremacy clause was an "all you can eat buffet" of Federal power over the states then the Framer's would neither have enumerated the powers of the Federal government nor reserved those not enumerated to the states or as rights of the people directly.

As for this proposal, I think it's a fantastic idea. The problem with nullification is that it was never explicitly constitutional (though neither is judicial review). Why should the Supreme Court have a monopoly as the final and absolute arbiter of what is Constitutional especially when that court is itself an entity of the Federal government and thus has a vested interest in maintaining the power of that government?

Somehow, someway...half a dozen of your fellow Americans will soon trot on over to tell you "that's just crazy talk".

[Soonerfan88]

TARP was a way for Paulsen to make sure his Wall Street buddies didn't go bankrupt and Bush stupidly went along with it. News articles at the time reported that Obama was on the phone with Paulsen daily and therefore had no reason to leave the campaign trail. Although the idea was originally unpopular in September, by October TARP was suddenly the solution to everything and, if you listened to Obama, Kerry, and Dodd, it needed to be enacted yesterday or the entire world would fall apart. When McCain wanted to work slower and make sure the bill was actually going to accomplish something, he was crucified by the DC crowd/media and eventually voted for it to save his campaign.

After being elected but not yet inaugurated, Obama was again calling colleagues to push for release of the 2nd half of funds. Once in office, Obama asked for even more funds and also pushed TARP to include General Motors. I don't care if the original bill was signed by Bush, TARP has had Obama's fingerprints all over it from day one.

Back to my original topic - I don't see where this amendment takes us back to the Articles of Confederation. That's just hyperbole. I also think that trying to get 3/4 of the states to agree on a repeal would be difficult so not as many bills would be targeted as you might think.

[SicEmBaylor]

The laws are to allowed people with concealed carry permits to carry onto college campuses. It's a good idea. Had such laws been in place Virginia Tech would not have happened. In Colorado, Colorado State and the University of Colorado are different as one has these has laws to allow students to carry and one doesn't. Guess who has fewer problems? The one allowing students to carry.

If you'd like to start a new thread topic and debate this I'm fine with doing so and handing you your ***, with the trimmings, on the subject.

This. A good friend of mine down in Texas actually started an organization whose purpose is to lobby the state to allow anyone with a CHL to carry on campus. They're actually getting pretty close to getting a floor vote on it.

As for accidental discharge, how many times have you heard of someone who has a CHL "accidentally" discharging their weapon?

[SicEmBaylor]

Somehow, someway...half a dozen of your fellow Americans will soon trot on over to tell you "that's just crazy talk".

No doubt. I've heard it before. The thing is, I consider my views to be pretty damned reasonable. "Mainstream" politics today is a zero-sum game in which one side has to lose in order for the other side to win. That's why I like my political views so well...it allows for both sides to get much of what they want.

That's the beauty of the Constitution as designed by the Framer's. These were not backward looking men -- they were men of the enlightenment who foresaw great societal changes and wanted to create a new society based on the cutting-edge philosophical principles of the time. They created a document that, if followed and respected, is flexible enough to handle ANY changes in our society no matter how radical or how far beyond what any of the Framer's could ever have imagined. That's the beauty of the document, and that is the beauty of dividing the power of government between the Federal and state governments. The Framer's envisioned and included two ways for changes to be made: First, the individual states would act as (what I call) "incubators of social change." Each state would act as an experimental lab for different social policies that reflect changes in society that are consistent with the beliefs and wishes of the people of those states. States could borrow ideas from one another and have the freedom of action necessary to craft flexible social policy. If changes were universal enough then there was always the constitutional amendment process.

But this notion that because the Constitution was written 220+ years ago that it no longer has relevance today is absolute bull****. Let me give you an example...Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who has really read and studied Thomas Jefferson knows how completely out there he was with some of his ideas, but he had a LOT of followers who believed as he did and who tried to implement his ideas (sometimes successfully and sometimes not). One of Jefferson's big ideas was a thing called "generational sovereignty." He considered it a form of tyranny for one generation to be saddled with the laws and social institutions of the preceding generation. He believed that EVERY new generation should completely scrap every law, every social institution, and the very government itself and rewrite everything from the ground up. Of course this was absolutely impossible for any number of reasons not the least of which is the inability to discern when one generation starts and another ends. Nonetheless, it shows the degree to which Jefferson and many other Founder's were forward looking and how they fully expected great social changes to occur. It's why they wrote a Constitution flexible enough to deal with those changes.

Our political conflict today is a result of destroying the mechanism within the Constitution for balancing various political interests and it has created a political system with one absolute dominant level of government that ALL sides must control because it holds virtually all the power. If power was still divided among the states and the Feds in the way originally envisioned, then that power would be dispersed enough that each side could get a slice for themselves.

That's why I consider my political views utterly and completely reasonable for all sides of the political spectrum. Essentially, what I want is a trade-off: If liberals agree to properly limit the size and scope of the Federal government (giving conservatives what they should want) then that would give liberals a free hand to craft whatever social policies and programs they want in the more liberal states. Conservatives would do the same in predominantly conservative states. And as for the moderate states, conservatives and liberals would split the difference and get compromised social policy and programs. Conservatives get what they want on the right; liberals get what they want on the left; and then they battle it out in the center. My America is a place where both sides are respected for their political tradition and what they have contributed to this country. Make no mistake, liberalism has contributed a LOT to our nation's identity in many positive ways. We were founded by radical liberals. I've always said that the only problem with liberalism is that it simply didn't know when to stop. My America is where both political traditions have a place.

:shrug:

I just hate hyperbole rhetoric. I hate sloganeering. I hate simple answers to complex questions and "one liners." I hate the politics of "gotcha." I like nuance, I like well-reasoned debate, and I like having real differences with the other side. That's why I hate the Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow types. It isn't about reasoning things out or nuance -- it's about talking points and playing "gotcha."

Both of them are considered pretty mainstream, but they call me the radical and crazy one. :rolleyes:

[delhalew]

No doubt. I've heard it before. The thing is, I consider my views to be pretty damned reasonable. "Mainstream" politics today is a zero-sum game in which one side has to lose in order for the other side to win. That's why I like my political views so well...it allows for both sides to get much of what they want.

That's the beauty of the Constitution as designed by the Framer's. These were not backward looking men -- they were men of the enlightenment who foresaw great societal changes and wanted to create a new society based on the cutting-edge philosophical principles of the time. They created a document that, if followed and respected, is flexible enough to handle ANY changes in our society no matter how radical or how far beyond what any of the Framer's could ever have imagined. That's the beauty of the document, and that is the beauty of dividing the power of government between the Federal and state governments. The Framer's envisioned and included two ways for changes to be made: First, the individual states would act as (what I call) "incubators of social change." Each state would act as an experimental lab for different social policies that reflect changes in society that are consistent with the beliefs and wishes of the people of those states. States could borrow ideas from one another and have the freedom of action necessary to craft flexible social policy. If changes were universal enough then there was always the constitutional amendment process.

But this notion that because the Constitution was written 220+ years ago that it no longer has relevance today is absolute bull****. Let me give you an example...Thomas Jefferson. Anyone who has really read and studied Thomas Jefferson knows how completely out there he was with some of his ideas, but he had a LOT of followers who believed as he did and who tried to implement his ideas (sometimes successfully and sometimes not). One of Jefferson's big ideas was a thing called "generational sovereignty." He considered it a form of tyranny for one generation to be saddled with the laws and social institutions of the preceding generation. He believed that EVERY new generation should completely scrap every law, every social institution, and the very government itself and rewrite everything from the ground up. Of course this was absolutely impossible for any number of reasons not the least of which is the inability to discern when one generation starts and another ends. Nonetheless, it shows the degree to which Jefferson and many other Founder's were forward looking and how they fully expected great social changes to occur. It's why they wrote a Constitution flexible enough to deal with those changes.

Our political conflict today is a result of destroying the mechanism within the Constitution for balancing various political interests and it has created a political system with one absolute dominant level of government that ALL sides must control because it holds virtually all the power. If power was still divided among the states and the Feds in the way originally envisioned, then that power would be dispersed enough that each side could get a slice for themselves.

That's why I consider my political views utterly and completely reasonable for all sides of the political spectrum. Essentially, what I want is a trade-off: If liberals agree to properly limit the size and scope of the Federal government (giving conservatives what they should want) then that would give liberals a free hand to craft whatever social policies and programs they want in the more liberal states. Conservatives would do the same in predominantly conservative states. And as for the moderate states, conservatives and liberals would split the difference and get compromised social policy and programs. Conservatives get what they want on the right; liberals get what they want on the left; and then they battle it out in the center. My America is a place where both sides are respected for their political tradition and what they have contributed to this country. Make no mistake, liberalism has contributed a LOT to our nation's identity in many positive ways. We were founded by radical liberals. I've always said that the only problem with liberalism is that it simply didn't know when to stop. My America is where both political traditions have a place.

:shrug:

I just hate hyperbole rhetoric. I hate sloganeering. I hate simple answers to complex questions and "one liners." I hate the politics of "gotcha." I like nuance, I like well-reasoned debate, and I like having real differences with the other side. That's why I hate the Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow types. It isn't about reasoning things out or nuance -- it's about talking points and playing "gotcha."

Both of them are considered pretty mainstream, but they call me the radical and crazy one. :rolleyes:

That is a very reasoned response. As far as I go, you know you are preaching to the choir. O just hope some reasonable people on this board can be swayed by your argument.

[EnragedOUfan]

This. A good friend of mine down in Texas actually started an organization whose purpose is to lobby the state to allow anyone with a CHL to carry on campus. They're actually getting pretty close to getting a floor vote on it.

As for accidental discharge, how many times have you heard of someone who has a CHL "accidentally" discharging their weapon?

Happens all the time, even by professionals......Happens in the military for crying out loud...... Soldiers not properly/failing to clear their weapons...... I've even heard of police officers having weapons accidentally go off. So tell me how this should work, should you be allowed to have the weapon loaded but on safe in the classroom? Or will there be a clearing barrel outside the building????????????? Again, this is a stupid freaking idea...............

[EnragedOUfan]

Where the **** is your twisted mind trying to take you? Go where you want. I'm staying here in reality.

Instead of trying to call me out, how about doing a little research.......

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110125_12_0_OLHMIY35449

[EnragedOUfan]

The laws are to allowed people with concealed carry permits to carry onto college campuses. It's a good idea. Had such laws been in place Virginia Tech would not have happened. In Colorado, Colorado State and the University of Colorado are different as one has these has laws to allow students to carry and one doesn't. Guess who has fewer problems? The one allowing students to carry.

If you'd like to start a new thread topic and debate this I'm fine with doing so and handing you your ***, with the trimmings, on the subject.

You can try to hand me my ace all you want, but my mind will not change. I was in the Army for 7 1/2 years, recently got out as a Staff Sergeant/E-6, now I'm in ROTC, and have handled enough firearms to know that the possibility of an accidental discharge will always be high.......I've had quite a bit of training with how to shoot/properly handle weapons, I've even shot and qualified with German weapons.......My mind will not change. Its a stupid idea to allow a firearm on campus. I'm guessing the professor will check that every students weapon is on safe prior to entering building? Enlighten me with your brilliance...... I'm not even questioning whether or not a student can handle the weapon, most kids now days have fired a weapon and all of the hunters have experience. My question is about safety and control, and people whom are not professionals tend to not have a safety minded thought process on the issue......

[jkjsooner]

A few points:

1. It's interesting that the justification for the ammendment is that the original intent of the constitution is not being followed. It seems a little redundant even if it does solve a problem.

2. I would worry about states getting involved in areas that are intended to be part of the federal government's authority.

3. At some point does this group of state legislatures essentially become an extension of the federal government? Technically they would be part of the state government but in practical terms would they not just be an extension of the federal government. It's not like they're really providing state's rights. If Oklahoma wants something they can't do it on their own. Instead they would require agreement from 2/3 of the other states. Might be just as easy to change congress's mind.

[jkjsooner]

Since we're talking about bailouts, first the major players in the bailouts were Bush, Obama, Paulson, Geittner, and Bernanke. Note that 3 of the 5 are Republicans or Republican nominees. (A Democratic congress also played a major role.) If you hate the bailouts the blame should be spread pretty evenly.

The fact that most of the major decision makers on boths sides of the aisle supported the bailouts is a pretty good sign to me that they were, unfortunatley, required. Obama surely didn't become President to enrich a bunch of Wall Street bankers.

As I see it, Lehman Brothers failed. It was looking like all of the other major investment houses along with the GSE's would be the next dominoes to fall. Everyone who had a high level position in either administration or the fed was convinced that we were heading for another Great Depression. You guys can talk self reliance and hard work all you want but if our major economic institutions all fail we would all be in a world of hurt.

Nobody outside of Wall Street liked the bailouts. Geittner wanted the government to take action that would prevent a cascading failure event while also properly punishing those who needed punished but they all concluded they didn't have authority to do that. They did the only thing they could do.

As much as I hate the bailouts, I think Bush and Obama saved our economy. Our 10% unemployment would have been a whole lot worse.

[delhalew]

Instead of trying to call me out, how about doing a little research.......

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110125_12_0_OLHMIY35449

I will have that debate in a different thread. I simply wanted to know why you tried to take us there, when it has nothing to do with this thread.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Happens all the time, even by professionals......Happens in the military for crying out loud...... Soldiers not properly/failing to clear their weapons...... I've even heard of police officers having weapons accidentally go off. So tell me how this should work, should you be allowed to have the weapon loaded but on safe in the classroom? Or will there be a clearing barrel outside the building????????????? Again, this is a stupid freaking idea...............

Links. If it's such a problem then obviously you can find stories from the millions of people with concealed carry permits accidentally firing off their weapons in public.


Instead of trying to call me out, how about doing a little research.......

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20110125_12_0_OLHMIY35449

Yes they want concealed carry on campus. As stated, it's an excellent idea.


You can try to hand me my ace all you want, but my mind will not change. I was in the Army for 7 1/2 years, recently got out as a Staff Sergeant/E-6, now I'm in ROTC, and have handled enough firearms to know that the possibility of an accidental discharge will always be high.......I've had quite a bit of training with how to shoot/properly handle weapons, I've even shot and qualified with German weapons.......My mind will not change. Its a stupid idea to allow a firearm on campus. I'm guessing the professor will check that every students weapon is on safe prior to entering building? Enlighten me with your brilliance...... I'm not even questioning whether or not a student can handle the weapon, most kids now days have fired a weapon and all of the hunters have experience. My question is about safety and control, and people whom are not professionals tend to not have a safety minded thought process on the issue......

Awesome, a closed minded individual.

Remember this, to get a concealed carry you must go through training. You must have a background check to make sure you're not crazy. You must know the rules and go through a class. They don't just hand you the weapon and wish you good luck.

You're using nothing but fear and idiotic arguments on your close minded views. The same thing people have been using on concealed carry laws. If they were to be passed we'd have shootouts and people dying by the thousands. It didn't happen. The same arguments you're using, guess what, they didn't happen on the campuses where it has been practiced.

Again, show me where a concealed carry holder has had his weapon go off in public and cause a mass panic. If you're so worried about this obviously you can show me a story where it has happened.

[delhalew]

Links. If it's such a problem then obviously you can find stories from the millions of people with concealed carry permits accidentally firing off their weapons in public.



Yes they want concealed carry on campus. As stated, it's an excellent idea.



Awesome, a closed minded individual.

Remember this, to get a concealed carry you must go through training. You must have a background check to make sure you're not crazy. You must know the rules and go through a class. They don't just hand you the weapon and wish you good luck.

You're using nothing but fear and idiotic arguments on your close minded views. The same thing people have been using on concealed carry laws. If they were to be passed we'd have shootouts and people dying by the thousands. It didn't happen. The same arguments you're using, guess what, they didn't happen on the campuses where it has been practiced.

Again, show me where a concealed carry holder has had his weapon go off in public and cause a mass panic. If you're so worried about this obviously you can show me a story where it has happened.

The recent massacre in Tucson is a good example of responsible citizens with carry permits acting responsibly. More than one of the folks present were armed. They, however, knew that discharging a weapon in that crowd was a bad idea. So, they waited for the opportunity to restrain the gunman by hand.

The type of person that is willing to take on the give responsibility of being armed in public, is the type of person who takes situational awareness and gun safety very seriously.

[jkjsooner]

TARP was a way for Paulsen to make sure his Wall Street buddies didn't go bankrupt and Bush stupidly went along with it. News articles at the time reported that Obama was on the phone with Paulsen daily and therefore had no reason to leave the campaign trail. Although the idea was originally unpopular in September, by October TARP was suddenly the solution to everything and, if you listened to Obama, Kerry, and Dodd, it needed to be enacted yesterday or the entire world would fall apart. When McCain wanted to work slower and make sure the bill was actually going to accomplish something, he was crucified by the DC crowd/media and eventually voted for it to save his campaign.

After being elected but not yet inaugurated, Obama was again calling colleagues to push for release of the 2nd half of funds. Once in office, Obama asked for even more funds and also pushed TARP to include General Motors. I don't care if the original bill was signed by Bush, TARP has had Obama's fingerprints all over it from day one.

That's a lot of twisted logic there to try to blame Obama for the bailouts. Don't you think Bush was also on the phone with Paulson? Don't you think Bush's boy Bernanke was on the phone with Paulson? For that matter wasn't Paulson Bush's appointee as well?

Did Paulson protect his buddies? Possibly. It definitely screamed of socialism for the rich. Don't fool yourself into believing Democrats like the idea of upper class socialism.

[OUMallen]

There is no reason a Senator from Wyoming representing 250,000 people should have the same voting power as one from California representing 17,500,000. Especially when that Senator has the power to block legislation.


Unless you want to help provide a safeguard to protect the minority from the majority.

But hey, why the hell do that? :rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

Unless you want to help provide a safeguard to protect the minority from the majority.

But hey, why the hell do that? :rolleyes:

This EXACTLY why the Senate is set up that way.
The House of Reps is already weighted heavily for the populated areas.
There needed to be a counterbalance to the LW socialist crazy, highly populated metro areas. That is the Senate!

[jkjsooner]

Unless you want to help provide a safeguard to protect the minority from the majority.

But hey, why the hell do that? :rolleyes:

This may be splitting hairs but I think it was more about balancing state's powers than protecting the rights of the minority. It was a compromise to get the less populated states to go along.

There are all sorts of protections for the minority (example being the rural minority). The Bill of Rights is a prime example.


The funny thing is that when Gore won the popular vote but lost the election some talking heads were saying that our founders never envisioned that this could happen. Say what? They explicitly set it up so that it could happen and there were reasons to do it that way.