http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110224...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDdGVhcGFydHl2aXNp I'm not really sure this needs comment, I think it speaks for itself
Perhaps Montana can secede and vote in Rev. Phelps for President. Then we can all watch the new nation collapse in on itself and self-destruct on film at eleven. I'd watch. Even bring the beers and popcorn.
The calendar has been misinterpreted as signifying the end of the world, it actually signifies a tranformation. It's not all going to end next December, but according to the Mayan calander we're in a transitional phase which will culminate in 2012. Events could be seen to back that up, then again it could just be nonsense in which people look to find a pattern. As for the quotation in the OP, well, it just shows you that too much inbreeding doesn't make you bright.
"Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws" The first line pretty much makes everything else obsolete.
I'm not a big fan of nullification. It needs to be a very serious issue to even be considered and the actual constitutionality of it has certainly been up for debate. The last time it was a serious threat was over the topic of slavery mainly between John C Calhoun and Andrew Jackson. People think we live in end times but any serious reading of that era of American history will show you that we have gone through much crazier crap. The constitution of the United States states that powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution is reserved for the states and the people. What Montana decides to do is entirely up to the people of Montana. It is the freedom that this scenario permits that also means they are the one's left to live with the consequences of their decisions. When you have a federal government consistently usurping the rights afforded to the states, it often takes an equally powerful force to push in the opposite direction. This is rarely a good thing in the short term. To desire stability and security above all else assumes a great deal of assumption that you've got pretty much everything figured out which is arrogant if you look at what society was like only just 100 years ago. If you opt for nullification, you have to be prepared to take on all responsibilities beyond just your pet issue ideals. I seriously doubt that is the case, but a sinister part of my personality admires the ability to try even though I think it's not the right path. A democratic repubublic is a spectacularly crazy lab experiment and you can either lament that it is unstable or pour your own ingredients into the beaker and see what color it turns. Not sure who originally said it but it's true: "hard times to live through are good times to learn from"
Thanks for an informed and balanced response, eddie. I tend to agree with you, as well as Rep. Derek Skees as quoted in the article when he said, "Nullification is not about splitting this union apart...Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: 'That is not right." I think there are legitimate cases when states' rights trump the federal government, though I know we tend to disagree to what extent this applies. On the other hand, I also believe that the when the states decided to join together as a union, they did so with the understanding that a certain part of their authority would be delegated to the central government. I suppose if Montana tries to go too far it may run into the Supremacy Clause.
Agreed, the states radified the constitution served as an agreement on the powers of that union. If you decide to pick and choose which federal laws to abide by, is a path to pretty much succession logically speaking. The problem as I see it is that a overwhelming number of the incentives for the federal government to expand those powers and overstep their limitations leaving states less and less to do anything about it. I think we are seeing the results of the changes made in how senators and the president are elected. The incentives used to reside on the side of the states to retain more control over decision making. With direct election of senators and the president, those avenues of influence have been eroded leaving fewer and more extreme options at their disposal. Another example of that using your point is how the supremacy clause is being stretched in the dispute between Arizona and the US over this immigration mess. Unfortunately, the people most likely to be willing to make use of such extreme options are probably the people you want least to do so.
I really don't like the attitude of the tea party.. it's like watching fox news everything is us vs them.. everything is a crysis and a democrat or liberal is the worst thing to walk the earth they really need to take it down a notch before they lose more conservatives.. it's one thing to reason ideas, but really a nullification? why don't we go shoot some more democrats while were at it- seems to be the way they talk about dealing with everything- just make it go away instead of the right way, through well thought out proposals and law
In all fairness, the left-leaning outlets engage in the same loud rhetoric and name calling against the right.
"I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we will stop telling the truth about them." - Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
It seems like the whole country is going crazy, and while I do try to keep a balanced point of view I can't help but notice that the Tea Party is usually either driving the bus, or navigating from the second seat. Elsewhere in the country there is another battle brewing over women's rights - specifically abortion rights. For example, Georgia State Representative Bobby Franklin recently introduced a bill that, among other things, would make miscarriage a felony offense if a woman could not prove that there was no human involvement in the miscarriage. The bill does not offer any clarification as to what human involvement may be, so any miscarriage is open to prosecution. Therefore, according to Georgia law a woman could get the death penalty after losing her baby. Just read the first 34 lines of the bill, and you can clearly see that Bobby Franklin is trying to rule with his Bible. And if you thought that was bad, Section 2.14 of the bill will make your head hurt. According to the bill, all instances of miscarriage will have to be reported, and the report filed with the local registrar of the county in which the miscarriage occurred. If there was no medical attendance (if, say, it happened at home), "the proper investigating official shall investigate the cause of fetal death and shall prepare and file the report within 30 days..." This is the same representative that introduced another bill to make gold and silver the only legal tender for payment of debts in Georgia. How anyone can take the Tea Party seriously is anyone's guess. But then, we did vote for Bush - twice.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the purpose of your post, but that seems to be exactly what supermonkey was talking about. Your quote is simply Democrats calling Republicans liars. Both parties are equally good at talking big talk and insulting each other. Certainly a clever enough idea, refocus to miscarriages in general to keep away from the "A" word. Horribly reckless, though. Seems to become more than a little "guilty until proven innocent" with the mother immediately becoming suspect of murder and having to prove no human involvment. Perhaps not in the wording, but certainly in the spirit. Also frightening to think of "what if" an innocent mother can't prove herself. Just like with the death penalty, you'd better be more than sure before throwing a grieving mother in prison. You may be able to release her later, but that kind of emotional trauma? Surely that can't be healthy.
That is truly terrifying. I think the issue that always gets me and I cannot comprehend is that ideology can get in the way of practicality in lawmaking. I'm not even going to address the miscarriage investigation, but this shows a blatant inability to learn from the past of backstreet abortions. These people are seriously scary, and what's even more scary is that people actually buy into this bull****. Sometimes I despair for humanity.
