Should the Constitution be amended to give the states veto power over the federal government? [More]
Government doesn't obey its clear proscriptions now. What makes anyone think they won't show new rules the same disregard, and find new opportunities to exploit and new incentives to corrupt?
The deficiency isn't in the incantation. It's in the compliance mechanism.
There's not enough "or else" in the cost/benefit ratio to dissuade those who would abuse into reconsidering what's in their rational self-interest.
Ultimately, we already have "veto power."
[Via Skip]
8 comments:
Oh yeah, Eric "PATRIOT Act, No Guns for DC" Cantor is quite proud of this. But if you criticize the TSA he enabled to get where they are now, you go on a list of "domestic extremists." It would save a lot of time just categorizing entire states all at once.
A good start would be states not sending money to DC and begging for a fraction of it back. Cut 'em off. Set conditions. Since that's too radical -- the Republicans, less than two months after the election, are caving on LOWERING tax rates and ELIMINATING the estate tax, and are continuing the practice of earmarks, which they said they wouldn't -- keep those voting machines oiled.
DC and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs are near the top of the list of wealthiest places in America. A falling tide doesn't lower ALL boats.
I once discussed whether or not the US government would obey a cancelation of the Constitution and enactment of some other government or a decision to have no national government.
He agreed with me that the US government would probably NOT stand down, would be likely to take the position that the change wasn't valid.
That was almost 7 years ago, everything the US government has done since that time has only cemented my position in that regard.
The states used to have this power, before the passage of the 17th Amendment.
The House belonged to the people, while the Senate belonged to the States.
The 17th Amendment removed yet another check and balance from our system and, along with the 16th Amendment, set the stage for the police state that is coming.
You're right, Pat. the government will not stand down. King George didn't in 1774, '75, or even '76 when we declared our independence. He only stood down when we defeated his army in battle, and proved that we could back up our claims.
This government will not stand down, either. Since governments are the law, they can make the law anything they want. It is only when too many of us prove too dangerous to be ruled that it will finally back down. But that won't happen until a lot of blood is spilled on both sides.
Enforcement as follows:
Any federal actor, including members of the 3 branches, who willfully disobey any article of the U.S. constitution shall be guilty of treason and forcibly removed from office.
An American Citizen shall have standing to pursue the traitors in court. Others may not.
The mechanism is pretty simple, traitor, rope, tree, assemble.
Mack, American citizens have "No Standing" on any issue, Period.
Our military also has "No Standing" in courts!!
How many court cases must must be filed before "Standing" is allowed??
Doug
Newark, Ohio
I guess we have to wait for the rest of the Bill of Rights to be "incorporated."
Just finished reading "The Probability Broach" by libertarian L. Neil Smith. What might have been.
Centralized government? No way. George Washington is HANGED for trying to put down the Whiskey (tax) Rebellion. Things diverge drastically from there. Without overbearing control, everything's cheap. Vehicles cost a week's pay, homes a month's. Guns inexpensive, effective and everyone has one. That and rights and privacy violators having to pay restitution PERSONALLY keeps crime near-nonexistent. No coercion on ANYTHING. A wonderful world.
Post a Comment