|
FOTD
Guest
|
 |
« on: April 16, 2009, 07:48:24 pm » |
|
http://www.ok-safe.com/files/documen...JR1089_int.pdfhttp://www.okhouse.gov/51LEG/Leg_Vot...e=okh01983.txtCould someone explain this to me in simple terms? Does this mean we seceded in 2008 or are we just following the Texass lead? Did we really have to pay Fed Taxes yesterday? Now the devil must look for a new accountant. Grandstanders in the state capitol?  Or just plain stupid? [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfE7dGyONks&feature=player_embedded[/youtube] Does this mean no more Federal dollars?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 16, 2009, 07:54:46 pm by FOTD »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
patric
|
|
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2009, 09:49:05 am » |
|
Both those links are dead. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"Tulsa will lay off police and firemen before we will cut back on unnecessarily wasteful streetlights." -- March 18, 2009 TulsaNow Forum
|
|
|
|
OpenYourEyesTulsa
|
|
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 11:37:53 am » |
|
The sovereignty bill also known as the 10th Amendment Resolution is nothing more than a statement to the federal government.
Here is the 10th Amendment from the US Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
When Oklahoma and other states declare soveriegnty they are telling the federal government in Washington DC to uphold the Constitution and stop cutting our federal funding if we do not enforce a law that is not guaranteed by the Constitution. One example is education. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the feds have any right to be involved in the educational mandates of the individual states. Yet if the states do not follow mandates they disagree with, their federal dollars are cut.
After enough states get involved in declaring sovereignty the feds will be forced to follow the Constitution to the letter. If they want to do something that is not in the Constitution, they will have to make a new amendment and have it approved by 2/3rds of the states.
Sovereignty has been declared in 5 states, 21 states are working on it, and the others are watching to see how it goes.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
FOTD
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 11:40:05 am » |
|
OYET!
Much thanks....
OY VEH....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Hometown
Guest
|
|
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 12:09:54 pm » |
|
This kind of talk is an incitement to commit acts of violence against the Federal Government of the United States and it is illegal.
Oklahoma should know better after the bombing of our Federal Building.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 01:12:50 pm » |
|
The sovereignty bill also known as the 10th Amendment Resolution is nothing more than a statement to the federal government.
Here is the 10th Amendment from the US Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
When Oklahoma and other states declare soveriegnty they are telling the federal government in Washington DC to uphold the Constitution and stop cutting our federal funding if we do not enforce a law that is not guaranteed by the Constitution. One example is education. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the feds have any right to be involved in the educational mandates of the individual states. Yet if the states do not follow mandates they disagree with, their federal dollars are cut.
After enough states get involved in declaring sovereignty the feds will be forced to follow the Constitution to the letter. If they want to do something that is not in the Constitution, they will have to make a new amendment and have it approved by 2/3rds of the states.
Sovereignty has been declared in 5 states, 21 states are working on it, and the others are watching to see how it goes.
How in the world is repeating something as a resolution going to change two centuries of practice? I don't care if all the states make such a resolution it won't change the Feds right to withold monies to support states that for instance practice discimination against gays in the workplace. Show me where the constitution forbade that practice? So its reserved to the states since it wasn't mentioned? Cool then I can still make my own untaxed hooch for resale, educate my children to hate Jews and believe in science as the great deception, not pay income taxes and not have to recognize Texas as a state since none of that was specifically mentioned in the constitution. Income tax is certainly arguable as well as social security. Texas's admittance may never have been approved by 2/3 of state legislatures if I remember correctly. This is a foolish, poorly advised shot across the bow by partisans who hope to re-establish the dominance of states rights and strict conservative views of the constitution. The same states righters that kept the South racist and stupid for a century and a half. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 01:15:23 pm by waterboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
altruismsuffers
|
|
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2009, 02:00:22 pm » |
|
This kind of talk is an incitement to commit acts of violence against the Federal Government of the United States and it is illegal.
Oklahoma should know better after the bombing of our Federal Building.
Ha ha ha, following the Constitution is going to incite violence? You may well be right because we have strayed so far from our foundation that the Feds are going to fight to keep the power that they took illegally. Oklahoma should know better after the bombing of the Federal Building? ha ha ha please don't get me started. Go back to your hole and cower please. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Cats Cats Cats
|
|
« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2009, 02:55:25 pm » |
|
Ha ha ha, following the Constitution is going to incite violence? You may well be right because we have strayed so far from our foundation that the Feds are going to fight to keep the power that they took illegally.
Oklahoma should know better after the bombing of the Federal Building? ha ha ha please don't get me started.
Go back to your hole and cower please.
Inciting violence is probably too strong of a word. Instead it just makes it ok. Because those Oklahoma citizens that work for the Government are the enemy and that makes it ok. I believe there has been a large increase in attacks on judges since the "Activist Judges" every time there is a legal decision they don't like. You might not believe it but there are a lot of people that follow what the talking heads say. And they are saying that the federal government is the enemy and they must be stopped. All it takes is one person. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
buckeye
Guest
|
|
« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2009, 03:21:41 pm » |
|
Wow, not just far-right-wingers are paranoid. A crazy will use anything as 'justification' for his violence. As if the state would be responsible for his actions? Don't think so... One can say that the second amendment ultimately advocates violence against an insufferably repressive federal government (without regard to the efficacy of armed resistance, granted), want to cross that one off the list?
Well, wait. Maybe you do.
And naturally, a more federalist approach is bound to encourage hatred, ignorance, etc, what? The same old trick as employed by Reds and Blues for these many years - disagreement with my viewpoint is not just wrong, but tantamount to violence, ignorance, hatred, etc. Again - the crazy will use any 'justification' at his disposal for his actions - e.g. 'states rights' as wielded by bigots.
In any case, it's all ceremonial horse feathers meant as a hearty nose-thumbing to the current president's administration, as far as I can tell. It carries as much weight as "Today is Bob Hurley Day" as proclaimed by the city council. Big whoop.
The whiny-left-wing bent of this forum never ceases to amaze me...aren't you guys miserable in this state? Do you stay just to rankle everybody else with your 'rectitude'?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 03:31:40 pm by buckeye »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
OpenYourEyesTulsa
|
|
« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2009, 03:27:43 pm » |
|
This is going back to the way things were before the political machine took over Washington DC. This is not something new. The US Constitution is important. This is not a partisan issue it is an issue about states rights. Even California is declaring sovereignty and they are very much a blue state.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #10 on: April 17, 2009, 03:33:53 pm » |
|
This is going back to the way things were before the political machine took over Washington DC. This is not something new. The US Constitution is important. This is not a partisan issue it is an issue about states rights. Even California is declaring sovereignty and they are very much a blue state.
Finally a couple shreds of honesty. This is an ongoing states rights argument and yes this seems more ceremonial and middle finger waving than anything else. But it does set an environment for rationalizing stupid behaviors. So does car advertising. Some dishonesty: Even CA? They have a republican governor. And, sorry, things were probably never the way you thought they were. History is made from two words, "His Story". Its not called Truestory. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 17, 2009, 03:37:01 pm by waterboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
buckeye
Guest
|
|
« Reply #12 on: April 17, 2009, 03:42:32 pm » |
|
Some dishonesty: Even CA? They have a republican governor. And, sorry, things were probably never the way you thought they were. History is made from two words, "His Story". Its not called Truestory.
That's a CA republican, not an OK republican. And that's cute about "his story" but doesn't have anything to do with etymology. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
waterboy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2009, 08:26:37 am » |
|
That's a CA republican, not an OK republican.
And that's cute about "his story" but doesn't have anything to do with etymology.
Just trying to make a point. People tend to glorify, mystify and muddle up history by looking for what they want to see and ignoring what they don't. What he sees as some quantum change in politics in Washington or movement away from our constitution is colored by his politics. Some view the constitution like they view their bible, strictly and literally. Others see them both as living, flexible frameworks that are not so literal. Nah, CA has pockets ever so similar to OK. Heck, we populated them in the thirties. Their conservative republicans have dominated the state legislature the past decade regardless of what northern CA or LA might lead you to think. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
