Article

2009-02-25 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-02-25 09:33|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 I dunno. The feds will still be taking income tax out of the state, and the declaration of sovereignty will be taken as a blanket rejection of Federal aid.

Don't declare independence until you really can live without Mommy and Daddy.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2009-02-25 10:23|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2009-02-25 10:23|| Front Page Top

#2 This is not good.

Posted by 49 Pan 2009-02-25 10:38|| 2009-02-25 10:38|| Front Page Top

#3 Tempest meet teacup. So far these appear to be nothing more than non-binding expressions of opinion that will have no more effect than the states stamping their little feet and howling in outrage.

Nothing to see here until the states begin expelling federal officials who they deem infringe on their sovreignty, ordering their citizens not to pay federal taxes, or the like.

Posted by AzCat 2009-02-25 12:17|| 2009-02-25 12:17|| Front Page Top

#4 More please.

Posted by Hellfish 2009-02-25 12:24|| 2009-02-25 12:24|| Front Page Top

#5 This isn't declaring 'independance'. Simply affirming the 10th Admendment.

This might be the first echos of a consitutional Convention. Which, BTW, probably isn't something we want. Would you want people like Barak Obama, Comrade Murray (D-Washington), or Baghdad Jim (D-Al-Quaeda) dictating the consitution?

Posted by CrazyFool 2009-02-25 12:25|| 2009-02-25 12:25|| Front Page Top

#6 Prior to the Civil War, it was routine for the states to nullify federal action. It makes sense. You agree to live by a certain set of rules (say, the Constitution). One side stops playing by the rules. You can either stick around and implicitly agree to the rule change, or do something about it.

Posted by Iblis 2009-02-25 12:40|| 2009-02-25 12:40|| Front Page Top

#7 A Constitutional Convention could be a disaster: it would be an open invitation for the progressive left to charge in, and let's remember that they're pretty well organized. You'd end up with the ACORN types in charge. Wouldn't be pretty, and just try being a state that says 'no' after they produce a new constitution, which is what they would do.

Posted by Steve White 2009-02-25 13:04|| 2009-02-25 13:04|| Front Page Top

#8 I know where I'm going if that happens!!

Posted by Yosemite Sam 2009-02-25 14:47|| 2009-02-25 14:47|| Front Page Top

#9 Crazy Fool and Steve White say it best.

Posted by WolfDog 2009-02-25 16:52|| 2009-02-25 16:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Hey Steve, they may rush in but we don't have to ratify.

Disclaimer: I am long brass, lead and steel.

Posted by Hellfish 2009-02-25 20:06|| 2009-02-25 20:06|| Front Page Top

23:44 abu do you love
23:24 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:17 Omerenter Henbane5221
23:13 Formerly Dan
23:06 Skunky Glins 5***
23:01 trailing wife
22:58 ryuge
22:58 Skunky Glins 5***
22:05 Rambler in Virginia
22:05 Mike
22:01 JosephMendiola
21:32 Eric Jablow
21:30 lotp
21:24 tu3031
21:18 3dc
21:15 Rambler in Virginia
21:14 Pappy
21:11 Pappy
21:10 Angeans Turkeyneck1374
21:02 3dc
21:01 tu3031
20:55 SteveS
20:52 tu3031
20:50 rammer