Big Dogs House

The Tenth Amendment Becomes Hip

Jul 25, 2009 Political

Well, Governor Rick Perry has rediscovered (or at least begun to assert) the terms of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, you know, the one that declares that all powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the Constitution, are the specific powers of either the State government, or the people.
This is in regards to all the various programs Hussein wants to cram down the throats of the states. Hussein wants the states to do this, because acceptance of the money would begin to erode the rights of the states that would take the money.

Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be “disastrous” for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as “Obama Care.” But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a “number” of states might resist the federal health mandate.

“I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying ‘no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare,” Perry said. “So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats.”

star-telegram.com

It’s not just about healthcare- that is just the problem du jour with the Hussein administration, which keeps hammering at the door of State’s Rights, hoping to weaken this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.

It is a fact that the various states know better than the Federal Government just what specific concerns the residents of a specific state need- that is so simple and true that it needs no further elaboration, but in their quest to have the federal government supreme in its authority (contrary to the Laws of the Constitution), it has hoped, begged, pleaded, and threatened the various State governments to take the bait, er, money.

Alaska declined. In what would be Sarah Palin’s last official act, she reasserted the soverignity of State’s Rights with regard to Alaska- so far, only two states have signed this statement, Tennessee being the other one. Hope reigns supreme that other states regain their sanity, as well as their pride.

This statement was defeated in the Texas Legislature, by the same Democrats who thought that running off to Oklahoma was a good idea, instead of doing the job their constituents had elected them for. As far as I am concerned, they are traitors- turncoats who refuse to truly represent their electorate.

Nevertheless, Governor Perry knows that there is now a need and a time to draw the line in the sand, and just say no, in the strongest possible terms.

It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class,” Perry said. “A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution.”

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

In expressing “unwavering support” for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said “federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state.”

star-telegram.com

In our society, every part of the various governments have their place- county, state, and federal all have a place in this mosaic we call government, but when one part threatens to overwhelm the others, and attempt to assert an overwhelming and illegal control over the others, well, then it is time to tell the federal government to back the hell off. 

That time is now.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.

Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.

“There are good solutions” to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. “This isn’t it.”

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s “massive takeover of the private-sector economy.”

“I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt,” he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. “I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican,” he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: “This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas.”

star-telegram.com

Yes, Texans need to represent Texas, no matter where they are on the political spectrum- now is definitely not the time to cowardly cave into pressure from the Feds, because ceding control to the Federal Government on this and many other initiatives the Hussein Administration has proposed or passed is to give up your liberty, your freedom, and your identity as a member of the state  (in this instance, Texas) that you’re from.

Over the years, we, as a people, have become more homogenized, our regional identities softening, and in some cases disappearing entirely. This is not always a good thing. True, it is in some cases easier to understand someone’s accent from Maine, (or Texas) than it used to be, but the “Identities” of these regions have gone also, and that was always, for me, such a wondrous way of underscoring the fact that we were separate and very different states, held together by a federal government that allowed the states to retain their regional flavor.

That is no longer true, and while the slide towards a vanilla, tasteless, sameness has begun awhile back, this intrusion by the Feds would absolutely kill any individual state’s sovereignty, and that is not good, that’s bad.

Almost as bad as the Healthcare plan itself.

Share on Facebook

Tags: federal mismanagement, healthcare, state's rights, texas

Print This!

Jun 3, 2009 Political

I can’t believe Hussein has the gall to ask for more than six billion more dollars for transportation costs related to ongoing projects, simply because the federal gasoline taxes won’t cover the bill. This is due mostly to the economic decline that his party began, but he apparently doesn’t know this, because he has never held a real job, where he had to adhere to a budget, or be responsible for employees under his watch.

It’s no wonder that he thinks that all he has to do is print more money, despite warnings from the Chinese, for whom debt is a serious obligation. Somehow this hasn’t translated into anything Hussein has yet to understand, hence the request for more money.

” We’ll just print it, the Chinese were just kidding, besides I am Barak Hussein Obama and I transcend all- They will bow before me soon.” It would sure seem that these must be his thoughts- because what he is doing isn’t rational, in the least.

The Obama administration is warning lawmakers that the trust fund that pays for highway construction will go broke in August unless Congress approves an infusion of as much as $7 billion.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday that the administration has told senators the Federal Highway Trust Fund will need an estimated $5 billion to $7 billion to keep current construction projects going.

The California Democrat said another $8 billion to $10 billion will be needed to keep the fund solvent through the year ending Sept. 30, 2010.

Transportation Department spokeswoman Jill Zuckman confirmed those figures.

“The administration is working closely with Congress to solve this difficult problem and ensure that states have the resources they need to maintain our roads and highways,” Zuckman said.

chron.com

I want to speak for a minute about the state’s role in roads and transportation. The federal government has, through the years, insidiously slithered into the states’ domain, by offering first money for assistance, but then insisting on control of the projects. This is wrong- I might see that the Interstate system  could be federalized, as it assists in interstate commerce, but state roads should be state controlled, with absolutely NO federal interference. 

The states know best what suits their states needs than the Feds do, and that is just a logical fact, not to mention that this interference violates the Tenth Amendment regarding States Rights. Still, that hasn’t stopped them before.

Now, here comes a tax increase- yet another, on top of all the other tax increases that liberal socialists say are not true- and this “non-existent” tax increase will hurt the poor the most.

The law that authorizes federal highway programs is due to expire at the end of September, but the issue hasn’t been on Congress’ front burner. There is a consensus among transportation experts and lawmakers that there will have to be some form of a tax increase — always unpopular, but especially so in a recession — to make up for the lower gas tax revenues and to address a backlog of crumbling and congested highways, bridges and public transit systems.

Two congressionally mandated commissions have called for an immediate increase in the gas tax. The first commission, which issued its report in early 2008, recommended a 40-cent per gallon hike. The second panel, which issued its report earlier this year, recommended the tax be increased 10 cents per gallon for gas and 15 cents per gallon for diesel, and that both be indexed to inflation.

The two panels also said fuel taxes are not a sustainable source of revenue over the long term as drivers shift to more fuel efficient vehicles. Both panels recommended Congress find a new revenue source to pay for highway and transit programs.

chron.com

And guess how the new way these brainiacs are going to choose to tax us on fuel as our vehicles begin to be more fuel efficient? Ooohhhh, wait for the tingle down your leg- they want to track your mileage, and probably also track your whereabouts. Big Brother Hussein, oh Boy! I can hardly wait.

Their top recommendation was to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive. That would require equipping cars and trucks with devices that use GPS technology to record not only how many miles the vehicle was driven, but whether the driving occurred on interstate highways or secondary roads and whether it was during peak travel periods. The device would calculate the amount of tax owed and the bill could be downloaded.

A mileage-based tax system would take about 10 years to implement.

chron.com

Yea, I am sure that this is NOT the Change most of the people voted for. I think it is probably fortunate for Hussein that fewer people are reading the papers these days. This way he might be able to fool the people long enough to shackle the people with GPS monitoring of their cars , then their person- who knows how far this could go.

And still the liberal socialists will excuse their exalted leader for destroying this country. 

They have Brains You Don’t Use. That should be their real slogan.

Share on Facebook

Tags: debt, energy, government intrusion, responsibility, sanity, state's rights

The International Court Of Environmental Nannyism

Dec 1, 2008 Political

A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change. Telegraph UK

Stephen Hockman wants to have a court similar to the International Court of Justice but he wants this court to be the International Court of the Environment. The court would be responsible for forcing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The court would also fine countries or companies around the world for failing to protect the environment and endangered species.

The last thing we need is an Environmental Court of Nannyism. We do not need to give away our rights to outside agencies. This country has laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with companies that violate the law with regard to the environment. We need to focus on real violators and stop creating rules and expectations that are nearly impossible to meet, have little or no benefit, and drive costs way up.

This hair brained idea is being presented to a symposium at the British Library and no doubt there will be morons that sign on to it. This would be a huge mistake. Giving away our sovereignty is not the correct thing to do. Our courts and our system of laws can best address the issues faced within our boundaries.

As with any bureaucratic program, this idea has the potential to create havoc and cause misery that will be beyond our control and leave us no avenue for redress. How far will these people go? Will they go after the states (or other geographic areas) within nation states? Will they try to ban hunting because it involves killing animals? Will they refocus on individuals who they believe are not living up to the arbitrary standards they will impose?

Our country is a sovereign nation and we have rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. Those rights should not be decided by a bunch of nannies sitting in the Hague.

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.

Share on Facebook

Tags: court, environment, nanny state, nannyism, state's rights