• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

Discussion: State Rights

SuBe

Voluntaryist
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
11,897
Reaction score
4
Points
58
After seeing the Discussion between Matthew and Addendum about State Rights last week, I think we need an open discussion about this issue. Below an Article in the News today about this very issue, seems like a nice time to start

http://www.edmondsun.com/opinion/local_story_047224528.html

Standing up for states’ rights
Rep. Jason Murphey

The Edmond Sun

The steps taken in the past few days by Congress to give the federal government nearly $800 billion worth of increased power reminds me of a column I wrote last November. In that article I wrote about the expected expansion of the federal government and how I felt the issue of state’s rights once again could be a significant issue in the Oklahoma Legislature this year.

It is important to note that in comparison to state governments, the federal government was created by our founders to be small and limited. This is because the people have a much stronger voice at the state level, whereas the ability of people to effect change is greatly limited at the federal level, and nearly non-existent on the global level of government.

Both political parties have used the expansion of the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas. Now a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

As a result, a bigger federal government likely will be most responsive to those only with enough money and influence to use that power to benefit themselves. This will leave the responsibility for paying for big government to the average taxpayer who cannot afford to invest in lobbyists and politicians in order to manipulate the system for their benefit.

This means that we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN — the possible recipient of $2 billion because of the stimulus bill.

This week the Oklahoma House of Representatives Rules Committee voted unanimously to support House Joint Resolution 1003 authored by state Rep. Charles Key. Key’s proposal should now be headed to the floor of the House where I look forward to supporting it.

HJR 1003 seeks to reassert Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and according to the resolution’s language, serves as “Notice and Demand to the federal government, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”

The 10th Amendment states: “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.”

Key has made it clear that during the past few decades he believes that the Constitution has been hanging by a thread.

While a similar resolution passed with the support of the Oklahoma House during the last session of the Legislature, it appears to have failed to receive a hearing in the Oklahoma Senate. This year, with new leadership in place in the Oklahoma Senate, I am hopeful HJR 1003 will receive a fair hearing.

I consider it an honor to support Key’s efforts in this regard. But, it also is going to be important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill. No doubt advocates of Oklahoma’s participation in this scheme will say that we must bring in new federal dollars by adding more welfare recipients. I say it is time to stand up to the federal government and its latest expansions.

REP. JASON MURPHEY represents House District 31, which includes all of Logan County and a portion of northern Edmond. He may be reached via e-mail at [email protected].
 
I stopped reading right here:

This means that we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN

Get off the soapbox already, Republicans.
 
This was the important part to read
HJR 1003 seeks to reassert Oklahoma’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and according to the resolution’s language, serves as “Notice and Demand to the federal government, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”
 
I agree

"The 10th Amendment states: “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.”"

If the state wants public healthcare....or all the other public services, let them handle then.
 
This article is such bull****.

Both political parties have used the expansion of the federal government as a tool to accomplish their various agendas. Now a group of aggressive liberals can use that power not only to move America to the left but to build upon itself and increase in size, making the federal government more expansive and powerful than ever before.

Do as we say, not as we do, right? This is an unbelievably hypocritical statement right here considering who was in power the last eight years, and what happened under their power. Forgive me if it's hard to take people like this seriously.
 
This article is such bull****.



Do as we say, not as we do, right? This is an unbelievably hypocritical statement right here considering who was in power the last eight years, and what happened under their power. Forgive me if it's hard to take people like this seriously.
The quote did say BOTH parties have done it. Now the Democrats, which are the Liberal Side of the Political Spectrum are in power.
 
States rights as an argument might have some merit but I've always found that its used on some of the more foolish issues. It always seems to come up when the federal government is pushing for something and almost never works. Mainly because most people realize that neutering the federal government seems kind of pointless. There was a reason why we did away with the articles of the confederacy and went with the constitution.
 
The quote did say BOTH parties have done it. Now the Democrats, which are the Liberal Side of the Political Spectrum are in power.

Jason Murphy is a Republican. Maybe he should consider changing his party affiliation first before I take him seriously.
 
States rights as an argument might have some merit but I've always found that its used on some of the more foolish issues. It always seems to come up when the federal government is pushing for something and almost never works. Mainly because most people realize that neutering the federal government seems kind of pointless. There was a reason why we did away with the articles of the confederacy and went with the constitution.
And there is a reason we have the 10th Amendment in the Constitution.
 
I don't see a problem, with having the States run all the social programs.

Education....the Healthcare...and other social programs.
This allows those states that don't want something, to not have it, and those that do want it, implement it, of course, they have to figure out how to pay for it.

The States are jokes now by most respect, because the Federal govt has a law that impacts every aspect of life.

From my perspective, honestly, I don't care about the political party side of this, I see this as a violation of the Constitution. Have the Federal Government outside of most things. Push the rest to the States to handle
 
I agree Mal, the States should be incharge of everything inside of their borders, the Federal Government shouldn't be anything other than 3 things, an Arbitraitor between State Disputes, Protector of Individual Rights, and Protector of National Borders.
 
And there is a reason we have the 10th Amendment in the Constitution.

I do wholeheartedly agree that there are powers which belong in the realm of the states. An overly strong federal government was always a concern. But a weak federal government is just as bad as one with too much power.

And frankly I've never been too happy with the things the state's rights arguments have been used to prop up. It's far too often used as a way to try to stymie change which isn't necessarily a bad thing. In the end I think there are far better arguments than this one when it comes to the stimulus package.
 
Always have been Polarized.
 
Not to the degree it was in the Civil War. We came damn close in the last couple of elections.

We need more melting pot action.



And by that I mean we all need to smoke more pot. :D



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
You are such a hippy.

Actually, the Civil War, our country was not divided. It was two seperate Countries. And it really wasn't a Civil War, a civil war is a war fought within it's own boarders, the Civil War was fought between two seperate Nations.

But, alas, I do agree there is a Civil War of Ideals going on right now.
 
But no one has been killed in this "civil war of ideals"
 
I know. He is talking about Polarization. Keep up.
 
The families of the soldiers killed in Iraq might disagree. Thank you Bush Doctrine.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
The families of the soldiers killed in Iraq might disagree. Thank you Bush Doctrine.


:thing: :doom: :thing:
To be technical, it's actually more of a Wilsonian Foreign Policy... but since people say he is a great president we can't haz that :cmad:
 
To be technical, it's actually more of a Wilsonian Foreign Policy... but since people say he is a great president we can't haz that :cmad:
I never say Wilson was a great president. He was one of the Worst.

If people think that the Patriot Act is terrible, they need read about the Sedition Act and Book Bannings he was in favor of and the "Progressive" Policies he favored that still exist today.
 
the mindset about the Patriot Act, and I'm fairly sure this is the view of the Senate and the House is that "If you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be doing, you have nothing to worry about"....

It's a bad way of thinking
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"