Federalism Is Dead
By NightTwister Posted in Archived — Comments (71) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Federalism is the idea that government control should be maintained at the level of least influence possible. Cities should only get involved when the neighborhood cannot solve the issue themselves. Same for counties over cities, and so on up to the federal level.
States rights have been diminished over the years. I could go on and on why I believe that's so, but I'll leave it for another time. It's gotten so bad, that many states don't even try to fight for them anymore.
While channel surfing last night, I came across Glenn Beck's show. He was interviewing Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. The discussion was about coal gasification. The amount of coal reserves that can be converted to traditional fuels (gasoline, diesel, etc.) is approximately equal to 1/3rd of all known oil reserves. This fuel can be generated at the equivalent cost of $55 per barrel.
More below the fold...
I know what you're asking. They're looking at 100% return based on current oil prices. What's the hold up? Ah, I'm so glad you asked. Back to the Glenn Beck interview.
I actually heard these words come out of the Governor's mouth (paraphrased):
We're waiting for the Federal Government to tell us what to do about carbon offsets. We can't do anything until they deterimine what needs to be done so we can determine the cost and move forward.
(Emphasis mine).
Unfortunately I can't tell you what was said next because of the shoe-sized hole in my television set. Ok, so I didn't throw my shoe into the TV, but that's what I wanted to do. Anyone that's seen the television sitcom Scrubs knows what happened in my mind.
If I were a resident of Montana, I would head right down to the courthouse today and find out how to begin a recall petition. Governor Schweitzer is apparently completely unable to lead his state. The process should begin now to find someone that can.
- Randy Ketner
- Fort Collins, CO
But can you really blame the governor? If the state takes action based on their view that they are actually a sovereign entity the next thing that happens is some humanity-hating enviro-wackjob or some make-work federal agency files suit to stop them; or Congress passes another idiotic law to override the state; or the President caves in on Antropogenic Global Whatever and decides to act against common sense.
I'm afraid it is true, federalism is dead.
If the governor was really smart he'd raise the ante. Propose to the legislature that they dissolve the State of Montana and turn all responsibility over to the Feds. If Washington wants to run things then force them to run everything --- make Montana a ward of Washington. Make people think about what is happening.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
And if this had happened in Colorado, I'd be on Bill Ritter's doorstep the very next day.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Right after the Governor said we need to wait for Congress to tell us what to do, here is what Glenn shot back at him:
BECK: This is why -- no, we don`t! This is why -- this is what happened to us in the depression. Business couldn`t do business because the state kept putting more and more regulation. They kept changing their mind, going back and forth. That`s why we had a 10-year depression. It is time to tell Congress, you know what, we`re doing it, man! We need the oil. We need the energy. Governor, I`m sorry to rant on you.
I only wish Glenn was not so polite to include his last sentence.
(sigh) The days of real leaders like Andrew Jackson seem to be bygone times.
You're a persistent cuss, pilgrim. John Wayne to James Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
... I fully agree with what we'd all like to see happen or what should be done. I'm simply arguing that if the governor took the kinds of actions we'd like to see he'd be shut down in a heartbeat by some federal bureaucrat or federal judge. Now maybe that might turn into a catalyst for an eventual Supreme Court decision on state's rights and responsibilities so governors might finally understand what "sovereign state" actually means in this day and age, but that's a horse of a different color.
I'd be ecstatic if a governor would actually tell the feds to 'pound sand' but I don't see that happening.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
... like John Brown, 'is mouldering in his grave.' Where is our Andy Jackson?
I'd like nothing better than to see a governor tell the Feds to 'butt out' rather than lining up for the 'hand out' but I don't see that happening.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Oh come on! Andrew Jackson, as much fun as he was, and as much as I admired his toughness, was a petty tyrant in many ways, certainly not someone to be admired.
And before you say he "upheld federalism" because he ignored the Supreme Court (which is a silly definition anyway), he also sent the army to hang the Governor Of SC when he didn't like what they did. He basically just substituted his own judgment for that of the court, it's not that he respected "states rights" or any such nonsense.
"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas
carved this country into pieces.
One of the federal government's main responsibilities is to quell insurrection. SC was essentially seceding with his nullification doctrine.
Jackson saved the Cherokee nation from genocide at the hands of Georgians and the Supreme Court. It was essentially a foreign policy matter that is out of the court's jurisdiction.
His opposition to a national bank establishes his federalist bona fides.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
And take a punch for the governor but what he is referring to is that with the issue of carbon credits hanging out there (and that is a federal issue) and until it is resolved or more appropriately killed because it is a stupid idea, the costs of production and therefore profitability are unknown...tough to get investors when you don't know what the income statement will look like. Also, the gassification plants, from what I've read, take 3 -4 years to build and longer to payback. Frankly, with the positions of any of the 3 presidential candidates would you put your money into that kind of a venture?
To wait for some type of "final" dispositive framework before doing anything is the absence of leadership.
The feds may never agree to a framework for carbon credits. Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.
rained from the sky today...oh, and J and I agree.
Federalism isn't dead, leadership is...at least in the political class...
Member, American Conservative Party
How about this: If you pay me I'll obey all the traffic laws so you can drive recklessly? Or maybe we can do it on a state level? Since Maine Has significanly fewer vehicles we pollute less, we could sell smog credits to California. (Wow, maybe we could lower our taxes and not be in the top 5 tax states!)
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
Keep that in mind and it should make you feel better.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Is Algore running a shadow government? It sure seems like it.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --- John Adams
Brian David Schweitzer (born September 4, 1955) is an American politician from the U.S. state of Montana. Schweitzer is a Democrat and the current governor of Montana, serving since January 2005...
-Wikipedia (my emphasis)
Most Democrats ignore the fact that the Constitution set up sovereign political entities called states and created a political structure to legislate, regulate & manage cross boundary issues.
The Civil War was a 'states rights' issue, slavery and Congressional/Presidential action (e.g. Emancipation Proclamation) brought about a 'diplomacy by other means' scenario(War!). The slavery issue was one of many issues the South had with the North but it provided the tipping point and the rallying cry for BOTH sides. The abolition of slavery was the absolutely right thing to do BUT one of the unforunate consequences was the erosion of states rights. Once lost they might never be regained. Until such time as there are strict constructionists in the majority on the bench at SCOTUS nothing will change.
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
I'd just tell the feds to GTH. I'd start making fuel and dare them to come stop me.
Same for Governor of Alaska. I'd start drilling in ANWR and dare them to come up there and try to stop me. By the time it got through the courts half the oil would be out of the ground. And I'd tell them what to do with their temporary restraining order.
I honestly don't think the feds would do anything. This isn't 1861.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
Drilling in ANWR on federal land is lawlessness without permission from the feds.
However, the Montana situation is pre-emptive and pro-active stupidity. There aren't any rules on carbon offsets at the moment, so why wait what may be YEARS?
Leadership is realizing that forgiveness is easier than permission.
Federalism has been dead for a long time. The United States as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson was over once John Marshall became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jefferson's view of a government with strong state's rights lost out to Marshall's view of a strong central government (ironically Marshall belonged to the Federalist Party). Many of us believe that Jefferson's viewpoint of the Constitution is correct, but that doesn't mean squat if Supreme Court Justices declare otherwise. If the Supreme Court rules that the federal government can make laws in regards to schools, social security, healthcare, drug use, or how much oil or coal a state can remove from the ground then that is the law of the land. If the Supreme Court rules that abortion is a constitutionally guaranteed right then that is the law of the land. If the Supreme Court rules that our free speech rights don't apply prior to an election then that is the law of the land. If the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution is a "living breathing document" that needs to change with the times and needs to be reinterpreted by the courts instead of changed by the amendment process then that is the law of the land.
My friend, a hell of a lot more than Federalism is dead.
______________________________
"The truth is not for all men, but only for those who seek it."
-Ayn Rand
I am in the coalbed methane business and I live about 13 miles from the Montana border in Wyoming. I own coalbed methane minerals in the Powder River Basin of both Wyoming and Montana so I think I am well qualified to comment on this blog.
First Gov. Brian Schweitzer is an improvement over his predecessors. He actually seems to favor development and look forward to day when Montana starts to benefit from those revenues.
There are lots of things tying his hands. Here are a few. The coal in Montana is in the sparsely populated east part of the state. Politics are dominated by the more populated Western part of the state which is packed with enviro-whackos. Picture trying to do coal gasification in Marin County, CA and you know what he is up against.
I have been able to develop my methane in Wyoming for 10 years. We have been fighting Montana for most of that time and only now are we finally starting to see a glimmer of light with a very few well permits being issued. Montana has it written into their Consituttion that "every citizen has the right to a clean environment". This opens the door for an unbelievable amount of mischief and allows people to essentially confiscate the private property of their neighbors by denying them the ability to extract it.
And guess where this mischief eventually gets resolved? In the extremely liberal 9'th District Federal Court of Appeals. We take three steps forwards and 2 3/4ths steps back. Everything takes years.
And coal gasification is going to be far more disruptive then coalbed methane production so the mischief will be correspondingly worse. It may NEVER happen in Montana.
Fortunately for the country, Wyoming has even larger coal reserves then Montana and we are a lot more sensible about development. Everytime Montana turns a coal project down another huge mine opens in Wyoming. I'm sure we will see the same thing with coal gasification. I am sure Schwitzer will be looking on with jealosy as Wyoming adds a few more billions to our already massive budget surplus and tucks away a bunch more money in our permanent mineral trust fund. The already dying towns in Eastern Montana will continue to dry up and blow away.
Federalism may not be dead because with respect to coal gasification. Long after the Feds have cleared up their obstacles, it will be the State of Montana that is obstructing itself.
"I repudiate the idea of voting for a Democrat
This is more likely a case of a state government trying to force the federal government to act. If enough state governments pass contradictory legislation or refuse to act at all, it could force the federal government to step in and impose a federal law. That's the theory that a lot of carbon tax/cap and trade advocates at the state level believe: that local action begets national action. It may very well be true. If there is enough confusion at the state level, the federal government will have no choice but to act.
I was at a GOP county b-fast a couple of years ago. Our local state senator was speaking; she is a so-called "conservative" R. She was asked a question about implementing some onerous new something at the County level that had been mandated by the State. She retorted that the Counties must do what the State says just like the State must do what the Feds say.
I nearly lost my breakfast in visceral disgust.
Most of the room just nodded their heads.
Very ugly.
The fed has to have the ability to override the state, and so on down the line, at least in some matters. If this isn't so, nobody higher up than the mayor has any influence whatever (possibly lower than that, but neighborhoods are not independent locally; might be different wherever you are). At that point, we're all a confederation, not a republic, and that didn't work the first time we tried it.
Federalism pretty much has to be enforced by the Congress refusing to pass laws overriding state authority, and the court refusing to validate laws that do so where the Congress doesn't actually have the authority to do so.
The latter might happen if the court is sufficiently conservative (as it might now be; unless and until that is so, however, it is unlikely to happen without a repeal of the Commerce clause, which is often used to justify regulations of that sort).
The former will require a wholesale housecleaning of Congress, and probably the repeal of the 17th amendment. Neither the housecleaning or the repeal seem in the offing.
--
This too shall pass.
The entire idea of states rights was tied so strongly to slavery and then Jim Crow laws that one of the most important foundations of our democracy was discredited. States rights are an even more important tool than the seperation of powers at the federal level in ensuring that too much power isn't in too few people's hands. While every child learns about the seperation of powers among the branches of government, few still learn about why it is so important that powers are reserved for the states.
3/4's of the states can call a constitutional convention any time they want. They can then do anything they want to the federal government. The power still resides constitutionally with the states. They'll just never use it because they are busy taking handouts.
The whole extortion racket the feds have controlling the states is pathetic. Its unconstitutional to force a state to do anything educationally. Instead they say.. no money if you won't agree to play. I think THAT should be unconstitutional. The only reason its not is our founding fathers didn't even conceive of a federal government have so much money relative to the states.
I'm still pissed about the rights of california being violated when the EPA blocked our attempt to regulate the mileage of cars sold in OUR state. It's infuriating that the environmental PROTECTION agency has been used instead as a tool of big- lobbying big-business special intrests to block our prudent action in the face of proven climate change.
also, whats up with the DEA raids on marijuana dispensaries? regardless of your opinion on bob marley and timothy leary, cannabis is proven to relieve pain, and treat several medical conditions. it's also non addictive unlike most painkillers. opiates (synthetic heroin) are viciously addictive, as was demonstrated by rush limbaugh's experiences. it sickens me to see armed federal agents invading our cities and breaking into small local businesses against the will of the california voter. it would be my dream to see our local police forces arresting federal agents for breaking and entering on a raid.
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
I can tell you......I can go down right now and get some Stash...want me to get you some..
|
"Yeeeaaaarrrrrggggggg..." |
Then the loons there could do whatever they want to and pay for the results themselves. You can have Hollywood, you can keep your fruit loops living like hedonists (smoke whatever you want), and most of all you can keep San Francisco! P.S. Please stay where you're at and don't ever move to the Midwest.
Tim Schieferecke
honestly man, we seem to be doing pretty darn good out here with our loony selves, something's working for california.
seriously though, what's up with all the personal attacks and subject changing? these insults are as empty as the obama campaign. nobody has adressed my original point yet. this type of waffling and fact-avoidance is what everybody hates about liberals. am i on daily kos here?
You can't kill an idea, you can only discredit it.
I think discussions of federalism are more likely to take place in a law school in the year 2008 than they were in 1978. These things go in cycles. Federalism was "dead" for a long time until the 80s. Fred would have brought it back into the public discourse.
We have 5 Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who would disagree with the premise that Federalism is "dead". Even Kennedy mentions it from time to time.
Where Federalism is closest to dying is in the Senate.
personal attacks....no
subject changing?..no...your asking the questions we are answering
(semifunny)these insults are as empty as the obama campaign.(/semifunny)
(lame)my original point (/lame)...If you want me to Pick it apart..just ask
waffling and fact-avoidance is what everybody hates about liberals....how about Conspirisy theories?
am i on daily kos here?....You do look familiar...
"40 million American households with guns are generally happier
than those people in households that don't have guns."
sorry, but my original question regarding california's policies being meddled in by the federal government in violation of our states rights has not been answered. all i'm seeing is people's feelings on the policies themselves-- changing the subject.
if you only allow the state's rights that you agree with, that's not states rights at all. it's just half truths and political posturing.
from wikipedia:
Righteous indignation is an emotion one feels when one becomes angry over perceived mistreatment, insult, or malice, not directed at you. It is akin to what is called the hatred of injustice.
In some Christian doctrines, righteous indignation is considered the only form of anger which is not sinful, e.g., Jesus drove the money lenders out of the temple.
and...?
With the limited research I've been able to do I've come up with the following:
1) California requested a waiver from EPA to allow them to implement their own standards.
2) 17 other states have either adopted or pledged to implement the California standards
3) EPA Chief Stephen Johnson denied the request for waiver.
4) Mr. Johnson cites the new federal standards signed into law are adequate.
5) Mr. Johnson points out that he believes a single national standard would be better to implement rather than a "patchwork" of standards (watch for another anti-patchwork argument a little later)
Technically, it's California meddling in a Federal area of authority!
Constitutionally the Federal government has the authority to regulate interstate trade. I believe this is how the EPA can get involved with mandating mileage requirements (CAFE). Please note that the EPA rules in question mandate that all the vehicles manufactured MUST meet these requirements. In effect, the denial of the waiver means that California cannot impose it's desires on auto manufacturers.
Using your analogy, Mr. Johnson told the big bad California EPA they can't bust down GM's & Ford's doors and tell them how to run their company.
That being said, there is nothing that says California can't mandate that only cars meeting their requirements can be sold in California. This does not force manufacturers to engineer their cars to meet many different requirements, it does, however, limit the variety that would be available in California. If the consumer market creates a demand the manufacturers, if they want to make a buck or two, will design and manufacture vehicles accordingly.
The desire by many states to have control over seemingly everything has led them to mandate various fuel blends, often referred to as 'boutique blends'. Some of these blends have very small differences. Because nobody can seem to agree on any particular blend or blends there are now about 15 different 'flavors'. Since the same refineries produce all the different flavors they have to shut down whenever they change blends and reset everything to produce the new blends. Some people may find this hard to believe but this costs money. Since they aren't producing any gas during the changeover this is an overhead expense. See if you can guess where this cost will be tacked on to?...........Time's up! If you guessed the gasoline produced, you're correct! To make matters worse, the refineries have to look into their crystal balls and predict, months in advance, just how much of each blend they'll have to produce. Since there are 15 different blends and each blend is uniquely used in different areas, if they're wrong they can't always shift reserves from one area to the other, unless they get a waiver from whoever decided what the blend should be!
Want to lower the price of gas? Cut the overhead by mandating 2 or 3 blends instead of this patchwork of 15!
(rant over, blood pressure returning to normal)
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
I'm not familiar with that ability of the EPA! I know they're intrusive as....well I really can't think of any agency being more intrusive!!!! Please educate this poor New Englander as to how the EPA did this. Or did I truly miss the sarcasm??
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
sorry, my bad. i meant emissions.
here is the story, from the washington post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR200712...
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson yesterday denied California's petition to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, overruling the unanimous recommendation of the agency's legal and technical staffs.
The EPA, many years back, started an unfortunate precedent when they started granting waivers thereby defeating one of the main reasons for having a Federal level organization. By having only one set of regulations to adhere to it lowers the cost of doing anything!
Granted the standards may not work perfectly for everyone but it keeps the cost of doing business down thereby keeping the price down and does, to some extent, accomplish the purpose.
To simplify the argument, it's the difference between 50 each of three sizes (Small,Medium & Large) versus 150 tailor made items. The more you can stadardize the more you can upscale your manufacturing thereby lowering the cost. That, by the way, is the cause of the $400 toilet seats the AF had to buy. If you want the scenario I can do that at a later date! (Hint: It was caused by Congressional mandate!)
omnia dicta fortiora si dicta Latina
I'm sick of these sissy little I pass the buck 'cuz I'm a schmuck "leaders". They can't take a firm position on anything, and most of them will only be "resolute" after they've poll tested the issue for guidance. From McCain being afraid to take on the Wright issue to my elected Republican representatives here in Kansas giving Comrade Governor Sebelius a total pass on her ASSININE and marxist refusal to allow a coal fired power plant in Western Kansas due to so-called climate change, I AM SICK OF WUSSES! I absolutely despise sheep that go along with any of this liberal bullspit! They stand down because they're afraid to ruffle feathers. Donde esta sus huevos?
Tim Schieferecke
haha im independent. i would be republican except for the lobbying/ corruption issues (which the dems are almost as bad on), and the places where the party stance blatantly contradicts itself, like on states rights.
Are states rights to be upheld on issues such as slavery and jim crow laws, but trampled on in the case of car regulations and pot?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
ok, i've got to go to bed. this has truly been a sorry spectacle. it seems that the conservatives here are as slippery and delusional as most liberals. i hope someone will be able to prove me wrong by giving me a straight answer to the following:
why should california not be able to enjoy the great constitutional principle of state's rights?
I learned that one from GC.
Q. why should california not be able to enjoy the great constitutional principle of state's rights?
A. Because the Federal Government has every right to meddle in interstate commerce.
Now to go back to DailyKos where you came from.
"After two years in Washington, I often long for the realism and sincerity of Hollywood." -Fred Dalton Thompson
It's just pining for the fjords!
--
This too shall pass.
but I place liberty well ahead. Federalism is a great theory, and in practice it has increased liberty. However, we should keep in mind that liberty is the goal, federalism is just one of the means to the goal.
The sad reality is we have all seen terrible abuses of power at the state and local level that are even MORE egregious than those of the federal govermnent. Just to mention a few, we have Mike Nifong, Palm Beach vs. Limbaugh, and the legal attacks on Tom Delay.
I do believe we should increase federalism and reduce the power of the Feds. But I hope we soberly realize that liberty is the true goal, federalism is but a means, that sometimes does not work.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
To me liberty isn't the prime reason to support the proper role of the Congress. Rather, it's because if the Constitution's words have no meaning, then it does nothing to protect us.
The rule of law matters.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
If by saying "the rule of law is an end to itself" you mean, following the Constitution is and absolute good, I agree. I guess what I was saying was that local, state, and municipal leaders are just as apt to fail to follow the Constitution.
I am well aware that centralized government has been proven to be the least responsive to the people. I have said repeatedly I support federalism to the max. My post was simply to remind people that Federalism does not equal liberty automatically. And the Constitution is about liberty, that is its main objective.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Federalism is dead because we as a whole lost our backbone. The government is the school yard bully. He pokes, then shoves, then pushes, then knocks down, then punches and then takes your lunch money. The governor of Montana seems to have this problem too. He needs to stand up and say this is our coal/oil and we are going to mine it. Let the feds come in and try to stop them. When they do stand up and call the liberty loving people to help defend their Constitutional (and God given) right to their property. He might be surprised how many might show up.
You all forget history so fast. This country was taken form the most powerful country in the world at that time. Some gave everything (life, money, family) because they believed in an idea. The idea is liberty.
Everyone know the "give me liberty or give me death" speech from Patrick Henry's speech to the Virgina's delegates. But the most powerful question is just before that where he said, "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?". We all need to ask ourselves that question. The winds of change are blowing and they bringing the chains of socialism.
The Jim Crow laws violate a person's Constitutional rights. I have no problem with you smoking dope. Just don't ask for any hand outs. I feel you can do what you want as long as you don't harm anyone. When you take(steal) my money(taxes) because you lived a worthless life that is harming me.
The post about President Jacksons ways of handing South Carolina. The Constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. Any state that feels that the federal government has overreached it's Constitutional powers they have a right to withdrawl from it. President Lincoln even stated that the southern states had a right to secession.
RE LINCOLN.
NOW
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
If you mean do I understand even back then an oath didn't mean much. Like the one to uphold the Constitution. Yes I get it.
to secede. Prove it.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
In his January 12, 1848 speech he states he believes in a peoples rights to secede.
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
In his First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861 he states the peoples rights to rebellion.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.
my point.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
send the darn links, please
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")