Should Tennessee emulate Oklahoma??

[gsvol]

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

The resolution's language, in part, reads: “Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: ‘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.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federalgovernment. . Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."

 

[SLC]

I find that intersting. Do you know specifically why the okies adopted this?

Was it the overall slide into national governance (with diminishing states rights) or were there specific federal mandates/actions this was in response too?

Best,

SLC

 

[MG1968]

sounds to me like Oklahoma is sick and tired of all the unfunded mandates coming out of Congress.

I personally think it's a good idea although if a state's economy has become dependent on federal dollars, the withdrawal symptoms could last for a while.

 

[SLC]

sounds to me like Oklahoma is sick and tired of all the unfunded mandates coming out of Congress.

I personally think it's a good idea although if a state's economy has become dependent on federal dollars, the withdrawal symptoms could last for a while.

A lot of states are dependant on the federal dollar. What's Tennessee's position?

 

[WA_Vol]

I havent heard this discussed on talk radio here. Maybe I will suggest it as a topic.

 

[gsvol]

I find that intersting. Do you know specifically why the okies adopted this?

Was it the overall slide into national governance (with diminishing states rights) or were there specific federal mandates/actions this was in response too?

Best,

SLC

I don't know that it was passed and doubt if it was.

Sure, it's all about the federal government's steady usurping of the rights of the individual states.

I havent heard this discussed on talk radio here. Maybe I will suggest it as a topic.

Maybe when you bring that up you might discuss the fact that the law that brought about the IRS and a federal income tax wasn't ratified by the required 75% of the individual states, seeing how you are one to have such great respect for the law.

 

[gsvol]

sounds to me like Oklahoma is sick and tired of all the unfunded mandates coming out of Congress.

I personally think it's a good idea although if a state's economy has become dependent on federal dollars, the withdrawal symptoms could last for a while.

Part of that could have been leftover frustration from the Clinton administration's criminal mishandling of the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing event.

 

[overseasorange2]

Only when it comes to football.....

 

[gsvol]

Only when it comes to football.....

Boo, hiss.


Oklahoma's last ten bowl games:

L 12-29-1994 31-6 BYU - Copper Bowl
L 12-31-1999 27-25 Mississippi - Independence Bowl
W 01-03-2001 13- 2 Florida St. - Orange Bowl
W 01-01-2002 10- 3 Arkansas - Cotton Bowl
W 01-01-2003 34-14 Washington St. - Rose Bowl
L 01-04-2004 21-14 Louisiana St. - Sugar Bowl
L 01-04-2005 55-19 Sou Cal - Orange Bowl
W 12-29-2005 17-14 Oregon - Holiday Bowl
L 01-01-2007 43-42 Boise St. - Fiesta Bowl
L 01-02-2008 48-28 West Virginia - Fiesta Bowl

Tennessee has won 7 bowl games since 1994, nearly twice as many as Oklahoma.

Surely we can do better than that.

Now if you want to talk about beating the Bud Wilkinson consecutive game win streaks, 31 from 1948 to 1950 and 47 from 1953 to 1957, I'm all for that.

 

[dan4vols]

Residing in Oklahoma I have an opinion on this. Whereas Tennessee as a state seems to actually care about it's residents Oklahoma makes it very clear federal considerations come 1st, then Native americans rights, then the average day to day Oklahoman. The way they illustrate this is how and when they spend, and whose $ it is, local or federal.

 

[gasguy98]

The Federals have been inching toward tyranny since 1861. Unfortunately it will only continue like the snowball rolling downhill. I don't think it can be stopped now.

 

[therealUT]

The Federals have been inching toward tyranny since 1861.

Still smarting from the loss...?

 

[dan4vols]

Still smarting from the loss...?

Had the south had an infrastructure of munitions and weapons factories Abraham Lincoln would've been know as the surrender president.

 

[gsvol]

Residing in Oklahoma I have an opinion on this. Whereas Tennessee as a state seems to actually care about it's residents Oklahoma makes it very clear federal considerations come 1st, then Native americans rights, then the average day to day Oklahoman. The way they illustrate this is how and when they spend, and whose $ it is, local or federal.

How did you vote on the cockfighting issue??

 

[KYVolFan]

Yo there folks, there was a minor disagreement several years ago argued back and forth by the several states that took better than four years to resolve. That minor squabble cost the states millions upon millions and imeasurable pain and suffering. In time an agreement was reached that determined that States Rights do not exist. The event resolving the issue in case you folks forgot was called the American Civil War or The War of Northern Agression depending upon the perspective.

 

[onlyut4me]

Yo there folks, there was a minor disagreement several years ago argued back and forth by the several states that took better than four years to resolve. That minor squabble cost the states millions upon millions and imeasurable pain and suffering. In time an agreement was reached that determined that States Rights do not exist. The event resolving the issue in case you folks forgot was called the American Civil War or The War of Northern Agression depending upon the perspective.

just because one side has more wealth and better infrastructure doesnt make it right. especially when it comes to the constitution.

 

[KYVolFan]

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it? :whistling:

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to seceede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to seceed because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

 

[therealUT]

Had the south had an infrastructure of munitions and weapons factories Abraham Lincoln would've been know as the surrender president.

Had the South had equivalent or superior industrial capabilities, then they would not have held on so tightly to the Slave Issue.

 

[therealUT]

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it? :whistling:

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to seceede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to seceed because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

The South certainly had the right to Secede in 1860 and 1861. However, the Federal Government certainly had the right to collect its arms and equipment from Ft. Sumter. I would agree that sending Federal Troops to Sumter was in fact Lincoln's way of baiting the South into a fight. Let's remember though, the Federal Troops were fired onto. At that point, South Carolina became an enemy of the US.

 

[onlyut4me]

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it? :whistling:

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to secede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to secede because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

Dont forget the fact that Rhode Island, New York and Virginia(the most powerful state at the time)retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Also, at the time of Louisiana purchase the northern atlantic states threaten secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede four times before the civil war. their legislature even passed a resolution of secession during the early days of our country. Thomas Jefferson himself actually wished them luck if they decided to do so. the war was not about slavery or even states rights. the war was about money. specifically the taxes being collected on imports in the southern states. southern port states actually paid over 80% of the national import taxes that were collected. Lincoln couldn't let that income get away from the federal government now could he. Charles Dickens himself said the war was not over slavery but instead northern desire for economic control of the southern states. oh well, the victors of war get to write their version of history i guess.

 

[onlyut4me]

The South certainly had the right to Secede in 1860 and 1861. However, the Federal Government certainly had the right to collect its arms and equipment from Ft. Sumter. I would agree that sending Federal Troops to Sumter was in fact Lincoln's way of baiting the South into a fight. Let's remember though, the Federal Troops were fired onto. At that point, South Carolina became an enemy of the US.

they were not collecting arms and equipment. the were taking in food and supplies. lincoln said he would not give up fort sumter. so yes he was absolutely baiting.

 

[gsvol]

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to secede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to secede because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

When Alabama seceded from the Union, Winston county seceded from Alabama.

Dont forget the fact that Rhode Island, New York and Virginia(the most powerful state at the time)retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Also, at the time of Louisiana purchase the northern atlantic states threaten secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede four times before the civil war. their legislature even passed a resolution of secession during the early days of our country. Thomas Jefferson himself actually wished them luck if they decided to do so. the war was not about slavery or even states rights. the war was about money. specifically the taxes being collected on imports in the southern states. southern port states actually paid over 80% of the national import taxes that were collected. Lincoln couldn't let that income get away from the federal government now could he. Charles Dickens himself said the war was not over slavery but instead northern desire for economic control of the southern states. oh well, the victors of war get to write their version of history i guess.

Now the question; How many states ratified the 16th amendment??? (thus rendering the personal income tax legal)

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

well if you look at the federal government, it has grown exponentialy since the great depression. The New Deal was one of the most intrusive set of acts ever passed. From there on out, the government has just gotten larger. I have a feeling its only gonna get worse, i mean come on theres going to be a "climate czar" and a civil defense force????

 

[gsvol]

well if you look at the federal government, it has grown exponentially since the great depression. The New Deal was one of the most intrusive set of acts ever passed. From there on out, the government has just gotten larger. I have a feeling its only gonna get worse, i mean come on there's going to be a "climate czar" and a civil defense force????

Right, we get governmental solutions for government caused (or imagined) problems.

Every new president creates a new federal agency and federal agencies impose new regulations at the rate of 500+ per day.

The shadow government coming out of the shadows???

Introducing our new energy/environment (read global warming) 'czar', Carol Browner;

excerpts;

....an ethical cloud still hangs over Browner’s EPA legacy.

On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records.

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer.
(Shades of Sandy Burglar??)

After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction

Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions.

Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups,

These are the very same groups – anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria – that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama’s “energy czar.”

Washington Times, Jan 12, 2009, Stevan Dinan.

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

...................Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, ...(continued)

(actually 'tsar' [derived from caesar] is the correct transliteration, 'czar' is not. The word is spelled in the cyrillic alphabet with four letters, 'tse', 'ah', 'er', 'myakees znock' [silent soft sound.])

Cyrillic alphabet.

Prepare yourselves for the next Tsar, the Tsar of ACD!!!

 

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

have you ever seen "hitchikers guide to the galaxy"? If you have, you know the scene where they are on the planet and if you have an idea you get smacked in the face, and the planet is basically ran by beuracrats?