Federal Government - Resistance to

[Nobunaga]

A 2- Part Post.

... First, from Texas:


WAKE UP CALL: TEXAS GOV. BACK RESOLUTION AFFIRMING SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Apr 14 2009 08:44:54 ET

AUSTIN ・Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states・rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We believe that our 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,・Gov. Perry said. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states・rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.・

Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."

A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government痴 constitutionally designated powers and impede the states・right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.

______________________

... Then a warning to cops:

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity.

A footnote attached to the report by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines "rightwing extremism in the United States" as including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

... Full content is here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... -on-right/

_________________

.... Thomas Jefferson was, it would seem, a "right wing extremist".

... Seems I am, too. Uh-oh.

...

[Iz Man]

Hopefully this is just the beginning....
(The Texas part, not the Homeland security part )

...and you're right (pun intended):
Not just Jefferson; but most of the founding fathers would be labeled as "extremists" by the likes of the Wash Times.

[thegreekdog]

This may be interesting... we'll have to see how it plays out.

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

[Neoteny]

Really, I'd agree that the founding fathers were "extremists." I don't think the term should have the connotation it has been given by current political and religious discourse. People tend to assume extremism is a bad thing, and often it is. But in the Jefferson's case, I think many people would agree that it wasn't.

Therefore, the comparison is a bad one, though one that would naturally come from that definition. So I suppose I agree with you guys that the definition is a bad one?

Geez, that didn't come out clearly at all...

Anyhow, I'm not sure I'd classify Jefferson as "rightwing."

[Nobunaga]

... States' Rights. He was a right-wing fanatic by today's standard.

...

[Iz Man]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
So one can only assume BHO isn't too worried about "left-wing" extremists...
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

[thegreekdog]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Hmm, "extremist" is likely not the word then. I'm thinking of the lefties who had the current federal government (or perhaps the prior federal government). I wonder if any governor (say of Vermont) threatened to invoke the 10th Amendment or whether the DHS under President Bush put "radical leftist groups" on its watch list.

[Iz Man]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Hmm, "extremist" is likely not the word then. I'm thinking of the lefties who had the current federal government (or perhaps the prior federal government). I wonder if any governor (say of Vermont) threatened to invoke the 10th Amendment or whether the DHS under President Bush put "radical leftist groups" on its watch list.

Extremist is the wrong word, which is what makes BHO's directive to Homeland Security questionable. Questionable because it infers that anyone who opposes total government control is a "right-wing extremist". Our founders were pretty specific in promoting a very limited federal government, which is in stark contrast to the way things operate today. So if you "label" yourself as a Constitutionalist, well........that's just extreme, and you must be put on a watch list to make sure you don't cause any trouble.
As far as Bush-43 is concerned, his definition of extreme left I'm sure differs from that of BHO. He was by no means a right-winger, or even a conservative. He was a liberal republican by most standards. Certainly "left of center".
While the government (unfortunately) grew under Bush-43, it's growth pales in comparison to how Obama's policies will feed it. Hence not much mention of the 10th under Bush.
My opinion, anyways....

[thegreekdog]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Hmm, "extremist" is likely not the word then. I'm thinking of the lefties who had the current federal government (or perhaps the prior federal government). I wonder if any governor (say of Vermont) threatened to invoke the 10th Amendment or whether the DHS under President Bush put "radical leftist groups" on its watch list.

Extremist is the wrong word, which is what makes BHO's directive to Homeland Security questionable. Questionable because it infers that anyone who opposes total government control is a "right-wing extremist". Our founders were pretty specific in promoting a very limited federal government, which is in stark contrast to the way things operate today. So if you "label" yourself as a Constitutionalist, well........that's just extreme, and you must be put on a watch list to make sure you don't cause any trouble.
As far as Bush-43 is concerned, his definition of extreme left I'm sure differs from that of BHO. He was by no means a right-winger, or even a conservative. He was a liberal republican by most standards. Certainly "left of center".
While the government (unfortunately) grew under Bush-43, it's growth pales in comparison to how Obama's policies will feed it. Hence not much mention of the 10th under Bush.
My opinion, anyways....

Yes, my original point is why right-wing anti-federal government? Why not left-wing anti-federal government? If we are cynical, we know the answers to those questions.

[PLAYER57832]

... States' Rights. He was a right-wing fanatic by today's standard.

...

Then is not today, and that is the point. When Jefferson came into the picture, the U.S. had only just left British colonial status. The United States was not yet the unified nation that it IS today, it was literally a group of independent states. We moved from that, over time, for very good reason. Most particular, divided we will fall.

Protecting everyone's rights was another reason. In Texas right now, many people are having their rights tromped upon by others with money. Buy a house and find out afterward it was on a sink hole? Don't bother trying to sue, you have to go through arbitration that is run by the builders, not the consumers.

Of course, some restrictions have been rescinded by the federal government, which is why the legislation. However, look hard at the specifics they are putting forward. This is about putting forward and agenda that will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority.

[thegreekdog]

... States' Rights. He was a right-wing fanatic by today's standard.

...

Then is not today, and that is the point. When Jefferson came into the picture, the U.S. had only just left British colonial status. The United States was not yet the unified nation that it IS today, it was literally a group of independent states. We moved from that, over time, for very good reason. Most particular, divided we will fall.

Protecting everyone's rights was another reason. In Texas right now, many people are having their rights tromped upon by others with money. Buy a house and find out afterward it was on a sink hole? Don't bother trying to sue, you have to go through arbitration that is run by the builders, not the consumers.

Of course, some restrictions have been rescinded by the federal government, which is why the legislation. However, look hard at the specifics they are putting forward. This is about putting forward and agenda that will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority.

So the requirement that someone whose house is in a sinkhole go to arbitration is a result of states' rights? While I do not necessarily agree with the governor of Texas, you and I could certainly go back and forth for a lengthy period of time regarding the benefits and perils of a strong federal government. Additionally, you say that the governor's agenda will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority - the majority of whom? The majority of Texans? The majority of non-Republican Texans? The majority of Americans? I would venture to say that the federal government does a whole lot of things that will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority. Further, I would put forward the following example - The Emancipation Proclamation.

[PLAYER57832]

So the requirement that someone whose house is in a sinkhole go to arbitration is a result of states' rights? While I do not necessarily agree with the governor of Texas, you and I could certainly go back and forth for a lengthy period of time regarding the benefits and perils of a strong federal government. Additionally, you say that the governor's agenda will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority - the majority of whom? The majority of Texans? The majority of non-Republican Texans? The majority of Americans? I would venture to say that the federal government does a whole lot of things that will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority. Further, I would put forward the following example - The Emancipation Proclamation.

The requirement that disputes with builders go to arbitration is the result of Texas politics being heavily beholden to one very wealthy builder. When states put forward "state's rights", you tend to find people like that behind it.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation. It made a few people unhappy, I would not say it made the majority unhappy by any measure except southern money. And, by-the way, it did not set all slaves free .. only those in the confederacy.

Further, it took federal government intervention almost 100 years later to bring the matter to true resolution.

[Juan_Bottom]

And I wouldn't even call it resolved yet.

[MeDeFe]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
So one can only assume BHO isn't too worried about "left-wing" extremists...
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Actually the far (or extreme) right-wing part of the political spectrum denotes conservative (in the sense that they wish to preserve the status quo or even return to some previous societal state) nationalist factions that often come with totalitarian tendencies, the extreme left-wing part used to consist of the groups that challenged the status quo and wished to progress beyond it, that part has changed by now and those who challenge the prevalent order are sort of outside the "official" political spectrum.

Damn colonialist, wanting to impose your weird definitions on us. Stop it!

[thegreekdog]

So the requirement that someone whose house is in a sinkhole go to arbitration is a result of states' rights? While I do not necessarily agree with the governor of Texas, you and I could certainly go back and forth for a lengthy period of time regarding the benefits and perils of a strong federal government. Additionally, you say that the governor's agenda will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority - the majority of whom? The majority of Texans? The majority of non-Republican Texans? The majority of Americans? I would venture to say that the federal government does a whole lot of things that will make a few people happy at the expense of the majority. Further, I would put forward the following example - The Emancipation Proclamation.

The requirement that disputes with builders go to arbitration is the result of Texas politics being heavily beholden to one very wealthy builder. When states put forward "state's rights", you tend to find people like that behind it.

As for the Emancipation Proclamation. It made a few people unhappy, I would not say it made the majority unhappy by any measure except southern money. And, by-the way, it did not set all slaves free .. only those in the confederacy.

Further, it took federal government intervention almost 100 years later to bring the matter to true resolution.

The freeing of the slaves was unpopular both in the South, among most southerners, not just the owners of slaves, as well as in many states in the north (for example Ohio). It was not a move that President Lincoln made to win an election. And it was unpopular because it made the war about slavery, as opposed to the war being about union. In any event, here are some more unpopular measures taken by the federal government: (1) the federal bailout, (2) federal personal income taxes, (3) federal capital gains taxes, (4) the estate tax, (5) Miranda rights for criminals, (6) The War in Iraq, (7) the releasing of prisoners from Gitmo, (8) the Lend-Lease Act, and (9) NAFTA, to name a few.

Representative governments don't do things because the masses demand them; that's why we have representatives and senators instead of just voting ourselves.

Finally, I know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not set all slaves free. It was not applicable, for example, to slaves in Maryland and Delaware until about 1865, when it was updated.

[Iz Man]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
So one can only assume BHO isn't too worried about "left-wing" extremists...
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Actually the far (or extreme) right-wing part of the political spectrum denotes conservative (in the sense that they wish to preserve the status quo or even return to some previous societal state) nationalist factions that often come with totalitarian tendencies, the extreme left-wing part used to consist of the groups that challenged the status quo and wished to progress beyond it, that part has changed by now and those who challenge the prevalent order are sort of outside the "official" political spectrum.

If you wanted to place conservatism vs. liberalism on a left-right comparison, then you're partially correct; but that only comprises a small portion of the entire political spectrum. One could hardly compare a conservative to an anarchist; nor could one compare a liberal to a totalitarian dictator or monarch.
Fascist, communist, oligarchies, and socialist regimes all fall on the left side of the spectrum.
A Representative Republic (i.e. The U.S.) falls right of center. Which is why Texas (and many other people here) is pissed off, because they see the federal gov't seizing more & more power over the day to day lives of the citizens. Whether it be through more unnecessary laws or more taxes. (See Tax Day Tea Party 2009).

Damn colonialist, wanting to impose your weird definitions on us. Stop it!

We're rebels, what do you expect?

[thegreekdog]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
So one can only assume BHO isn't too worried about "left-wing" extremists...
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Actually the far (or extreme) right-wing part of the political spectrum denotes conservative (in the sense that they wish to preserve the status quo or even return to some previous societal state) nationalist factions that often come with totalitarian tendencies, the extreme left-wing part used to consist of the groups that challenged the status quo and wished to progress beyond it, that part has changed by now and those who challenge the prevalent order are sort of outside the "official" political spectrum.

If you wanted to place conservatism vs. liberalism on a left-right comparison, then you're partially correct; but that only comprises a small portion of the entire political spectrum. One could hardly compare a conservative to an anarchist; nor could one compare a liberal to a totalitarian dictator or monarch.
Fascist, communist, oligarchies, and socialist regimes all fall on the left side of the spectrum.
A Representative Republic (i.e. The U.S.) falls right of center. Which is why Texas (and many other people here) is pissed off, because they see the federal gov't seizing more & more power over the day to day lives of the citizens. Whether it be through more unnecessary laws or more taxes. (See Tax Day Tea Party 2009).

Damn colonialist, wanting to impose your weird definitions on us. Stop it!

We're rebels, what do you expect?

HUZZAH!

Seriously though, the issue I'm having is that it's only conservative "rebels." If the government were serious in their convictions, it would be all "rebels." However, the government is currently only concerned with conservative "rebels" because that's who they do not agree with and/or who threaten them the most.

[Neoteny]

Well, the bias is obviously because they are themselves liberal rebels, what with communism and all that, and that puts everyone who disagrees to the right. So the only rebels you'll have are in the right wing camp.

[thegreekdog]

Well, the bias is obviously because they are themselves liberal rebels, what with communism and all that, and that puts everyone who disagrees to the right. So the only rebels you'll have are in the right wing camp.

I certainly don't agree with that. I just think this is an overblown issue because the conservatives want to harp on it and the government is overreacting. The president has distanced himself from the issue, per his issued statements. So, again, blown way out of proportion.

[Nobunaga]

... The Texas issue is not blown out of proportion. Not all states want "stimulus" from the feds, yet the feds say they MUST take it. That is in clear violation of the Constitution. Nevermind why they don't want it.

... The labelling of those who believe in the 10th as "extremists" is also not blown out of proportion. Next it will be the 2nd, ... and perhaps one day the 1st.

...

[Neoteny]

Oh, you conservatives and your slippery slopes.

BTW greekdog, I was being facetious.

[PLAYER57832]

The freeing of the slaves was unpopular both in the South, among most southerners, not just the owners of slaves, as well as in many states in the north (for example Ohio). It was not a move that President Lincoln made to win an election. And it was unpopular because it made the war about slavery, as opposed to the war being about union.

It was a lot more complicated than that, and you are right. Lincoln freed the slaves in the confederacy (only) in the hopes they would take up arms against the south. Problem was, even if they knew they were free, they hardly had access to guns or anything else.

In any event, here are some more unpopular measures taken by the federal government: (1) the federal bailout,

Agreed, but necessary because of Republicans had refused to regulate new products banks were putting out (among other reasons).

2) federal personal income taxes,

upopular, certainly, but the government has to be funded. Sales taxes tax the poor at a far higher percentage than income taxes do and tend to cut down on commerce. I think we should have a simpler tax code, but gee.. folks like all those exemptions and exceptions.

3) federal capital gains taxes, (4) the estate tax

Again, the government has to be funded.

(5) Miranda rights for criminals,

Unpopular for whom? Ensuring that police officers advise people of their rights when arrested is the best way to ensure their rights are not abused, which makes for a fairer system for everyone. No one is served by poor justice. And, prior to Miranda ... uneducated people would confess, thinking they had to, while those more educated would escape.

(6) The War in Iraq,

War is and always will be the purvue of a federal government.

(7) the releasing of prisoners from Gitmo,

How about putting them there in the FIRST place. Yeah, such crazy, liberals as retired generals, other commanders in the military were opposed to that. THEY LIKE the Geneva conventions and know that every time we violate its provisions, our own soldiers are just placed further at risk.

(8) the Lend-Lease Act,

clarify.

(9) NAFTA, to name a few.

Making treaties with other nations is constitutionally the role of the federal government.

Representative governments don't do things because the masses demand them; that's why we have representatives and senators instead of just voting ourselves.

Partially true. But a true democracy would be far too cumbersome.

Anyway, so-called "states rights" would only add a further layer, divide up the jurisdictions even more, making a lot of things even more unwieldy. Commerce likes uniformity

Finally, I know that the Emancipation Proclamation did not set all slaves free. It was not applicable, for example, to slaves in Maryland and Delaware until about 1865, when it was updated.

It set the slaves in the confederacy free.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, you conservatives and your slippery slopes.

BTW greekdog, I was being facetious.

I know. I didn't want to be grouped in with the other crazies... so I wanted to clarify.

[PLAYER57832]

Also, if I reject federal governmental authority, why am I a right-wing extremist? Couldn't I be a left-wing extremist, or a Libertarian extremist, or an anarchist?

Well to be specific, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy (no gov't control); the extreme left being total gov't control.
So one can only assume BHO isn't too worried about "left-wing" extremists...
Here's a great video I recently saw that defines the political spectrum pretty well:
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/
Note: the clip in question is the "most viewed" clip.

Actually the far (or extreme) right-wing part of the political spectrum denotes conservative (in the sense that they wish to preserve the status quo or even return to some previous societal state) nationalist factions that often come with totalitarian tendencies, the extreme left-wing part used to consist of the groups that challenged the status quo and wished to progress beyond it, that part has changed by now and those who challenge the prevalent order are sort of outside the "official" political spectrum.

If you wanted to place conservatism vs. liberalism on a left-right comparison, then you're partially correct; but that only comprises a small portion of the entire political spectrum. One could hardly compare a conservative to an anarchist; nor could one compare a liberal to a totalitarian dictator or monarch.
Fascist, communist, oligarchies, and socialist regimes all fall on the left side of the spectrum.
A Representative Republic (i.e. The U.S.) falls right of center. Which is why Texas (and many other people here) is pissed off, because they see the federal gov't seizing more & more power over the day to day lives of the citizens. Whether it be through more unnecessary laws or more taxes. (See Tax Day Tea Party 2009).

Damn colonialist, wanting to impose your weird definitions on us. Stop it!

We're rebels, what do you expect?

Actually, you are both wrong. The far political right is fascism. The far political left is communism. Anarchy is outside the political spectrum. Conservatism by any measure is in the middle ... and, so is American liberalism. They just sit to either side of the center by a tad.

[thegreekdog]

Player, I think you're missing my point. My point is that the federal government doesn't always act in the interest of the majority either. Your point that the reason Texas shouldn't be allowed to do what it wants is that it does not act on behalf of the majority. If that is your point, and the reason you want the federal government to take care of things, I propose that the federal government doesn't act on behalf of the majority either, as exhibited by my examples.

The Lend-Lease Act was an act during World War Two that effectively had us supplying equipment to the Soviet Union (and I believe England) while they were fighting the Germans (and before we were involved in the war). It was very unpopular.