Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Legislature / Phillips Susan Lynn, I'm on to Your Dastardly Plot
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Comments (40)
Showing 1-40 of 40
I thought we settled the whole states rights/10th Amendment bullshit back in 1865.
like
dislike
If she doesn't understand the problem with that "new" nullification idea of hers, maybe General Sherman can explain it to her.
A genuinely clueless reaction from another principled neo-Marxist.
Tobin: forget the 10th Amendment for a moment. Read the 11th and realize that it was recently upheld. Then, dig deep into that simple mind of yours and factor the meaning of it.
For anyone else scratching their heads, here's the 11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
And from USConstitution.net:
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia (2 U.S. 419) in 1793 (see the Events Page for details). Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
Can someone help me dig deeper into my simple mind so I can figure out how an amendment prohibiting citizens from suing states in federal court is relevant here?
By the way, Joe, being a douche in the comments section of any website is just a fantastic strategy for someone running for public office.
For anyone else scratching their heads, here's the 11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
And from USConstitution.net:
The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v Georgia in 1793. Congress felt that the Supreme Court had over stepped its bounds, and feared it would do so again unless prohibited by the Constitution. The Chisholm case was decided in 1793, just five years after the adoption of the Constitution. The Amendment was approved by Congress on March 4, 1794, and ratified on February 7, 1795 (340 days). The Amendment limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to automatically hear cases brought against a state by the citizens of another state. Later interpretations have expanded this to include citizens of the state being sued, as well.
Can someone please help me dig deeper into my simple mind so I can figure out how an amendment prohibiting citizens from suing states in federal court is relevant to this matter?
By the way, Joe, being a douche in the comments section of any website is just a fantastic strategy from someone running for public office.
I went to Rep. Susan Lynn's 2010 election campaign web site and found her biography to ve very lacking especially from period covering beginning with the date of her birth through her graduation at Tennessee State University (let us about 22 years or so)...and as I have watched to some off her State Sovereignty Resolution rants at YouTube, her voice sounds to me as if Lynn was born and raised as a Yankee.
"Would she really prevent Tennesseans from enjoying the health care reforms we'll still have to pay for?"
First off, it isn't health care "reform" - it's creating another government entitlement program. And there is nothing to "enjoy" about it.
Second, a huge part of the cost on individuals (that the dems are trying to pretend doesn't exist)are the costs of the insurance mandates for coverage levels and pre-existing conditions. Those mandate costs are not running through the federal treasury and won't be paid directly by income taxes but they are costs nevertheless.
So even if the individuals who will be on the paying end of the equation income taxes increase to some degree to for the plan, they can still come out ahead on costs by opting out of the operational part and eliminating those insurance mandates than they otherwise would have been by being forced into full participation.
But as I said in another thread, you are liberal and as such, can't be expected to actually know anything about economics.
Yes sir, Rep. Lynn seems to be terribly bothered about the U.S. government imposing "federal mandates" on the State of Tennessee, and Lynn remains remarkably silent on the matter of Geier where the State of Tennessee was imposed with a federal mandate for the desegregation of Tennessee’s “dual educational” system of which TSU was a part - in this instance, the State of Tennessee provided full minority scholarships at TSU for caucasians.
It would be terribly ironic if it was ever revealed that Rep. Susan Lynn actually "earned" a Geier minority scholarship at Tennessee State Univeristy due to a federal mandate imposed on the State of Tennessee...
YouTube: Susan Lynn Tn. State Rep. HRJ 108 Sovereignty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scSP-QURNhk
YouTube: Tennesse Sovereignty Resolution (Susan Lynn)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqvszsoFx6k
Force of arms simply prevented the secessionists from leaving, or rather staying gone, that's all, Tobin.
All went about their business after 1865.
No treason trials, arrests etc. General Lee, the great American hero, went on to head up a college.For nit pickers Jefferson Davis was charged with trason but never tried.
A dumb-ass reaction I would agree. The same to Studs and his Sherman thing.
Just retrieving some of her own tax dollars, EG, nothing hypocritical about that.
"john says:
Just retrieving some of her own tax dollars, EG, nothing hypocritical about that."
Not a valid argument on your part, John, but rather lazy speculation, if not a down right straw man fallacy - there isn't anything within Rep. Susan Lynn's own biography posted at her campaign web site or official State of Tennessee web page that documents that Lynn had ever held any job or paid the first cent of federal income taxes before receiving her diploma from Tennessee State University.
It appears to me that most of those commenting against Rep. Lynn have not READ the Constitution, and especially the history that led to it being constructed as it was, creating: A Republic!
The freedoms we have enjoyed since we "seceded" from England (note the irony here) comes from the fact that we were each deemed by our forefathers to be "sovereign" in our own right. And, anyone who knows the fear in the heart of our forefathers, and who has read the wording in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, can plainly see that they fully intended the States to remain superior to the Federal Government (the states created it) except in those EXPRESSLY DELEGATED duties that in no way can be misinterpreted, especially if the associated history.
It certainly did NOT delegate health care, and there are Supreme Court cases and Congressional Budget Office records that back that statement up!
Sadly, no one reads history any more. They would rather "play" on the Internet and offer their silly uneducated opinions for their own pleasure, not to find some common ground for all of us who have disagreements.
Less Government...More Freedom. That will solve a lot of problems.
RH
Cute, Betsy - but we are on to your personal war against Ms Lynn. Did she take your parking spot at the mall during the shopping rush this Christmas?
Just a few points to consider:
1) There are no benefits in the health care bill to enjoy (worth accepting) - and the cost would require even more tax out of our pocket to cover the gazillion federal bureaucrats needed to implement the program.
2) Our tax dollars have not been paying for these programs for a long time. The only legitimate function of the federal government is the defense of the country - which consumes all of our income taxes. The entitlement programs are being financed on borrowed money. How long do you think that will last.
3) Before this is all over, I predict there will be even more anti-federal government sentiment - and not limited to the tea party participants. The government along with the Federal Reserve is destroying the dollar, and eventually our way of life.
I commend Rep Lynn and hope she stays the course. The state government is our last firewall to protect us from the criminals in Washington. If you are concerned we are sending too many federal income tax dollars to DC without getting a benefit - then we can just withhold our gas tax money (we are net payers) along with our liquor tax (about $13 per gallon) and allow tax payers to request a refund from these funds.
The proposed health care bill - like most of what Washington attempts, is another unconstitutional scam on the American people and payoff to special interest lobbyist. Even without the 10th amendment - it is the right of every citizen to refuse this illegal federal mandate.
You do raise an interesting idea - perhaps we all do need to quit paying federal income taxes. What would they do then? Prior to 1913 we did just fine without this revenue stream - which seems to serve only the rich and well connected lobbyists. Perhaps we would quit our interventionist tendencies abroad, and at home.
When the Civil War erupted, the Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1861, which restored earlier excises taxes and imposed a tax on personal incomes. The income tax was levied at 3 percent on all incomes higher than $800 a year. This tax on personal income was a new direction for a Federal tax system based mainly on excise taxes and customs duties. Certain inadequacies of the income tax were quickly acknowledged by Congress and thus none was collected until the following year.
How come no one cries about mandatory vehicle insurance being unconstitutional? I know that driving is a privilege and not a right, but most people cannot reasonably live without a vehicle, especially in rural areas.
Betsy - you are a miserable, sarchastic cynic. It must suck to be you. Never able to open your mind that some people might just really want to live free. That some people might want to make decisions for themselves and are genuinely fed up with those geniuses in Washington D.C. who know best on how we should live our lives. Oh, and I guess the next thing coming is that you've discovered this is all a dastardly plot to restore slavery in the South.
"How come no one cries about mandatory vehicle insurance being unconstitutional? I know that driving is a privilege and not a right, but most people cannot reasonably live without a vehicle, especially in rural areas."
Well for one thing, those are STATE requirements - not federal government requirements. The federal government is constrained to specifically enumerated powers per the 10th Amendment. The states are not so constrained.
For another thing, the car insurance that you are required to buy is liability insurance to protect others from YOU crashing your car into someone else.
You are not required to buy collision insurance to fix your own car that was wrecked in an accident that was your fault.
And that would be the car insurance equivalent of being forced to buy health insurance for yourself.
I don't think you are required to buy liability insurance to drive.
State of Tenn website:
"Drivers must show proof of your financial responsibility. While you are not required to carry liability insurance in order to register your car or obtain a driver's license in Tennessee, it is strongly recommended that you purchase such coverage."
The riff raff drive anyway and most do not have any insurance. They have no money and can't pay for it.
that they fully intended the States to remain superior to the Federal Government (the states created it) except in those EXPRESSLY DELEGATED duties that in no way can be misinterpreted, especially if the associated history.
Except that, contrary to certain tribalist notions of Constitutional interpretation, history didn't get frozen in time in 1789.
Tradition, jurisprudence, and Constitutional amendments have dealt healthy blows to this artifact of state primacy in the federalism equation.
But neo-confederates die hard.
"I don't think you are required to buy liability insurance to drive."
It depends on the state.
Not all of them have the same laws and regulations.
You don't have to bring General Sherman into this. It was one of our own, Andrew Jackson (a fervent Unionist) who responded to John C. Calhoun's doctrine of nullification by declaring that he would send the army to South Carolina and "hang him higher than Haman."
The anti-Constitution Betsy says the tea party is anti-government. No, blanket-statement Betsy, we’re not. We like having our trash picked up. We like having the roads fixed. We like it when the cops harass the gangstas. And we definitely enjoy cave-dwelling, tablecloth-wearing terrorists being blown to pieces!
We're anti-waste. We’re anti-corruption. We’re anti-race hustler shakedowns. We’re anti-tax increase disguised as environmental initiative. We’re anti-profligate deficit spending. We’re anti-compulsory purchase of heath care. We’re anti-Republican compromisers who sell us out. And while I can’t speak for everybody, I am definitely anti-buying junk food on food stamps. What we are not is defined by you, Betsy Boop.
It seems that everything Congress is trying to ram down our throats is a scam. We need to fight the big-government baboons. Don’t let the bastards get you down, Susan Lynn!
From the Wikipedia:
"Implied powers" are those powers authorized by a legal document(from the Constitution) which, while not stated, are deemed to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the measure against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers. Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and the "necessary and proper" clause gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Even Hamilton's adversary, Thomas Jefferson, used the principle to justify his Louisiana Purchase in 1803. Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress which are not explicitly given by the constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the powers which are.
There is always more than enough reactionary pseudo-highly educated, pseudo-sophisticated "I know my imaginary Constitution and you don't; nyeah, nyeah" self-congratulations to go around, around here It is never surprising, but always supremely boring and redundant, and most anywhere else, laughable.
Th right wingers have now spent as much time speaking to themselves about their own fantasies and crackpot theories and dding in ditto agreement as the secular Left did for too many years.
They may eventually grow up. Meanwhile, to hell with them.
Uh, Studs, you are a strange... er... person. You have a dazzling array of ad hominem attacks, but you withhold your presumably formidable knowledge of the law. We are here for the truth, and nothing else. So tell us, Studs, what does the Constitution say about forcing people to purchase health insurance? What does it say about states' rights? Wait, I already know what you think. You don't care what the Constitution says.
Yes, Joe, the entire 20th century was unconstitutional, from the Woodrow Wilson-Teddy Roosevelt era on.
And when you and your ilk start being honest with voters--old ones, especially--and say that you mean Social Security, unemployment insurance, the 40-hour week, Medicare, the National Park Service, the FBI, etc etc etc--are all unconstutitonal, then we can have an honest discusison of who YOU people are and what you're for.. And how tiny is the minority of wingnut obsessives you represent.
Meanwhile, stick it in your ear.
Pay no attemtion to Studs, Joe.
He's merely another one of the sponge, leech and parasite class who wants a handout of other people's money.
“sponge, leech and parasite class”
Well now, I guess by God we know just what the lay of the land is, don't we Gilbert? You just have such a loveable, considerately paternal manner with your arrogance. Gives me the warm fuzzies.
I'm reminded of a recent neighbor; an ex-military top-kick type, whose preferred method of fatherly nurturing was a fist in the face of the offending child. He gave a ride once to one of his thrashed man-children, to the emergency room to fix a broken nose. I know because I saw him. Happened to be there with one of my own children. Wouldn't surprise me if he submitted an itemized bill to the miserable offspring for services rendered.
I'll just bet the domestic atmosphere in your house is similar: certainly in thought, if not deed. But your frigging checkbook is balanced, is it not?
My guess is Studs would like universal health care but cannot explain away this abomination of a bill requiring people to buy, purchase, what they may not want or need.
Under this abomination of a bill a 25 yr old would be required to buy insurance which he has quite rationally calculated, given his age and health, he does not need. there are dozens of other problemsn, this example is a good one.
If the federales decided to use your tax dollars to provide care to all, that would be lawful (at least to me) and a whole 'nother issue.
Studs should be embarrassed by this bill. Remember Rwp Wilson had it right when he said "you lie."
No, I only want to redistribute Gilbert and Joe's money.
Again--until you tell everyone here you want to repeal the entire existing social safety net, go sponge yourselves.
It doesn't sound like Studs has met his match to me. If you want to repeal the 20th century, by all means run on it openly. Be honest about it.
Maybe you'll even win in Tennessee, although it didn't work very well for Barry Goldwater back in 1964.
You won't ever win again in the nation as a whole running on such a platform. Rep. Lynn is using George Wallace political theory, except her issue is health care rather than segregation.
"Well now, I guess by God we know just what the lay of the land is, don't we Gilbert? You just have such a loveable, considerately paternal manner with your arrogance."
It is axiomatic that liberals are always guilty of that which they accuse their opponents.
Paternalistic and arrogant?
Just who are the one's who have been advocating government function as a national parent according to THEIR personal preferences as to what all our responsibilites should be, making our decisions for us and confiscating our property for their own preferences?
That would be you and your ilk, Sammy boy.
As for the rest of your post about somebody beating their kids, that is just irrelevant nonsense.
"No, I only want to redistribute Gilbert and Joe's money."
Of course you do toothtpicks, that's why you are a sponge leech and parasite.
Hey John, are you Gilbert's mini-me or do you just have a right-wing man crush on him, because you're fawning comments always seem to come right after his?
Yes, Chris, but I would not call it fawning, rather admiration. I cannot say enough good things about him.
GM has much to teach this board.
"GM has much to teach this board."
Yes, he has a lot to teach, especially how to use extreme hyperbole. Usually his exchanges go something like this:
Gilbert: "Obama is a mean socialist."
Pith reader: "I think Obama is a nice guy and is doing a good job."
Gilbert: "There is nothing that you or anyone else in the history of the universe who can prove that Obama is not a mean socialist."
John: "Right on Mr. MVP, Gilbert Martin. You're rhetoric and pure logic inspires me. Pith reader has met his match.
