# Certain States Are Asking For Federal Money; Screw That, Start Selling State Assets!



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I've been hearing that some States are beginning to lobby for federal dollars and blaming it on COVID19...(and not their ridiculous mismanagement)

My suggestion is for State Governments to;

Lay off a70 of Tax Payer Funded Workers. Most are useless and do nothing but cause We The People problems.

Begin Selling State Land; I'd love to buy a 1/2" of State Park Land or a nice little lake side tract on a state golf course.

Begin Selling State Vehicles; I'm in the market for a 1 ton or 3/4 Ton Truck. State has a shit-ton of trucks. Why the hell do they have these nice new trucks!

Move out of these palaces they call State Buildings and sell the buildings. Get some construction trailers to house the 30% Tax Payer Funded Employees that I'd keep on.

Bunch of bullshat waste if you ask me...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Where does the constitution allow for the federal government to strip citizens of Alabama of tax dollars and hand it over to another state because the other state can’t handle its own finances?


----------



## Michael_Js (Dec 4, 2013)

Denton said:


> Where does the constitution allow for the federal government to strip citizens of Alabama of tax dollars and hand it over to another state because the other state can't handle its own finances?


Law shaw...who cares about some piece of paper...not our government anyway...

Peace,
Mcihael J.


----------



## Back Pack Hack (Sep 15, 2016)

Denton said:


> Where does the constitution allow for the federal government to strip citizens of Alabama of tax dollars and hand it over to another state because the other state can't handle its own finances?


Constitution.... Shmonstitution....

We don't need no steekeeng Constitution.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Where does the constitution allow for the federal government to strip citizens of Alabama of tax dollars and hand it over to another state because the other state can't handle its own finances?


Though the question may be rhetorical, the correct answer would be:


> *Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1*
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.


So, as long as they take from all, and offer to give to all, they can take from any and give to any.
The federal government we have from the constitution was actually created to address this problem, at least in part. Before the constitution, each state considered themselves sovereign, and we did not have a cohesive nation. It was a bit chaotic during the confederation.
With this new form of government, we went from being "these" United States to being "The United States", as in, we are all one country. Like it or leave it, we share burdens. Even those brought on by stupidity.

Is it "fair"? Perhaps so, perhaps not. That is a matter of perspective.
Is it legal? Yeah...
lain:


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

While it may be allowable under the constitution it is an abomination to the honest hard working taxpayers of this country, who are already overburdened, that they should bail out states like California, Illinois, and New York. Why should my tax dollars pay for the liberal harebrained policies of a corrupt and inept system that is destined to bring this country down in the end. It's like financing your own hit man.

Let them die on the vine, let their people see first hand and suffer the folly of socialism. But no, they will get their money and shamelessly spend it on everything but the virus. They will cover up their misdeeds and mismanagement while they fund the very policies that got them in trouble to begin with. They will smile and grin and then they will ask for more.......of our money.



> "Why should the fiscally prudent people of Wyoming, Missouri or elsewhere be responsible for the failed policies of Illinois? Federal dollars for Illinois, beyond anything directly connected to the pandemic, would set a terrible precedent and make Washington, D.C., complicit in our sad story," Plummer wrote.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...to-not-bail-out-his-corrupt-state/ar-BB13otIs


----------



## stevekozak (Oct 4, 2015)

How about the states open their damn economies and get some regular money flowing through the tills? Get people the hell back to work before there are no jobs for them to go to.  That seems like an idea too good for .govs to listen to!!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Denton said:


> Where does the constitution allow for the federal government to strip citizens of Alabama of tax dollars and hand it over to another state because the other state can't handle its own finances?


 That was called the CA/NY act. It ever passed but they enforce it anyway.


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

Get rid of the school system. We aren't using it anyway. Just goes to show what a waste of money all those buildings and teachers are. Plus it will save all landowners property taxes.

Setup a online system and staff it with the top half percent of instructors in ONE building for the whole state. Send the now unemployed staff out in the field to actually work for once. They are used to only working 6 months a year already. No more life long state funded pensions either.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Though the question may be rhetorical, the correct answer would be:
> 
> So, as long as they take from all, and offer to give to all, they can take from any and give to any.
> The federal government we have from the constitution was actually created to address this problem, at least in part. Before the constitution, each state considered themselves sovereign, and we did not have a cohesive nation. It was a bit chaotic during the confederation.
> ...


I know Congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes. As a matter of fact, that was the problem with the Articles of Confederation; we owed a lot of money to other nations and there was no provision for collecting taxes.

"General Welfare" is misused at the drop of a hat and it didn't use to be that way. When a hurricane hit New Orleans back in the 1910 timeframe, assistance from the federal government was requested. It was decided that the Army would _loan_ tents. Loan, not give. "General Welfare" doesn't mean federal dollars may be used for state or local interests, specifically but for the national interest as a whole. The states were expected to manage their own affairs. To suggest that it means we "share burdens" is to suggest that the Constitution does not limit federal power and authority and that line of reasoning is not supported by argument offered by the Founding Fathers, Federalist or Anti-Federalist.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Slippy said:


> I've been hearing that some States are beginning to lobby for federal dollars and blaming it on COVID19...(and not their ridiculous mismanagement)
> 
> My suggestion is for State Governments to;
> 
> ...


Its sad. In my state our biggest debt is the public employees pension system. Back in 08 the system was solvent but our libturd governor decided to not fund the system for about 8 years so he could fund pet projects. That coupled with the recession and some shady dealings with the pension board has lead to today's crisis. Its sad because the employees haven't done anything wrong and most of them have done nothing but give years of service to the state. That being said, economics are economics and I get changes have to be made and they've transitioned all new hires into a 401k with the exception of teachers.  Thats right, emergency responders get a 401k and more years of service before they can retire and its fine but heaven help us if the poor teachers have to accept a 401k. They threw a fit the last election and the result was libturds son getting elected who's currently trouncing all over our rights with this COVID stuff. In the words of Slippy, Fubar


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I know Congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes. As a matter of fact, that was the problem with the Articles of Confederation; we owed a lot of money to other nations and there was no provision for collecting taxes.
> 
> "General Welfare" is misused at the drop of a hat and it didn't use to be that way. When a hurricane hit New Orleans back in the 1910 timeframe, assistance from the federal government was requested. It was decided that the Army would _loan_ tents. Loan, not give. "General Welfare" doesn't mean federal dollars may be used for state or local interests, specifically but for the national interest as a whole. The states were expected to manage their own affairs. To suggest that it means we "share burdens" is to suggest that the Constitution does not limit federal power and authority and that line of reasoning is not supported by argument offered by the Founding Fathers, Federalist or Anti-Federalist.


What are you on about? That line of reasoning is well-supported by the Federalist Papers. Numerous papers written in defense of the need for a Union instead of a Confederacy, and the multitude of benefits such entails. Not the least of which is empowering the federal head to oversee the states in both financial and security support. Not as a master, mind you, but as an expectedly fair arbiter and distributor.
Yes, "general welfare" is vague, and often overused. But that vagueness does not mean a lack of power. It means broad power, but power that should be seldom used and often questioned.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> What are you on about? That line of reasoning is well-supported by the Federalist Papers. Numerous papers written in defense of the need for a Union instead of a Confederacy, and the multitude of benefits such entails. Not the least of which is empowering the federal head to oversee the states in both financial and security support. Not as a master, mind you, but as an expectedly fair arbiter and distributor.
> Yes, "general welfare" is vague, and often overused. But that vagueness does not mean a lack of power. It means broad power, but power that should be seldom used and often questioned.


I think James Madison said it well: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0158

Which Federalist or Anti-Federalist Paper suggests that "General Welfare" Means _shared burden_ as you are suggesting? How is it that using federally-collected tax dollars (money from all states) to support reckless activity of some states? That isn't general welfare.

Headed to work. Have a great day! :tango_face_smile:

I'll follow on my phone as I can.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I think James Madison said it well: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0158
> 
> Which Federalist or Anti-Federalist Paper suggests that "General Welfare" Means _shared burden_ as you are suggesting? How is it that using federally-collected tax dollars (money from all states) to support reckless activity of some states? That isn't general welfare.
> 
> ...


Firstly, I didn't suggest "General Welfare Means _shared burden_". I won't be asked to support a claim I never made.
I suggested that we are a Union of states, and as such, we collectively share burdens.

Providing for the "General Welfare" is the power held by the Congress to disburse collected taxes in such a manner as to strengthen and retain the Union. You asked where the constitution granted the power. I answered.
It is a simple mental exercise to see where we would be as a nation if we severed the limbs of the several states that fail to keep their finances in order. It would be like a disease, eating away at the body. Over time, we would be a husk of a nation. We must support the several states as a whole, or we lose what makes us a formidable power. At the same time, we should be working to fix what is wrong with those states to avoid continuing the burden of support.
I agree the the power should NOT be unlimited. Nor should the power be discounted entirely, simply because it is non-specific.
It was set as a list of powers granted to the Congress. That cannot be ignored, though it can be argued until we are blue in the face.
What better case could be made for "providing for the general welfare of the United States" if not to keep the many states in a position of solvency? Ignoring this duty would lead to decay and death. You are correct in that it was not brought on by any fault of others, but by the state itself. But that does not mean the federal entity can ignore the situation.
There should be restrictions imposed on the distribution of funds, expecting that the state will adhere to better practices. (though this could raise its own legal arguments) But to let the part die would adversely affect the whole.

As to the Federalist Papers supporting my claim (the Union shares the burden):
6: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States
7: The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States

9: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
10: The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

13: Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Kauboy said:


> What are you on about? That line of reasoning is well-supported by the Federalist Papers. Numerous papers written in defense of the need for a Union instead of a Confederacy, and the multitude of benefits such entails. Not the least of which is empowering the federal head to oversee the states in both financial and security support. Not as a master, mind you, but as an expectedly fair arbiter and distributor.
> Yes, "general welfare" is vague, and often overused. But that vagueness does not mean a lack of power. It means broad power, but power that should be seldom used and often questioned.


Overall I really like the way Pres Trump's handling that balancing act. I think he seems to be for helping where the Feds can, and not taking the blame for various unpreparedness of the states.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Annie said:


> Overall I really like the way Pres Trump's handling that balancing act. I think he seems to be for helping where the Feds can, and not taking the blame for various unpreparedness of the states.


Indeed.
Remember when Bush was played into accepting the failures of New Orleans following Katrina? What a sad sack they turned him into, while the local officials themselves were responsible for the terrible planning and execution of evacuation and rescue efforts.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

You provided me with all the Federalist Papers. 
I was hoping for a narrow offering such as this from #41:
I was But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.

But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation!

PUBLIUS.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You provided me with all the Federalist Papers.
> I was hoping for a narrow offering such as this from #41:
> I was But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are "their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: "All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,'' etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. Construe either of these articles by the rules which would justify the construction put on the new Constitution, and they vest in the existing Congress a power to legislate in all cases whatsoever.
> 
> ...


I provided them so as to give full context to my claim. The Union should be preserved.
Taking out bits and pieces would have been a hack job of various quoted paragraphs.

I'm more than willing to have the discussion over what is and is not "providing for the general welfare", but I do not believe a sound argument can made against my claim that the Union should be preserved, even at what appears to be an unfair cost. If a state wishes to remain, of their own accord, they must accept the burdens of the rest. If such burdens are too abhorrent, the state should decide to leave, and be prepared for all that entails.
Though Lincoln-ites would contest that states have no such choice...
I disagree, and believe the founders did too, as eluded to in the Declaration:
_"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"_

It is my opinion that this use of taxes is justified... to a point. States should not receive unequal treatment, whether better or worse. I don't have a problem with expecting repayment of any portion over a certain amount. Say, any amount over $100 million must be repaid. (That's a random number, likely wrong.)
If the state can show real damages, and has no means of acquiring their own assets, as @Slippy suggested, then they should receive federal funds to assist.
AND ACCEPT THAT THEY WILL BE AUDITED FOR THE NEXT 5 YEARS WITH ALL RECORDS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC!!!
:devil:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I provided them so as to give full context to my claim. The Union should be preserved.
> Taking out bits and pieces would have been a hack job of various quoted paragraphs.
> 
> I'm more than willing to have the discussion over what is and is not "providing for the general welfare", but I do not believe a sound argument can made against my claim that the Union should be preserved, even at what appears to be an unfair cost. If a state wishes to remain, of their own accord, they must accept the burdens of the rest. If such burdens are too abhorrent, the state should decide to leave, and be prepared for all that entails.
> ...


Thanks, but I have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in book form.

You are making arguments to suggest that bailing out a couple of states is general welfare. It isn't. It is rewarding mismanaged states at the cost of the other states. They simply need to do what they need to do in order to not suffer a crisis. That, sir, is how it is to be done. 
Think about it. Reward them for their behavior and they'll be back for more. Other states will decide they might as well, too. There's no general welfare in that. Never mind writings on insurrection, which is not about this.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Kauboy said:


> What are you on about? That line of reasoning is well-supported by the Federalist Papers. Numerous papers written in defense of the need for a Union instead of a Confederacy, and the multitude of benefits such entails. Not the least of which is empowering the federal head to oversee the states in both financial and security support. Not as a master, mind you, but as an expectedly fair arbiter and distributor.
> Yes, "general welfare" is vague, and often overused. But that vagueness does not mean a lack of power. It means broad power, but power that should be seldom used and often questioned.


And there in lay the rub.


> "Power that should be seldom used and often questioned".


 It is too often used and never questioned.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Thanks, but I have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers in book form.
> 
> You are making arguments to suggest that bailing out a couple of states is general welfare. It isn't. It is rewarding mismanaged states at the cost of the other states. They simply need to do what they need to do in order to not suffer a crisis. That, sir, is how it is to be done.
> Think about it. Reward them for their behavior and they'll be back for more. Other states will decide they might as well, too. There's no general welfare in that. Never mind writings on insurrection, which is not about this.


As do I, sir.

You call it reward. It is nothing of the sort. It is saving a limb to spare the body. There is no such thing as "at the cost of the other states" when we are THE United States.
"They simply need to do what they need to do" is no solution. They must be taught. A bit of suffering in the lesson is fine, but letting them die for spite is not.
If it brings agreement between us, I am not opposed to the funding feeling more like a curse to the state's government, so long as The People that need it receive it.

The title which included "insurrection" must have been one you skimmed over, as the beginning of that title includes "Domestic Faction", which is precisely what you are proposing as a solution. (Us vs Them)
The path you suggest would see that we are torn apart at the seams. Perhaps a re-read of those books is in order.
Specifically paper #10, good sir, if you would be so inclined. Madison knew factious behavior could be the downfall of any republican government. We must seek to avoid such behavior at all costs.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> As do I, sir.
> 
> You call it reward. It is nothing of the sort. It is saving a limb to spare the body. There is no such thing as "at the cost of the other states" when we are THE United States.
> "They simply need to do what they need to do" is no solution. They must be taught. A bit of suffering in the lesson is fine, but letting them die for spite is not.
> ...


I haven't skimmed over it or any of them, including #10. First, let me point out that #10 does not support your position. As a matter of fact, just the opposite.



> By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.


Who is the faction in this conversation? The answer is clear. As a matter of fact, #10 argues against your position while at the same time, history gives evidence that the Federalist point of view was extremely flawed.



> The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.


#10 does not suggest that factions may demand the property of other entities to pay for their wicked endeavors.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

I know many states are hurting. But, they have assets they could sell to offset things. From Vehicles, to vegetables. Start selling Governors.
You over sold pensions and retirements, laundered money on fake projects and helped the illegals (for example). Embrace the suck and manage your states.


----------



## 65mustang (Apr 4, 2020)

Slippy said:


> I've been hearing that some States are beginning to lobby for federal dollars and blaming it on COVID19...(and not their ridiculous mismanagement)
> 
> My suggestion is for State Governments to;
> 
> ...


You forgot that they should end all State and Federal government pensions and put everyone on SS, just like the people who actually worked for a living.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I haven't skimmed over it or any of them, including #10. First, let me point out that #10 does not support your position. As a matter of fact, just the opposite.
> 
> Who is the faction in this conversation? The answer is clear. As a matter of fact, #10 argues against your position while at the same time, history gives evidence that the Federalist point of view was extremely flawed.
> 
> #10 does not suggest that factions may demand the property of other entities to pay for their wicked endeavors.


Perhaps you have missed "my position" from the start.
#10 exactly supports my position.
You ask "who is the faction in this conversation?".
My answer is, any state that thinks they are not part of the Union, and that other states should be allowed to suffer and die out of spite.

You, sir, would be the "faction".

You are trying to conflate two positions in this conversation into one, and I have tried to specifically keep them separate.
First and foremost, we are a UNION! That is my position, and has been from the start. There is no "our state" and "their state" in a Union. That is factious. The federal government cannot treat states differently. Taxes collected from Alabama do not belong to Alabama. They belong to The United States.

That, AND ONLY THAT, has been my solid position from the outset.

Now, if you would like to argue over the "general welfare" point, we can have that SEPARATE discussion. But you MUST keep in mind during that discussion that we are NOT separate states. We are unified states. This is the foundation for my next argument, so if you reject that we are a Union, and should act like one, you won't accept my next premise. But you will at least know where I am coming from to reach it.

You have rightly claimed that "general welfare" has been abused. When the Affordable Care Act was passed, and half of the country was arguing that paying for citizen's healthcare was "providing for the general welfare", I flat out disagreed. The government should NOT be directly influencing the lives of people in such a way, and should not claim absolute power over their lives through a vague phrase.
However, when it comes to the "health" of the Union, I must say that the level to which the government should be involved is much higher. To preserve the Union, funds should be provided. Those funds must come from somewhere, as the failing state cannot provide them. They must come from the general fund into which all taxes flow. This is filled by the many states. 
So, your premise cannot start with "Alabama should not have to...", as Alabama does not "own" any part of the general fund. For a sound position, you should start with "the federal government should not...", and then lay out reasons for the spending being afoul of constitutional authority.
It is my position that the government's first duty is to preserve the Union. Thus the general welfare clause can be applied to ensure this end by providing funds to failing states and demanding they change their ways.

If you disagree with that, fair enough.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Perhaps you have missed "my position" from the start.
> #10 exactly supports my position.
> You ask "who is the faction in this conversation?".
> My answer is, any state that thinks they are not part of the Union, and that other states should be allowed to suffer and die out of spite.
> ...


Yup, I disagree with your position as well as your thoughts on #10. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how you reached your position on it.

Your thoughts are the very thoughts that worried the anti-federalists. Either states and individuals have rights or there is no reason to have states at all.

You are suggesting that irresponsibility by some must be sponsored by all, and there is no paper or letter written by any founding father to support that. You've bent over backward to force Federalist Papers to support that position but you've failed. You've mentioned papers and I have quoted the very papers you've mentioned.

Your thoughts are of modern thinking and are not supported by the Founding Fathers' thoughts on the union. It is clear that the Federalists had too high of an opinion regarding the citizens of the union.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Yup, I disagree with your position as well as your thoughts on #10. As a matter of fact, I have no idea how you reached your position on it.
> 
> Your thoughts are the very thoughts that worried the anti-federalists. Either states and individuals have rights or there is no reason to have states at all.
> 
> ...


We are at an impasse.
What I see clearly, you cannot, or choose not to.

I never suggested that irresponsibility must be "sponsored", condoned, rewarded, or anything else to suggest it is acceptable. I simply claim that we cannot allow a state to fail, and poison the whole.
You continue to put words into my mouth to support your own argument. I will not defend a strawman. You continually fail to address the points I actually make, and manifest others which you then attack.
We have states in order to allow pockets of experimentation at a local level. That does NOT mean we allow them to die off, and scoff at them as they perish.

My thoughts are not modern. My thoughts are exactly what lead the states to adopt the Constitution in lieu of the Articles of Confederation. Your view would see us return to that chaotic time by pitting states against each other. "A house divided", as it were.
States may govern as they wish, and will absolutely suffer as a result of bad governance. However, when the point is reached when collapse is imminent, safeguards must be initiated. A correction must be forced when such safeguards are provided. The state must be shown the error of its ways, but their people should not be made to suffer the ultimate fate because of it.

Perhaps you would see my perspective if you played out the mental exercise in your head.

In your world of "let them suffer", what would be the result?
When the state reached full insolvency, when the people are wholly unemployed, when the riots start, what happens?
How far does your "let them suffer" view extend? If they did not prepare sufficiently for this pandemic, should the federal government also ignore their requests for medical aid? No ventilators for you. Alabama owns these here, and they said "no".
If the illness affected all supply lines to the state, and food became scarce, should the fed ignore their requests for basic sustenance?
Any such grants of aid would be an effective "taking" from Alabama, and the other states as well, via taxation, and given to the suffering states. They didn't prepare. They are clearly mismanaged. Tough cookies. Let it burn. Right?

What is your solution to this?
Which paper will you cite that condones the condemnation of millions to death?
I'll reread it, but I didn't see anything in my first few dozen reads of the Constitution that granted the fed power to distribute medical or food supplies.

Play it out. Give it REAL thought. Source whatever you can find. Then tell me how the country continues on with a hole of decay festering in the middle.
Are you honestly stating that millions MUST suffer if their state authorities will it so? I'm not talking about high taxes, dumb regulations, high cost of living, etc... I'm talking about crisis level events that strain the whole structure to the breaking point.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> We are at an impasse.
> What I see clearly, you cannot, or choose not to.
> 
> I never suggested that irresponsibility must be "sponsored", condoned, rewarded, or anything else to suggest it is acceptable. I simply claim that we cannot allow a state to fail, and poison the whole.
> ...


Do you see how many times you just put words into my mouth? As a matter of fact, you attempt to put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers.

Now, you assert that I expect MILLIONS to suffer if their authorities will it so. Not in the least have I suggested such a thing.

Here's what I am stating. The federal government's authority and power are well defined and limited to the constitution's definitions of them. All other rights (and associated responsibilities) are those of the states and the individuals. "General Welfare" means general; it doesn't mean that the federal government has the authority to take assets from the several states and give them to specific states, municipalities, corporations, or individuals.

The liberals in Congress want the next bill to give a lot of money to particular states. Their states. They want the entire country to fund the failed policies of those state governments so that those state governments may continue those policies. My argument is that doing such a thing is unconstitutional and furthermore, rather than being "Common Welfare," it violates the rights of all other states and individuals.

The proper course would be for those particular states to alter course, become fiscally responsible, and return to the laws of nature and nature's God. Doing those things would not violate the Constitution


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Rationalizations are how we've made the Constitution nothing more than a footnote in history.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Very interesting conversation, gentlemen, and informative!

Personally - I think the feds should pull out of their ass another..say..20 or 30 Trillion more dollars, and toss it not only to all the States but out the window to all the people as well! I mean, why not? There's no way you, or your children, or your grandchildren, or your great..you get the idea.. will ever pay off any of this; so truly - who gives a flying F where this numinous money is spent?

Let's all take off our masks and run naked and free!!


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Do you see how many times you just put words into my mouth? As a matter of fact, you attempt to put words in the mouths of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> Now, you assert that I expect MILLIONS to suffer if their authorities will it so. Not in the least have I suggested such a thing.
> 
> ...


It isn't so much that I think you want these things, but simply that they will come to pass if left to the state's government to do anything. You seem amenable to it.
You can hope and wish and dream that they will "alter course", but you don't seem to consider the cost that it will take for that to ever happen, or you at least don't want to state openly that you do.
Again, I ask, how do you see it playing out? Assume the course continues just as it always has, since we have no reason to believe otherwise. You hold that the federal government bears zero responsibility to save the people from their state's failures?

I'm not asking for what you think the proper course should be. We both agree on what the "proper" course should be, and in the land of unicorns and fairies, we'd get our way. In reality, we don't. I'm asking what you think will happen if your point of view were to play out.
History is a harsh teacher, and from it we can tell that courses rarely ever change without sufficient loss to human life. Are you suggesting that's acceptable? That our countrymen be left to suffer while we sit idly by? (Just so it's clear, those are questions, not putting words in your mouth.)

When do we(the rest of the country) step in?
10% dead?
50%?
80%?
Never?

You didn't answer my other question as well.
Should the federal government bother supplying states with medical aid(think ventilators)? Should they even bother to keep a stockpile of anything? Doing so requires that tax dollars from all states go toward their purchases, but only one state can get any single unit. Is that beyond the powers of the government to provide for the general welfare?
If you are to be consistent, you must disagree with this use of taxes as well. But don't let me put words in your mouth. Answer it for yourself.

This is not an attempt to rationalize anything nefarious. It is openly asking the question about what extent the government's role extends to in order to secure the Union.
Do we let a part of our country die because we disagree on the government's role in "providing for the general welfare of the United States"?

EDIT:
Shoot, let's get down to brass tacks and REALLY get to the root here.

A North Korean nuke hits downtime San Fransico. The state has a history of terrible finances, and are completely out of money. Should Cali have been prepared for such an attack? Should they have had sufficient equipment in place to handle the radiation poisoning? They didn't.
Aside from the fed retaliating for the attack on our borders, do they bear any responsibility in rebuilding California?
From what I can tell, your position would be "no". Alabama didn't get hit, so no sweat off you, right?

The states getting this money were in a bad state before the pandemic. Just like the nuke, it was the pandemic crisis that tipped them over. Under normal circumstances, they should dig themselves out. But these aren't normal circumstances.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> It isn't so much that I think you want these things, but simply that they will come to pass if left to the state's government to do anything. You seem amenable to it.
> You can hope and wish and dream that they will "alter course", but you don't seem to consider the cost that it will take for that to ever happen, or you at least don't want to state openly that you do.
> Again, I ask, how do you see it playing out? Assume the course continues just as it always has, since we have no reason to believe otherwise. You hold that the federal government bears zero responsibility to save the people from their state's failures?
> 
> ...


Again, you are proposing the will of the government over the people. You are suggesting the insolvent be forced to bail out the insolvent.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Have you noticed that it takes more typing to rationalize that which is a violation of individual rights?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Have you noticed that it takes more typing to rationalize that which is a violation of individual rights?


I did notice you continue to ignore my questions.
If the length of text were any clue as to the writer's ill notions, I dare say that your use of the Federalist and/or Anti-Federalist papers as support surely contradicts your conjecture.

I'll try once more, and I'll keep it as brief as I can...

If the goal of any federal government is the preservation of the Union, how is that achieved by letting one or more states die?
How is it avoided, in real actionable ways, if no support can be provided? Not what you wish, but what will actually be possible.

Or do you propose we ignore it, and watch it burn?


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Found this quick clip that gives a good view of the "general" meaning in the "general welfare" clause.
As I see the saving of the many states as helping the entire country to be maintained as a whole, I see this as applicable to the clause.
If you see the saving of states as only benefiting the states themselves, and not the whole country, then you will disagree... Thus our impasse.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> I did notice you continue to ignore my questions.
> If the length of text were any clue as to the writer's ill notions, I dare say that your use of the Federalist and/or Anti-Federalist papers as support surely contradicts your conjecture.
> 
> I'll try once more, and I'll keep it as brief as I can...
> ...


You still ignore the founders' thoughts on freedom while suggesting that free men must fund the follies of others. 
I've answered your questions, but I can't rationalize your notions. People, communities and states are responsible for their behaviors.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You still ignore the founders' thoughts on freedom while suggesting that free men must fund the follies of others.
> I've answered your questions, but I can't rationalize your notions. People, communities and states are responsible for their behaviors.


So, watch it burn then... Got it.

On the bright side, I've got some marshmallows... and some ear plugs to deafen the screams.

EDIT:
On a more congenial note, I'll offer you my services for free to proofread your letter to your state informing them that you wish for them to return any and all funds provided by the federal government.
Perhaps I'm too late, and you already sent it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> So, watch it burn then... Got it.
> 
> On the bright side, I've got some marshmallows... and some ear plugs to deafen the screams.
> 
> ...


No, I never said that. Again, you put words in my mouth.

You are suggesting that the nation funds that which is not IAW the laws of nature and nature's God.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> So, watch it burn then... Got it.
> 
> On the bright side, I've got some marshmallows... and some ear plugs to deafen the screams.
> 
> ...


To make it clear, there is nothing burning that can't be extinguished.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

All your arguments are those of a liberal.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> All your arguments are those of a liberal.


Three replies, just to end with that?
You need some rest... I expected better.

When you refuse to answer questions as stated, I have no recourse but to interpret your words.
"People, communities and states are responsible for their behaviors."
Thus, they should be left to deal with the consequences, AKA, burn.
You then acknowledge this, undoing your accusation of me force feeding you words, by stating that burning things can be extinguished. Indeed they can. But corpses cannot be reanimated.

How are you defining that which is "in accordance with the laws of nature and nature's God"?
What are you proposing that I suggest funding in opposition to this? Be specific.
Assuming your Bible is the same as mine, the law's of nature's God demand "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind." and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Following with "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Do you really want to go down that path in this discussion? Personally, I don't see the need, as I generally stick to secular arguments to avoid the unpleasantness that religious topics can devolve into. It serves no real purpose in the end, but to use the Bible as a club, when it was never intended to be used as such.

I am truly trying to understand your position, which is why I ask questions. But you don't answer the questions I ask, and it only leads me to asking more.

Try just this one...
Should the federal government be sending ventilators to states? Why, or why not?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Three replies, just to end with that?
> You need some rest... I expected better.
> 
> When you refuse to answer questions as stated, I have no recourse but to interpret your words.
> ...


You continue to write many words to explain how individuals are to pay for others' follies. 
It takes many words to sway people, doesn't it?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Use all the words you want. Make all the excuses. There is no constitutional reason to steal from one state to profit another.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Use all the words you want. Make all the excuses. There is no constitutional reason to steal from one state to profit another.


Should the federal government be sending ventilators to states? Why, or why not?



Denton said:


> You continue to write many words to explain how individuals are to pay for others' follies.
> It takes many words to sway people, doesn't it?


From a historical context... yeah, it kinda does. You say you have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers in book form. A significant amount of verbiage therein.
"Too many words" isn't much of an argument when you quoted from those sources yourself.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Should the federal government be sending ventilators to states? Why, or why not?
> 
> From a historical context... yeah, it kinda does. You say you have the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers in book form. A significant amount of verbiage therein.
> "Too many words" isn't much of an argument when you quoted from those sources yourself.


You are still trying to justify your thoughts. I'll not assist.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You are still trying to justify your thoughts. I'll not assist.


You know the contradiction your answer will create. Thus is the philosophy of politics.

I am willing and able to recognize when my politics run afoul of how we should treat human beings, for better or for worse. (Outside of this pandemic situation, I would openly acknowledge my willingness to let the morons of any given state burn in their own filth. Do not mistake my expressed position here for my normal sentiments.)
You're experienced enough to recognize it too, but you may not be willing to acknowledge it in this context.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Ah yes, where to draw the line. Do all the states compensate those who choose to build on flood plains, choose to live on shore front property, without enough insurance? Or anyplace where mother nature causes damage? Live high on the hog until something happens then look to the GOV to restore your previous life style? I don't buy off on it! BTW, I don't agree with the $1200 per person thing, if man and wife live together and only one works why should they both get money? Yes, I took the money, but sure wasn't going to give it back after all I've paid in all these years.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> You know the contradiction your answer will create. Thus is the philosophy of politics.
> 
> I am willing and able to recognize when my politics run afoul of how we should treat human beings, for better or for worse. (Outside of this pandemic situation, I would openly acknowledge my willingness to let the morons of any given state burn in their own filth. Do not mistake my expressed position here for my normal sentiments.)
> You're experienced enough to recognize it too, but you may not be willing to acknowledge it in this context.


The discussion is whether or not Congress can take from all and give to selected states. Better stated, is such an action constitutional. The correct answer is a very simple, no.

Congress has 18 enumerated powers and none of those powers allow for such a thing. Being able to do such a thing would be akin to how the Crown treated the colonies.

The General Welfare clause should be viewed not as a loophole to do such a thing but as a restraint, ensuring that the money taken from all is spent on general needs common to all the states.

Earlier, you pointed out how many pages are in the papers. You are correct; there are many pages in both books. They were debating whether to adopt the Constitution as written. The pages were necessary. I'd suggest that more debate was needed, but that is a moot point. Defending what is constitutional really doesn't take that many words but the attempt to circumvent the Constitution takes some persuading.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

This discussion brought the following story to mind.



> When Crockett tracked Bunce down in his fields the following summer to seek backing for reelection, the farmer took a break from plowing to tell the congressman he wouldn't support him because of that vote.
> 
> "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?" the farmer asked.


https://www.bipps.org/bluegrass-beacon-tales-congressman-crocketts-exploits-still-instruct/


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> The discussion is whether or not Congress can take from all and give to selected states. Better stated, is such an action constitutional. The correct answer is a very simple, no.
> 
> Congress has 18 enumerated powers and none of those powers allow for such a thing. Being able to do such a thing would be akin to how the Crown treated the colonies.
> 
> ...


Considering the fact that all 50 states are under disaster declaration, and any of those 50 states can receive relief, how are you narrowly defining this aid as something only reserved for a few states?
As I eluded to, Alabama will be receiving federal funds, just like all the rest. Doesn't this qualify as "general" by your view? Did you indeed write to your officials instructing them to return the funds?

Defending what was Constitutional took 85 essays... The "many words" argument is a poor one.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

inceptor said:


> This discussion brought the following story to mind.
> 
> https://www.bipps.org/bluegrass-beacon-tales-congressman-crocketts-exploits-still-instruct/


Indeed, as that was a special interest case, and would literally only benefit one group. Not something the federal government should be involved in doing. (picking winners, as it were)

My contention is that all states have been affected by this pandemic, and all have received aid. This does not pick winners.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Considering the fact that all 50 states are under disaster declaration, and any of those 50 states can receive relief, how are you narrowly defining this aid as something only reserved for a few states?
> As I eluded to, Alabama will be receiving federal funds, just like all the rest. Doesn't this qualify as "general" by your view? Did you indeed write to your officials instructing them to return the funds?
> 
> Defending what was Constitutional took 85 essays... The "many words" argument is a poor one.


Slippy was eluding to the Democrat leadership's desire to a lot of money for California and New York so as to bail them out. You are comparing dissimilar items.

85 essays were written to sway the people to favor adopting the Constitution, and a lot of arguments took place to forge the document. It doesn't require the same amount of writing to explain each clause in it. On the other hand, we are far from where the Founders expected us to be, and it took a lot of manipulation to get us to this point.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Slippy was eluding to the Democrat leadership's desire to a lot of money for California and New York so as to bail them out. You are comparing dissimilar items.
> 
> 85 essays were written to sway the people to favor adopting the Constitution, and a lot of arguments took place to forge the document. It doesn't require the same amount of writing to explain each clause in it. On the other hand, we are far from where the Founders expected us to be, and it took a lot of manipulation to get us to this point.


Now we might be getting to the core of our discussion... finally. :vs_laugh:

You are open to spending, so long as it goes to everyone? In your view, this is "general"? (Again, questions... for clarification.)
That departs a bit from your "18 enumerated powers" position, since we both agree that aid during a pandemic isn't listed. Therefore, it must rely on what is considered best for the "general welfare of the United States" standing as its own power, as I claimed.
The reason I supported funding to states is only because it is funding which any state could also receive. If the law is written in such a way as to allow any state to receive funding from a general pool, then there can be no concern about special treatment.
However, if the law is written as you describe, naming specific states that are to receive special treatment, while the others are intentionally left out, then I have a HUGE problem with that. It does get down to specifics, and until we have the words written and submitted, we can't know.

Again with the "many words" argument...
Each and every judicial opinion ever written describing the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of any law has always been presented across page upon page, often from numerous judges.
The number of words matters not, and is poor argument. Irrespective of the number of words, the argument stands on its own, or it does not.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Now we might be getting to the core of our discussion... finally. :vs_laugh:
> 
> You are open to spending, so long as it goes to everyone? In your view, this is "general"? (Again, questions... for clarification.)
> That departs a bit from your "18 enumerated powers" position, since we both agree that aid during a pandemic isn't listed. Therefore, it must rely on what is considered best for the "general welfare of the United States" standing as its own power, as I claimed.
> ...


I've been discussing the core of the OP's thoughts since my first post.

Some Democrat governors want federal dollars to bail out their messes. Some Democrats in D.C. want this to be added into the next "relief" package. This would mean that prudent states and their citizens would be funding reckless policies over which they have no control. This is not covered by the General Welfare clause.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

This is nothing more than a mental exercise. If the money is added into the next package, it'll be signed into law and there'll be no legal challenge. Even if there were a legal challenge, the courts won't entertain it from a General Welfare point of view.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> I've been discussing the core of the OP's thoughts since my first post.
> 
> Some Democrat governors want federal dollars to bail out their messes. Some Democrats in D.C. want this to be added into the next "relief" package. This would mean that prudent states and their citizens would be funding reckless policies over which they have no control. This is not covered by the General Welfare clause.


If the bill made no mention of specific states, you'd have no issue?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

I am all for allowing states to declare bankruptcy... as long as when people declare bankruptcy they can wipe out past due federal taxes, states taxes, property taxes, old child support owed to the state (not to the ex spouse), past due traffic tickets, other fines and fees


----------



## NKAWTG (Feb 14, 2017)

California is on track to bankruptcy, they just borrowed $348 million in federal funds after receiving approval to tap up to $10 billion to pay for unemployment benefits.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> If the bill made no mention of specific states, you'd have no issue?


You mean the rest of the Bill? Probably not. I wasn't comfortable with the first one. The federal government isn't spending money it has. It is going even deeper in debt. Over a virus. The official death count is about to hit 70,000 but we can't trust that number.

The nation is being conditioned to obey unconstitutional edicts that violate our God-given rights. We are supposed to be deathly afraid and must understand that if we do not obey, we will die. We should also be happy about driving the nation much deeper in debt because if it doesn't happen, we die.

Times of crisis are always used against the people. Extraordinary things are pushed onto us because if we don't allow them, foreign threats, whether the threats are terrorists or viruses, will kill us all.

This is a time when we should be more objective and mindful as we observe government.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> You mean the rest of the Bill? Probably not. I wasn't comfortable with the first one. The federal government isn't spending money it has. It is going even deeper in debt. Over a virus. The official death count is about to hit 70,000 but we can't trust that number.
> 
> The nation is being conditioned to obey unconstitutional edicts that violate our God-given rights. We are supposed to be deathly afraid and must understand that if we do not obey, we will die. We should also be happy about driving the nation much deeper in debt because if it doesn't happen, we die.
> 
> ...


To my knowledge, the bill has not been written. When it is, if it contains no specific states mentioned, would you have no issue with it in that context alone?
I'm not talking about other contexts, such as spending money we don't have. I don't want to take a tangent on the topic.
If the bill created a pool of money to be distributed to any state that asked, would that satisfy your view of the "general welfare" power, or would you still disagree? Again, on that principle alone.
I'm just trying to understand your position.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> To my knowledge, the bill has not been written. When it is, if it contains no specific states mentioned, would you have no issue with it in that context alone?
> I'm not talking about other contexts, such as spending money we don't have. I don't want to take a tangent on the topic.
> If the bill created a pool of money to be distributed to any state that asked, would that satisfy your view of the "general welfare" power, or would you still disagree? Again, on that principle alone.
> I'm just trying to understand your position.


Create a pool of money from a non-existent pool of money (debt) to give to states as they ask? You've rephrased the scenario but you haven't changed the outcome.

I think my position is clear. Doesn't matter, though. It is clear that we are willing to bail out corporations without even considering the Constitution; why consider it when talking about states? I could list a lot more, but I need to go to town before work, so my time is limited.


----------



## Steve40th (Aug 17, 2016)

And where does this money actually go. A state requests 350Billion for pensions, blah blah. Does it really go there? Nope


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> Create a pool of money from a non-existent pool of money (debt) to give to states as they ask? You've rephrased the scenario but you haven't changed the outcome.
> 
> I think my position is clear. Doesn't matter, though. It is clear that we are willing to bail out corporations without even considering the Constitution; why consider it when talking about states? I could list a lot more, but I need to go to town before work, so my time is limited.


Again, side-stepping...
From my first post, my position was "So, as long as they take from all, *and offer to give to all*, they can take from any and give to any."
I didn't change the scenario in the slightest. I'm trying to clarify it for you to actually have a conversation, but you don't want to have it at all because you know there is a corner you could be backed into that you must accept what you principally don't want to.

The federal government can indeed send taxes from any state to any other state, so long as they all can partake. This is legal, and clearly provided for in the clause I originally quoted.
They cannot specify only certain states.

It's fine. I know your position. You stand on one thing while beveling something else as well.
On the one hand, you believe the government should not help any state that you personally believe mismanaged themselves. The specificity of states is irrelevant.
On the other hand, you believe the government should help any state that requests a ventilator, without regard to their mismanagement.
You feel the contradiction, and so you won't answer any question clearly.
I'm not trying to set a trap, just have a conversation where we are honest with our positions. You don't want to. You intentionally ignore questions posed for clarification. You introduce new tangents that are not part of the original discussion.

Maybe we'll find something else to talk about in another thread. This is going nowhere.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Kauboy said:


> Again, side-stepping...
> From my first post, my position was "So, as long as they take from all, *and offer to give to all*, they can take from any and give to any."
> I didn't change the scenario in the slightest. I'm trying to clarify it for you to actually have a conversation, but you don't want to have it at all because you know there is a corner you could be backed into that you must accept what you principally don't want to.
> 
> ...





> If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.


https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0174

Argue with Madison. Me? I'm watching the nation go down the tubes because Congress has not been held to the 18 enumerated powers and has spent us into the dirt.

Good day.


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Denton said:


> https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-14-02-0174
> 
> Argue with Madison. Me? I'm watching the nation go down the tubes because Congress has not been held to the 18 enumerated powers and has spent us into the dirt.
> 
> Good day.


Convenient that he can't answer my questions either...
:vs_smirk:


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Well that was a lively debate! 

The obvious has come to the spotlight in this shit storm. Wyoming is much different than New York and Alabama is much different than California, South Dakota is much different than New Jersey and Florida is much different than the poor citizens of Illinois that really should be renamed Chitgago because the idiots in Chicago run the state...into the ground! My point is each Stare is different than another and some are very different. The should make their own choices and own way. 

You get my drift on this one, right? Which goes back to what the Founders envisioned-Free State with 1 Federal Government looking over Defense and a few other things.

Not being the over-lords of the states. 

Each State should be responsible for their own way. Not dependent (enslaved) to the Federal Government.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Slippy said:


> Well that was a lively debate!
> 
> The obvious has come to the spotlight in this shit storm. Wyoming is much different than New York and Alabama is much different than California, South Dakota is much different than New Jersey and Florida is much different than the poor citizens of Illinois that really should be renamed Chitgago because the idiots in Chicago run the state...into the ground! My point is each Stare is different than another and some are very different. The should make their own choices and own way.
> 
> ...


Well, now you gone and added another twist.

There was a time when the House represented the people and the Senate gave state power in Congress. Now, the states have less power. 
Furthermore, there was a time when the federal government couldn't reach passed the states' capitols and straight into the pockets of the citizens. 
Where is all the power, now?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

Denton said:


> Where is all the power, now?


I can damn sure tell you it ain't in the hands of "We the People"


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> I can damn sure tell you it ain't in the hands of "We the People"


Nope. A lady in Dallas was arrested, tried and convicted for opening her salon early. Sentenced to a week in jail. In court she said she had kids to feed and so did her stylists. So they added a $1k fine per day for a week for opening.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/dalla...pening-in-defiance-of-countywide-restrictions


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

inceptor said:


> Nope. A lady in Dallas was arrested, tried and convicted for opening her salon early. Sentenced to a week in jail. In court she said she had kids to feed and so did her stylists. So they added a $1k fine per day for a week for opening.
> 
> https://www.fox4news.com/news/dalla...pening-in-defiance-of-countywide-restrictions


Saw that on Fox News this morning. That judge needs to be tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail. This is exactly where the left wants to go with all this China bug crap.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

inceptor said:


> Nope. A lady in Dallas was arrested, tried and convicted for opening her salon early. Sentenced to a week in jail. In court she said she had kids to feed and so did her stylists. So they added a $1k fine per day for a week for opening.
> 
> https://www.fox4news.com/news/dalla...pening-in-defiance-of-countywide-restrictions





Prepared One said:


> Saw that on Fox News this morning. That judge needs to be tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail. This is exactly where the left wants to go with all this China bug crap.


The Texas legislative calvary comes to her rescue.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Prepared One said:


> Saw that on Fox News this morning. That judge needs to be tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail. This is exactly where the left wants to go with all this China bug crap.





A Watchman said:


> The Texas legislative calvary comes to her rescue.


Yes they did.



> "I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic, a judge, in a county that actually released hardened criminals for fear of contracting COVID-19, would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family's table," AG Paxton said in a statement.


https://www.fox4news.com/news/ag-pa...opened-in-defiance-of-countywide-restrictions

THIS is why I like Texas. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

And now the Texas Supreme Court has ordered her release.



> The order came moments after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a change to his executive orders related to COVID-19, eliminating confinement as a punishment for violating the orders.


https://www.fox4news.com/news/texas...-after-gov-abbott-amends-his-executive-orders


----------



## Kauboy (May 12, 2014)

Texas Governor, Gregg Abbot:
"I am eliminating jail for violating an order, retroactive to April 2, superseding local orders."

Better if it had never been there, seeing as how it was illegal and all... but this is a good step.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

Ted Cruz gets a haircut at jailed salon owner's salon. Ted Cruz for President ..... hmmm

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/05/08/coronavirus-in-texas-senator-cruz-visits-salon-a-la-mode/


----------



## 65mustang (Apr 4, 2020)

Back Pack Hack said:


> Constitution.... Shmonstitution....
> 
> We don't need no steekeeng Constitution.


Said the Canadians.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

One state I know of governor authorized 1. 5 billion mainly of schools during the Virus. They are of course shut down. There are loop holes in it that allow the money to be used other ways. Remember it is for the children. No it is not. The cash will end up mostly in the union pocket and those well connected. It will be spent on studies and draft programs that will produce no real results.


----------

