[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Believe it or not, there are responsibilities outside of the constitution that the Federal government has taken upon itself.

Certainly, but that's not entirely a bad thing.

This new act makes it possible for the Federal government to enforce anything it wants on the State using the armed forces. It is a dangerous thing if used inappropriately.

No, it can't. The use of federal troops to support state government is contingent on the state being unable to guarentee the rights of the citizens.

Tell me something. War is bad. But is it a good thing for a government to make rebellion impossible?

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Declaration of Independance

Is it good for separation of political bonds to be impossible?

Yes. Esp. when the DofI is contingent on our inability to use the ballot box. You have access to the ballot, so there's no need to resort to the bomb.

[tlj009]

Certainly, but that's not entirely a bad thing.

Maybe.

No, it can't. The use of federal troops to support state government is contingent on the state being unable to guarentee the rights of the citizens.

Not really. It could be about guaranteeing rights. Or it could be about enforcing laws. Consider if prohibition were still in effect. Under this, the army could enforce prohibition instead of local law enforcement.

"that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws."

Yes. Esp. when the DofI is contingent on our inability to use the ballot box. You have access to the ballot, so there's no need to resort to the bomb.

Things change. It may be necessary in the future. I oppose steps being taken to insure that dissension never happens. I'd rather see the government serving the people's interests and therefore insuring loyalty. But when loyalty is forced upon us, when dissension is unacceptable, I begin to worry about our future. I simply don't trust absolute power to the government. And while this law may not be exactly what I am worried about here, I do think it could likely be a stepping stone.

And the ballot box is not the only reason to rebel. For example, the Civil War was a rebellion even with the ballot box and representation. It happened because laws were passed by the North (having more people) that benefited the North at the expense of the South. I would hope that every other avenue would be exhausted before a war ever happens. But what worries me is that I don't believe that it is possible for a Civil War to happen in the US today no matter what the issue is about.

[nolidad]

And the ballot box is not the only reason to rebel. For example, the Civil War was a rebellion even with the ballot box and representation. It happened because laws were passed by the North (having more people) that benefited the North at the expense of the South. I would hope that every other avenue would be exhausted before a war ever happens. But what worries me is that I don't believe that it is possible for a Civil War to happen in the US today no matter what the issue is about.

Of course it is possible for another civil war to take place in America. This time the scenario wouldn't be a North South divide but a liberal-conservative divide. Like it or not our nation is polarizing more and more each year. The "moderate" is now either a leftist or rightist moderate. As more people seek the state to care for them cradle to grave and others seek a return to less big govt. and more personal responsoibility the arguments will heat up. Let us hope that it will not resort to violence but this new generation is more prone to violence than my old fogie generation was and many in my generation were real radicals.

[Fandrew]

This generation is also more apathetic, and I see no point for continual contortions of the topic at hand.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

others seek a return to less big govt.

Yes, and both of those people voted for Ron Paul.

I suspect you pretend to be part of that group Noli. Do you support cutting medicare benifits? Then you are not really part of that group are you?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

What this means is that if the States fail to enforce Federal Laws, the Feds can do it without consulting with the State. It is another instance of State rights being violated.

Actually it says "unable".

So what are you arguing exactly: That civil disorder is good? That a failure to relieve disaster victims is good? What exactly are you against?

[tlj009]

Actually it says "unable".

There are a lot of "or" after "incapable".

So what are you arguing exactly: That civil disorder is good? That a failure to relieve disaster victims is good? What exactly are you against?

More that layered governments are a good thing so that there can be ordered opposition rather than civil disorder. That one all-powerful government is not a good thing. I am also saying that barring a governor's stupidity in regards to asking for assistance, this change has done nothing to relieve disaster victims. Also, there are a number of federal organizations that are exempt. Organizations that are specifically formed for disaster relief. Fema comes to mind. As for security, Homeland Security is exempt. Why make the Army, Navy, and Air Force exempt as well? Especially when, if they are needed, all it takes is permission from the governor?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

There are a lot of "or" after "incapable".


More that layered governments are a good thing so that there can be ordered opposition rather than civil disorder. That one all-powerful government is not a good thing. I am also saying that barring a governor's stupidity in regards to asking for assistance, this change has done nothing to relieve disaster victims. Also, there are a number of federal organizations that are exempt. Organizations that are specifically formed for disaster relief. Fema comes to mind. As for security, Homeland Security is exempt. Why make the Army, Navy, and Air Force exempt as well? Especially when, if they are needed, all it takes is permission from the governor?

Little Rock, Arkansas?

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Yes, and both of those people voted for Ron Paul.

I suspect you pretend to be part of that group Noli. Do you support cutting medicare benifits? Then you are not really part of that group are you?

Well your suspicions are always "suspect" and you are rabbit trailing way off topic.

[tlj009]

Little Rock, Arkansas?

Charlotte, North Carolina?

I must be missing your reference somehow.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Charlotte, North Carolina?

I must be missing your reference somehow.

Little Rock Nine

[tlj009]

Little Rock Nine

And why wasn't it a violation of Posse Comitatus? Because the system worked. The Mayor of Little Rock asked for assistance. And if that wasn't enough, Congress could authorize it with a vote. Posse Comitatus didn't make it impossible. It did make it harder.

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

And why wasn't it a violation of Posse Comitatus? Because the system worked. The Mayor of Little Rock asked for assistance. And if that wasn't enough, Congress could authorize it with a vote. Posse Comitatus didn't make it impossible. It did make it harder.

Ok, so now it's not that 'states rights' are being violated, it's that it's easier than before. What an odd change of pov.

[tlj009]

Ok, so now it's not that 'states rights' are being violated, it's that it's easier than before. What an odd change of pov.

How is that a change of POV? Making it easier is decreasing "states rights". It should be hard to overrule a State. Making it easier does seem to be a states rights issue.

If I ask for permission before entering a house, I concede that the owner has rights. I still have the capability of entering without permission if it is necessary. But I don't take the decision lightly. If, on the other hand, I enter without asking, I deny that the owner has any rights. It does seem to have a lot to do with respecting the rights of others.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well your suspicions are always "suspect" and you are rabbit trailing way off topic.

It would have taken far fewer words to say "yes" or "no". I know why you didn't: