The probable solution to the madness in D.C. is at the State level.

We've seen in the few weeks since the mid-term elections a predictable pattern.

Obama has continued with his agenda without pause. The Republicans have somewhat increased their rhetoric but zero action that invokes any pause in the Administration.

There is no reason that I can see that suggests any change in the new year. A perfect example is the XL pipeline. The new senate majority leader will change the rules back to a simple majority which will allow passage of the bill to approve the pipeline construction and Obama will veto.

Fear of gov't shut down and the racial backlash has the Republicans well neutralized. Oh, there might be a few small changes, perhaps funding to re-fuel the CVN George Washington to keep the carrier fleet at 11-as required by law-but overall no significant change in direction via the federal gov't.

That leaves the States to act.

Direct nullification/ignoring federal mandates is the only workable option that I can see.

We've seen attempts, some successful, some not, in the last year. Common core, Various 2nd amendment violations by the Federal Gov't have been negated by individual states.

An expansion of that avenue could work. Many on the left have and will point out that nullification violates the Constitution. I see it as a gray area, but they could be right. It certainly would be invalidated by the Judicial branch. Therein lies the conundrum.

It looks like it would take Constitutional violations to get us back to where the Constitution could be re-instituted and followed!

(This is where the Libertarian Parties logic falls on it's face, any attempt on a federal level to re-institute the 10th, etc., would be blocked by a Judicial Branch containing tenured appointees that achieved their status via the very system that is now in place. Checkmate.)

The volume of noise generated by the left of how 'illegal' nullification is would be 180 degrees opposite of their noise on Obamas illegal actions which is, of course, zero..

I see no other way. The very mechanism of the Federal system is broken. Perhaps beyond repair from within.

Not all states would see this in the same light. Perhaps that's a good thing. Let those that follow Obama's direction continue to do so and those that do not also have their way.

Re-institute freedom at the State level and perhaps then those at the Federal level will be forced to change their ways to stay relevant.

Thoughts?

I agree whole heartedly and will add,
power never yields. The only way to reform is from the outside
at local levels . Both sides ONLY represent bankers and corporations.
Currently our government is neither for nor by the people.
We are taxed without representation, Corporations are represented
without taxation. I'd say we are Bass Ackwards.

a reply to: UnderKingsPeak

Agreed.

Not that the same mechanism wouldn't apply at the State level. However, it will be a lot tougher to subvert 50 State gov'ts than one Federal gov't. Some would slip though.....

But it hasn't been invalidated by the Judicial Branch. At least not that I have heard of, and you didn't post anything to suggest that it had. Your entire argument hinges on a what-if.

a reply to: nwtrucker

While a agree, I see one problem with that as well. Let me give you an example of my state.

Pennsylvania!

In our recent governors race, the 2 of them spent 82.3 MILLION dollars! Now keep in mind, that DOES NOT include the money spent by Super pacs!

LINK

Now that our newly elected Democratic governor has been elected, he went to D.C. to get his marching orders.

I have come to the conclusion, that Corporate Welfare, is nothing more than politicians paying back those who helped pay for their election.

Now imagine, just on state levels alone, what the combined amount of money would add up too! Not just for the governors races, but all of the other little puppets that run for other offices. That would be a number I would love to see!

The money needs to be taken out of politics PERIOD! Although you are right that we have a better chance at the state level, I think at this point it would be treating the symptom versus actually nuking the cancer right where it originates!

THE MONEY!

Like I said, I agree with you, but I think our focus should be on politicians already bought and paid for by those with money, before they even have a chance to represent those who elected them. Thus, we do NOT have a representative government, as long as they OWE!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I can't argue against your point.

It is a 'what if'.

As what has happened in the last few weeks was predictable, I apply the same logic in this scenario. It's predictable.

Much happiness if I'm proven wrong.

If forced to go 'all-in', my chips go to the Judicial blocking it. As the other poster has rightly observed, power NEVER gives up it's power.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Well I'm not going to advocate revolutionary action just because it looks like our branches of government are going to fail us. I'll cast my dice when the Judicial Branch revokes, not before. I will not compromise my ideals out of fear.

a reply to: seeker1963

There's lots of barriers to overcome with the 'State route". Yours is a perfect example.

With no further changes, some States might be sufficiently 'conservative' to loudly announce who and how much funding they've received. Perhaps outright legislation on a State level blocking extra-state election funding?

This isn't any more than a broad idea I'm throwing out here. I see more opportunity for fixes locally than Federally as a general overview.

Your point raises another issue. Not all states are clearly for or against the federal agenda. The Keystone is probably in that 'toss-up' group. LOL.

That being said, a local fight is more confrontable....and winnable than a federal one.

Relocation might be an option is the 'wrong side' wins out in your state..

a reply to: seeker1963

An easy solution to the money problem is to make it illegal for a politician to know who donated money to his campaign.

Obviously corporations would be against a law like that but why would any "honest" politician be against a law like that? the politicians still get their money, and people and corporations can still donate money.

Watch how fast all those big donations dry up if it`s illegal for politicians to know who donated money.you can`t ask for favors and payback from a politician who doesn`t know for sure that you even donated money.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: seeker1963

There's lots of barriers to overcome with the 'State route". Yours is a perfect example.

With no further changes, some States might be sufficiently 'conservative' to loudly announce who and how much funding they've received. Perhaps outright legislation on a State level blocking extra-state election funding?

This isn't any more than a broad idea I'm throwing out here. I see more opportunity for fixes locally than Federally as a general overview.

Your point raises another issue. Not all states are clearly for or against the federal agenda. The Keystone is probably in that 'toss-up' group. LOL.

That being said, a local fight is more confrontable....and winnable than a federal one.

Relocation might be an option is the 'wrong side' wins out in your state..

We are getting rid of a so called "conservative" governor. No love loss there on my part. It will just be business as usual, except with a governor who will bend to every whim of the Whitehouse.

No point in moving, people in this state are just as caught up in the left/right paradigm as most other states. You ought to see how people look at you if you tell them you voted for a "Libertarian" candidate!!!! (not that we have the opportunity much) I swear most of them think you just voted for the Communist party!

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: nwtrucker


In our recent governors race, the 2 of them spent 82.3 MILLION dollars! Now keep in mind, that DOES NOT include the money spent by Super pacs!

When an individual spends that kind of money just to get elected, that to me is a sure sign of a person who cares nothing of the people they claim that they will represent.

For anyone having a consciense, that amount of money could have been better spent helping MANY communities and peoples in their state. These types of people blowing through that kind of money just to be elected care nothing for anyone but themselves. They have no intention of being elected to make things better as their actions prove otherwise.

But being a corrupt selfish degenerate of a human beings seems to be the standard for being a politician in the first place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I completely respect and acknowledge your views on this.

Perhaps this is an option down the road.

I also feel I'm not compromising my ideals. OUR ideals have been 'compromised' by others-which WE are responsible for-the fix is the question I pose.

I am not optimistic...no, that's not accurate, I'm convinced that it isn't fixable within the system as it now stands.

The love of country may, in fact, now be a trap that ensnares us into supporting an ideal that no longer exists!

"Retreat, HELL. I'm advancing to the rear!"

a reply to: Tardacus

An interesting idea!

It could work.

At the least, it's thinking outside the box. If we can do that and still maintain the goal of the founding fathers, one way or another, a tough balancing act, there's still a chance!

a reply to: seeker1963

I think the problems of Libertarian party are as much self-inflicted as anything else.

At a guess, implied by your last post, your disaffected by both 'Parties'and see the Libertarians as an 'alternative'. I would point out that increased State Rights/control of their own destinies....read that freedom, would align with Libertarian views.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Thomas Jefferson, among other distinguished Americans, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 first introduced the word “nullification” into American political life, and follow-up resolutions in 1799 employed Jefferson’s formulation that “nullification…is the rightful remedy” when the federal government reaches beyond its constitutional powers.

Two dozen American states nullified the REAL ID Act of 2005. More than a dozen states have successfully defied the federal government over medical marijuana. Nullification initiatives of all kinds, involving the recent health care legislation, cap and trade, and the Second Amendment are popping up everywhere.

What’s more, we’ve tried everything else. Nothing seems able to stop the relentless march. We need to have recourse to every mechanism of defense Thomas Jefferson bequeathed to us, not just the ones that won’t offend Katie Couric or MSNBC.

Does nullification violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause? No. Thomas Jefferson knew about the Supremacy Clause, it’s safe to assume. The Supremacy Clause applies to constitutional laws, not unconstitutional ones.

a reply to: N3k9Ni

Well said!

I fear it's your last point that will grid-lock-at best-or worse , interpret unconstitutional laws as 'constitutional'.

Those guys have been playing the game since they landed on their heads. We cannot rely on them making decisions that aren't vested, self-serving or paid for.

It merely reinforces my views that nullification is the best option and to hell with whether the Judicial branch sees it our way or not.

Still, I may be wrong....LMAO. It's a scary route to suggest...subversion or inspiration?? I'm too old for this. LOL

a reply to: nwtrucker

You're absolutely right. The general procedure anymore seems to be to write laws, then bend the Constitution to fit around them. I feel the Supreme Court can no longer be trusted to rule impartially.

If there's any question as to whether a federal law falls within constitutional bounds, it should be rejected. All federal laws should work within the Constitution beyond the shadow of a doubt.