Nikki Haley To Call For Confederate Flag To Be Removed From South Carolina Capitol: Reports

a reply to: nenothtu

The point is that the 10th amendment outlines the things the states are allowed to do as dictated by the Constitution. It may not LITERALLY say that the states are extensions of the federal government, but the intent is clear. The states have the authority to do whatever the Constitution didn't enumerate to the federal government as long as they don't violate Constitutional law themselves.

There is no where in the Constitution that outlines "bearing arms" pertains to individual gun ownership and that militias can be made up of one person, but that is how it is interpreted. In fact, that is how the Constitution works. It is all open to how it is being interpreted.

Though nice try trying to be obtuse.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

They are when YOU are the one to introduce the bold claim that the federal government is "giving" something to the states. To "give" something, one must first have that something to give - where do they get it?

From the Blue States?...South Carolina for example...

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

www.theatlantic.com...

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

So you see the Federal government as a sort of Robin Hood? Careful how you answer - that line of thought is going somewhere.

Not at all. In a perfect world we would get what we give. Federal government is a non-profit aimed at the general welfare of the union. As a union we choose to help individual states for the better of the country as a whole. As a premise we don't like seeing fellow Americans suffer from hunger, poverty, national disaster etc.

a reply to: nenothtu

See, now you are trying to run off topic again on tax law and my opinion on it. Your answer is VERY complicated, and I'm not going to go into it. Let's just say that I don't agree with the way America has deemed to collect taxes.

The point is that taxes exist, they are collected by the federal government then the federal government distributes them to various state governments for local policies. It has been pointed out in this thread that SC happens to have one of the HIGHEST ratios of taxes collected versus federal aide given to them, yet SC deems to continue to defy the federal government trying to help them out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
A state government shouldn't be promoting a flag that at the very least represents a time of massive division in the country and at the most is a symbol of racism.

Isn't that exactly what this Government is working diligently to acclomplish ?
Read the News gov is tearing this country apart with racist crap.

While it wasn't the Confederate states' official flag, the battle flag was flown by several Confederate Army units. The most notable among them was Gen. Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

"I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war," he wrote in a letter, declining an invitation by the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association.

There were no flags flown at his funeral, Confederate or otherwise.

www.cnn.com...

After the Civil War ended, the battle flag turned up here and there only occasionally -- at events to commemorate fallen soldiers.

So, when did the flag explode into prominence? It was during the struggle for civil rights for black Americans, in the middle of the 20th century.

The first burst may have been in 1948. South Carolina politician Strom Thurmond ran for president under the newly founded States Rights Democratic Party, also known as the Dixiecrats. The party's purpose was clear: "We stand for the segregation of the races," said Article 4 of its platform.

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

It's amazing how many of these "the Confederate Flag represents Southern Heritage" people keep ignoring this point.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

The point is that the 10th amendment outlines the things the states are allowed to do as dictated by the Constitution. It may not LITERALLY say that the states are extensions of the federal government, but the intent is clear.

Thanks for clearing that up. So the Constitution YOU brought into it to support an unsupportable belief actually DOESN'T say what you so boldly claimed it said. Got it/

Yes, the intent IS clear - it is very clearly spelled out. To get anything else out of what it says, one must creatively "interpret" it, and then "be obtuse", just as you pointed out. thanks for that.

The states have the authority to do whatever the Constitution didn't enumerate to the federal government as long as they don't violate Constitutional law themselves.

The Constitution is a document enumerating certain powers and delegating them to the proper authorities. The Tenth Amendment points out that those powers not specifically enumerated reside with the states and the people. That in no way makes states a mere organ of the Federal government - there are a lot of unspecified powers. The federal government is steadily trying to seize those for itself, which the tenth Amendment specifically prohibits. It takes "creative interpretation" of just the sort you promote here in order to make that happen. It's good to know which side you fall on - thanks for that.

There is no where in the Constitution that outlines "bearing arms" pertains to individual gun ownership and that militias can be made up of one person, but that is how it is interpreted. In fact, that is how the Constitution works. It is all open to how it is being interpreted.

Though nice try trying to be obtuse.

There absolutely is such a place - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - in the Second Amendment. the Supreme Court has weighed in on that question of "interpretation", and says you are dead wrong. Read the decision in "Heller vs. District of Columbia" for the rundown on that. Don't blame MY obtuseness - that would be the obtuseness of your Supreme Court, which unless I miss my guess IS an organ of the Federal Government.

originally posted by: nenothtu
There absolutely is such a place - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - in the Second Amendment. the Supreme Court has weighed in on that question of "interpretation", and says you are dead wrong. Read the decision in "Heller vs. District of Columbia" for the rundown on that. Don't blame MY obtuseness - that would be the obtuseness of your Supreme Court, which unless I miss my guess IS an organ of the Federal Government.

I'm going to cut you off at the pass. I don't disagree with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't want to ban guns at all.

Also, you know what ELSE isn't specifically listed in the Constitution? The ability for the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional law. They just kind of assumed that power back during the beginning of Thomas Jefferson's Presidency in order to screw with him. Everyone kind of decided it was a good idea and the authority stuck.

a reply to: nenothtu

For the life of me I can't figure out what any of what you are posting has to do with Governor of South Carolina deciding that the Confederate Flag should come down?

If your aim is to derail and fill the thread with off-topic debate about the role of Federal Government and taxes, then you are squarely on target.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Yea, all that federal aide the states receive from the federal government certainly IS a big eff you to the states. Man the NERVE of the federal government, giving the states a bunch of money to implement its local policies!

Who do they steal that money from in the first place in order to "give" it back?

The morals of taxes aren't pertinent to this discussion.

They are when YOU are the one to introduce the bold claim that the federal government is "giving" something to the states. To "give" something, one must first have that something to give - where do they get it?

From the Blue States?...South Carolina for example...

If you look only at the first measure—how much the federal government spends per person in each state compared with the amount its citizens pay in federal income taxes—other states stand out, particularly South Carolina: The Palmetto State receives $7.87 back from Washington for every $1 its citizens pay in federal tax.

www.theatlantic.com...

wallethub.com...-vs-blue

So you see the Federal government as a sort of Robin Hood? Careful how you answer - that line of thought is going somewhere.

Not at all. In a perfect world we would get what we give. Federal government is a non-profit aimed at the general welfare of the union. As a union we choose to help individual states for the better of the country as a whole. As a premise we don't like seeing fellow Americans suffer from hunger, poverty, national disaster etc.

See, we have a difference of opinion there. In my "perfect world", we would get to keep what was ours, rather than having the schoolyard bully take our lunch money and then ever so magnanimously "give it back" to us. In my perfect world, we would not "give" with the expectation of "getting back" - that's not really "giving", is it? that's "trading".

The federal government's "welfare for the union" is a strange thing to me - they appear to be intent on increasing the size of the "union" by invasions, and consolidation of "the union" by subjugation of others. When I was in school, which admittedly was many years ago, they called that sort of thing "Empire", not "Union".

And yes, that flag you all so detest actually IS at the very core of that argument - the Confederacy was at best the third (although some would argue it was farther down the list than that) foreign nation that "Union" invaded with intent to conquer and annex.

Which they did, of course, and now appear to be attempting to get folks to erase that little event in their empire building. maybe a hundred years from now, no one will be able to recall it - depends on whether they can successfully erase all signs that it ever happened.

a reply to: Indigo5

THANK YOU! I've been trying to explain this to him for at least a page or two now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

See, now you are trying to run off topic again on tax law and my opinion on it. Your answer is VERY complicated, and I'm not going to go into it. Let's just say that I don't agree with the way America has deemed to collect taxes.

The point is that taxes exist, they are collected by the federal government then the federal government distributes them to various state governments for local policies. It has been pointed out in this thread that SC happens to have one of the HIGHEST ratios of taxes collected versus federal aide given to them, yet SC deems to continue to defy the federal government trying to help them out.

My apologies. I thought that you, as the OP, would direct the topic, and since you are the one who brought it up, I mistakenly thought it to be on topic.

My bad. Sorry about that. I guess some trails should just not be trodden unless one expects to fall flat.

Perhaps that "Federal help" is not all that helpful to SC - if it was, their purchase of influence may have been more effective. Some folks have a funny notion of what "helping" is, I guess.

a reply to: nenothtu

All threads SHOULD be explored if they have a relevant point to the topic at hand. The morality of the country's tax laws is completely off topic to this thread.

If federal help isn't that helpful to SC then they have every right to send it back to the federal government. I'm sure the federal government would MORE than love to spend that money on other things.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Indigo5

It's amazing how many of these "the Confederate Flag represents Southern Heritage" people keep ignoring this point.

That's because the point is moot, a mere diversion, a "red herring".

I have 3 great great grandfathers who fought in that war. To this day, two of them get a Confederate flag on their graves on Decoration Day, and one gets a Union flag. The one who fought for the Union never recovered from illnesses sustained in the war. Exactly NONE of them owned slaves, and NONE of them fought to maintain slavery, or to oppose it, according to family history.

Nearly every able bodied man in this county fought in that war. Less than 3% of them owned slaves. Many civilians from here fought as well - had to, when foreign invaders entered during several separate invasions - which were all beaten back, on a run. Federals were not intent on "eradicating slavery" OR in "preserving a union" - they had one thing in mind - destruction of a nation. That's pretty much the reason for ALL invasions. This county saw theft, destruction, and plunder from invading forces. Couldn't find ANY of them that were "here to help" - but the Feds DO kinda like that motto, don't they? It seems to be a perennial favorite among them. Maybe some day, if they successfully thought engineer the US, they will get someone to believe that.

Now, what you choose to see when you look at a flag - the Confederate flag or any other - is not MY responsibility. That's all you. Similarly, I don't expect you to understand a heritage you have no part of. That would be stupid of me to expect, and I really don't.

My only gripe here is your insistence on defining what OTHER folks think, and whipping them into YOUR lineup. You seem to think you can tell them what THEIR heritage is, define it FOR them - a common misconception amongst conquerors.

Not gonna happen.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: nenothtu
There absolutely is such a place - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - in the Second Amendment. the Supreme Court has weighed in on that question of "interpretation", and says you are dead wrong. Read the decision in "Heller vs. District of Columbia" for the rundown on that. Don't blame MY obtuseness - that would be the obtuseness of your Supreme Court, which unless I miss my guess IS an organ of the Federal Government.

I'm going to cut you off at the pass. I don't disagree with the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. I don't want to ban guns at all.

Also, you know what ELSE isn't specifically listed in the Constitution? The ability for the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional law. They just kind of assumed that power back during the beginning of Thomas Jefferson's Presidency in order to screw with him. Everyone kind of decided it was a good idea and the authority stuck.

I gave you a star for that, because you are absolutely right - they aren't granted that power, they seized it. Just one more in a long line of power seizures at the federal level. That power, according to the Tenth Amendment, resides only with the states and the people.

So I do my part. I ignore unconstitutional laws.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: nenothtu

For the life of me I can't figure out what any of what you are posting has to do with Governor of South Carolina deciding that the Confederate Flag should come down?

If your aim is to derail and fill the thread with off-topic debate about the role of Federal Government and taxes, then you are squarely on target.

Just following the path y'all are plowing out, Hoss. Sorry 'bout that. I'll try to let you folks walk those rows alone in the future.

a reply to: nenothtu

I don't care what your ancestors fought for. The south CLEARLY seceded from the Union as a DIRECT result of Abraham Lincoln being elected President who the Southern states viewed as someone who was going to abolish slavery (despite Lincoln not having that intention at all).

Just a little fyi. I happen to be pretty well versed in Civil War history. I spent enough time learning about it when I lived in Mississippi. It was SOOOO much fun when the Daughters of the Confederacy came to our school and FORCED the students to all write a report on the Civil War and enter them into some silly contest they were hosting. So I happen to know the racist reasons for the war and the non-racist reasons. I'm not advocating that the entire reason the war was fought was because of slavery and I know that not everyone in the south owned slaves.

Though maybe you should consider that the Southern elite manipulated public opinion of the situation to get the poorer people to side with them. Much the same way a bunch of Bostonians manipulated the colonies to support their Revolution. In fact, your point about not all Southerners fighting for slavery DIRECTLY parallels that not all the colonists fighting in the Revolutionary War were fighting against unjust taxes. Not every colonist was a smuggler (which is who many of the original founding fathers were, like Samuel Adams). It's literally the same argument.

originally posted by: nenothtu


the Confederacy was at best the third (although some would argue it was farther down the list than that) foreign nation that "Union" invaded with intent to conquer and annex.

That view assigns a legitimacy to the Confederacy that did not exist. The Confederacies' bid for succession failed. You can point to confederate currency or the unopposed election of Jefferson Davis, but none of that makes for a country..hell ISIS has city services and appoints leading officials in the regions it has taken over. No foreign country officially recognized the Confederacy as an independent country and neither did the USA.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't care what your ancestors fought for. The south CLEARLY seceded from the Union as a DIRECT result of Abraham Lincoln being elected President who the Southern states viewed as someone who was going to abolish slavery (despite Lincoln not having that intention at all).

Just a point of clarity. Lincoln was a proponent of containment. Although opposed to it in principle, he was willing to allow slavery to continue, BUT not expand to the new territories....which the south rightly saw as vast with prosperous potential. The south would not abide with containment.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't care what your ancestors fought for.

That was all you had to say to prove my point.

In fact, your point about not all Southerners fighting for slavery DIRECTLY parallels that not all the colonists fighting in the Revolutionary War were fighting against unjust taxes.

Correct again. I also had several ancestors fighting in that war, and as far as I can find out, NONE of them gave a rat's ass about taxes or what was going on in Boston.