It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: TheRedneck
Seems to me the United States of America could be renamed the fractured states of America.
Why and how is there such division among citizens..... It's truly mind boggling.
originally posted by: neo96
SLAP-ping Down Sanctuary Cities. This is Getting Real.
Why don't they SLAP them with treason?
Willfully violating US law to gain FOREIGN influence in our political process.
originally posted by: sdcigarpig
If this bill passes, as those who would support it, never again complain about martial law, never hold up the cry of States rights, never again complain about the Federal government and its overreach.
This law is fraught with the potential for abuse, it is not even funny. It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will. And like all laws with good ideas, they often are abused. And those who would support such laws, are often the first ones to cry foul with it is used against them.
In the past, if we look at history, while the states did defy federal law, it never went to that extreme, and the federal government was very cautious on how it proceeded, going to the barest minimum, but nothing like that.
If this is done, then it will be a wild fire where it goes tit for tat from one state to the next.
Whoever, being a State or local official having custody of an individual, knowingly ignores a request from the Federal Government for the custody of that individual, if the requesting authority has designated that individual as a violator of the immigration laws, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: stormcell
Since the federal government took more in taxes that California got in hand-outs it seemed only fair.
I find that highly ironic and hypocritical... not your post, but the likely appropriate description of the thought processes that led to the problem.
I believe it would be appropriate to say that California is a wealthy state, as it has boasted that it alone has the 4th largest economy in the world. It is also the state which sends lawmakers to Washington DC who regularly cry for higher taxation on wealthy individuals and more wealth redistribution to the poor. The argument oft specified is that if the poor are not aided through wealth redistribution, the wealthy will have no one left to sell their wares to. The same argument would apply to California, which benefits greatly by its unionization with 49 other states, none of which have the authority to restrict trade with California. California can sell its wares, which include both semi-tropical fruits and Asian imports, to Alabama without concern for how an imbalance in trade might affect Alabama.
Thus, the same people who propose one thing when it suits a particular agenda are trying to deny the same principle when it causes them distress. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
The very ideas in your post, however, that propose taxation as an unequal institution, are the (oft-forgotten) basis of the conservative ideal of lower taxation. The concept itself is inherently unfair to the successful; it is inconceivable that a poor person could be expected to pay as much as someone who is wealthy. There is a strong argument, that I am absolutely in agreement with, that the concept of taxation is an imperative for a civilized society, regardless of its necessarily unfair effect. There is also a strong argument, again which I agree with, that it behooves and advances a society as a whole when there is a social safety net to combat poverty. The whole issue is a balancing act.
The point, IMO, where the train wheels cease to make contact with the track, comes when illegality is used to compensate for legal actions.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I like the idea, it's great when our laws are enforced but it's pretty bad when we have to make new laws in order to enforce ones that are already on the books. Sad that this is necessary, now if only this kind of thing could spread to politicians lying to their constituents. Being honest should be made into law, at least when it comes to politicians because they affect everyone else with their choices. Threaten jail time to politicians who are blatantly caught lying.
Read the bill, and the lawmakers reasons and the following can be stated:
It would give the federal government the legal door to abuse and go after anyone or any town, county, city or state at will.
In the past, if we look at history, while the states did defy federal law, it never went to that extreme, and the federal government was very cautious on how it proceeded, going to the barest minimum, but nothing like that.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: TheRedneck
It'll never pass.
Politicians never punish themselves.
Sadly.
I remember when the right wing used to hate big government and defend states rights!