It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I would love to have 50 countries within our borders.
At one time "state" was synonymous with "country." The State of Virginia, the State of North Carolina, etc, basically meant the sovereign country of Virginia, the sovereign country of North Carolina.
The Articles of Confederation were even better than the Constitution imo. In history class they teach you that the Articles of Confederation were an inefficient system, but what they really mean is that the feds had so much trouble trying to bully the states that they just had to come up with a way to exert more power over them.
Patrick Henry was an anti-federalist. Many many other founding fathers were also anti-federalists, stood firmly against the Constitution, and REMEMBER PEOPLE it was only passed AFTER the Bill of Rights was included, and the 10th amendment guaranteed that the federal government would be very limited in its powers. Before that -- it was a no-go.
In the end, we are a UNION of states, not a group of states in a union. Splitting semantic hairs, but the Federal government trumps everything. Besides, the new healthcare LAW is exactly that. A law. So far, I haven't seen the death squads that Palin promised would haul away our grandparents. I'm not saying that it's a sterling and 100% perfect piece of legislation. But the way things were (in healthcare) was TRAGICALLY WRONG.
States don't have nullification power.
If you have states deciding what federal laws do and don't apply, you have a confederation, not a union.
Don't like it? Hold a Constitutional Convention and start from scratch.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by mothershipzeta
Then, quite a few southern states (the usual suspects when cries of 'states rights' are heard) refused to ratify the 21st Amendment to repeal the 18th. North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska, Kansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Georgia either rejected or just didn't get around to ratifying the 21st.
You know why? Not because the people themselves wanted to keep it illegal to drink alcohol. Because the states were making bank off of all the new crime they were fighting. Al Capone wasn't the only one capitalizing on prohibition. The courts did too through all kinds of legal fines they were slapping on people.
Well I'm pretty sure everyone on here has heard my thoughts on revolution in the United States, so I won't bore you again. I will say though that nullification is at least a potentially peaceful way to enact change, so for that OP, you get a star. Thanks for not just being another armchair Rambo, well done.
I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one. As such, I am wondering, and please all do chime in as I am actually genuinely curious here: Does anyone who wants a nullification or revolution or secession scenario believe in taxation?
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I will say though that it seems the majority of the people whom want a different system than currently exists in the US want a radically different one.
Is re-affirming the 10th amendment really that radical?
It's simple. Any federal law that isn't a Constitutional amendment, is at the states' individual discretion to enforce.
Unless I'm in the minority here and most people are saying something completely different.
NOPE, that pretty much covers the argument in a nutshell.
Originally posted by links234
The beauty of the constitution; where in the 9th amendment it says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I would interpret this as saying that, even if it's not in the constitution, it still is constitutional if the people wish it to be so. If the people, represented by congress, want any of those that you listed or any that you did not, then it's constitutional...simply because the 9th amendment says so.