Oklahoma

[eulesseagle]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=...mp;pageId=67229

This is real interesting!!!

[Quoner]

Sweet lord - I shudder to think of the books and pamphlets you keep in your bookcase.

[Mean Green 93-98]

I wish more states would make a similar statement. Not just with regard to the immigration issue, but states' rights have generally been trampled upon, while others conveniently make a false appeal to "states' rights" to do whatever they want. Even (strong central government advocate) Alexander Hamilton noted, "The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government." (Federalist No. 9, 1787)

[UNTflyer]

We are a Union of independent states. For far too long we've allowed the federal government to seize rights away from the states, pulling power away from the people and centralizing it in a city of corruption and abhorrent repute.

[Green Mean]

We are a Union of independent states. For far too long we've allowed the federal government to seize rights away from the states, pulling power away from the people and centralizing it in a city of corruption and abhorrent repute.

Well I am not sure if you are serious but the federal goverment always overrules the states rights/laws. Its always been like that.

[UNTflyer]

Well I am not sure if you are serious but the federal goverment always overrules the states rights/laws. Its always been like that.

Check the 10th Amendment.

[emmitt01]

We are a Union of independent states. For far too long we've allowed the federal government to seize rights away from the states, pulling power away from the people and centralizing it in a city of corruption and abhorrent repute.

Damn straight! The southern states didnt want to give up those slaves. Where's my skynard cd?

:-P :-P

[CaribbeanGreen]

Check the 10th Amendment.

Maryland v. McCulloch?

huh, ladies?? huh????? who wants some???

[GoMeanGreen1999]

We are a Union of independent states. For far too long we've allowed the federal government to seize rights away from the states, pulling power away from the people and centralizing it in a city of corruption and abhorrent repute.

Don't worry, I am sure our new president will change this too - after all he is going to change everything.

[Censored by Laurie]

Maryland v. McCulloch?

huh, ladies?? huh????? who wants some???

Best post in weeks

[Cerebus]

Maryland v. McCulloch?

huh, ladies?? huh????? who wants some???

Look CG, I don't think I can allow an actual fact based post to exist in the Non UNT Sports forum, please limit the use of reason in the future or I'll have to ban you.

[CaribbeanGreen]

Look CG, I don't think I can allow an actual fact based post to exist in the Non UNT Sports forum, please limit the use of reason in the future or I'll have to ban you.

Sigh. I was just trying to make some panties drop.

Fine. You're the boss. Back to lurking around, waiting for someone to post what stormfront.org thinks about The Vizza/Dodge situation.

Edited June 18, 2008 by CaribbeanGreen

[MeanGreenEngineer]

Sigh. I was just trying to make some panties drop.

Fine. You're the boss. Back to lurking around, waiting for someone to post what stormfront.org thinks about The Vizza/Dodge situation.

I'll save you the time.

The thread was titled "Mean Green Quarterback or PAPIST THREAT?!".

The thread was mainly ranting about how the spread offense was part of the jewish conspiracy, then something about how the Italians where taking all the jobs from Americans.

[UNTflyer]

Maryland v. McCulloch?

huh, ladies?? huh????? who wants some???

McCulloch v. Maryland states that there are implied rights that support the enumerated rights. It wasn't a bad decision, but it opened the door for Congress to claim more powers. Now we have Congress dictating school curriculum or they cut funding to states. Others in Congress want to practiaclly nationalize the health care and oil industries. It has gone practically unchecked for almost 200 years, and the purpose of the ruling has been lost.

"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." -Chief Justice Marshall, McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Edited June 18, 2008 by UNTflyer

[Cerebus]

Flyer, You are minimizing Maryland v. McCulloch.

* It iestablished the current accepted and applied standard for the Necessary-and-proper clause (Article One, section 8, clause 18).

* It establish the Constitution grants IMPLIED POWERS to Congress, so that it can implement its EXPRESS POWERS.

* It established state action may not impeded the Constitutional exercise of power by the Federal Gov't.

I think you are also misconstruing Chief Justice Marshall's intent.

Marshall's decision was based on three main argument.

1) The people created a social contract via the Constitutional Convention that binds their state sovereignties to the government, by the consent of the people, and gives primacy to the federal government.

“If any one proposition could command the universal assent of mankind, we might expect it would be this– that the government of the Union, though limited in its power, is supreme within its sphere of action. ”

2. It would be impossible to list all the means and ways to implement express powers, Congress therefore has implied powers to implement its express powers. Maryland v. McCulloch was a case about a bank, and even though the word bank isn't found in the Constitution, the expressly implied Taxing and Spending clause can be used under Neccessay and Proper Clause to implement such a bank.

3. Since the Necessay and Proper clause is listed with the POWERS of congress, and not with its LIMITATIONS, then Marshall rejected the states narrow interpretation of Necessary and Proper clause because such a reading of many of the enumerated powers would render those powers useless. So, necessary implied ALL various procedures for implementing the express powers.

“Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional. ”

In other words, Congress has implied powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution, and that not all federal laws are required to be Necessary and Proper, Federal laws that enacted pursuant to one of the express powers do not need to comply themselves with the Necessary and Proper clause.

"{The N&P clause} purport to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government. It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted."

Marshall establishes a VERY wide scope of power, that was his reasoned intent. His whole point was that the N&P clause, the Taxing&Spending clause and the Commerce clause establish very wide and ranging powers for the Congress. How ranging? Congress could force desegregation of intra state hotels and restaurants because all though there where not DIRECTLY related to interstate commerce they no doubt had some effect upon it.

So you may disagree with Marshall's ruling, its not really valid to say he held a very limited view on the scope of these clauses and others have widened it. He believed it was a very wide scope.

[Green Mean]

Check the 10th Amendment.

yeah and? It does not matter what states do...regardless of what happens the federal law ALWAYS overrules states law if they decide to enforce it. Its a non-issue.

[Baby Arm!]

How ranging? Congress could force desegregation of intra state hotels and restaurants because all though there where not DIRECTLY related to interstate commerce they no doubt had some effect upon it.

Could? It already happened years ago. I forget the specifics but there was some barbecue joint in Alabama that was segregated, It claimed the public accomadation discrimination laws didn't apply to them because they did a local business, they weren't engaged in interstate commerce so Congress couldn't regulate them under the commerce clause. Well, the ketchup on the tables was manufactured and bottled in another state, even though the business' clientel was entirely local, the Court ruled they were engaged in interstate commerce because they purchased supplies manufactured in another state.

[CaribbeanGreen]

That's it, Cerbs.... you set the standard, and now if you don't institute an immediate lifetime ban on yourself for THAT rational, though-out rant of yours, I'm invoking the ghost of John C. Calhoun's crazy hair and seceding REAL hard, Palmetto style....

Edited June 18, 2008 by CaribbeanGreen

[CaribbeanGreen]

Could? It already happened years ago. I forget the specifics but there was some barbecue joint in Alabama that was segregated, It claimed the public accomadation discrimination laws didn't apply to them because they did a local business, they weren't engaged in interstate commerce so Congress couldn't regulate them under the commerce clause. Well, the ketchup on the tables was manufactured and bottled in another state, even though the business' clientel was entirely local, the Court ruled they were engaged in interstate commerce because they purchased supplies manufactured in another state.

Yep. This happened to the Heart of Atlanta Motel in Atlanta as well, I believe in 1964 (?) The owner, an attorney no less, was refusing equal services to blacks and sued the U.S. for forcing equal access upon him..... another important case upholding the intent of McCulloch.

I believe the Warren court ruled to the effect that it wasn't enough to have all hard goods made in Georgia, because the motel sat near two federal interstates and took in out of state guests, thereby affecting interstate commerce.

Lock up your daughters, gentlemen... I can't control this kind of sex appeal.

Edited June 18, 2008 by CaribbeanGreen

[Censored by Laurie]

Flyer, You are minimizing Maryland v. McCulloch.

* It iestablished the current accepted and applied standard for the Necessary-and-proper clause (Article One, section 8, clause 18).

* It establish the Constitution grants IMPLIED POWERS to Congress, so that it can implement its EXPRESS POWERS.

* It established state action may not impeded the Constitutional exercise of power by the Federal Gov't.

I think you are also misconstruing Chief Justice Marshall's intent.

Marshall's decision was based on three main argument.

1) The people created a social contract via the Constitutional Convention that binds their state sovereignties to the government, by the consent of the people, and gives primacy to the federal government.

2. It would be impossible to list all the means and ways to implement express powers, Congress therefore has implied powers to implement its express powers. Maryland v. McCulloch was a case about a bank, and even though the word bank isn't found in the Constitution, the expressly implied Taxing and Spending clause can be used under Neccessay and Proper Clause to implement such a bank.

3. Since the Necessay and Proper clause is listed with the POWERS of congress, and not with its LIMITATIONS, then Marshall rejected the states narrow interpretation of Necessary and Proper clause because such a reading of many of the enumerated powers would render those powers useless. So, necessary implied ALL various procedures for implementing the express powers.

In other words, Congress has implied powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution, and that not all federal laws are required to be Necessary and Proper, Federal laws that enacted pursuant to one of the express powers do not need to comply themselves with the Necessary and Proper clause.

Marshall establishes a VERY wide scope of power, that was his reasoned intent. His whole point was that the N&P clause, the Taxing&Spending clause and the Commerce clause establish very wide and ranging powers for the Congress. How ranging? Congress could force desegregation of intra state hotels and restaurants because all though there where not DIRECTLY related to interstate commerce they no doubt had some effect upon it.

So you may disagree with Marshall's ruling, its not really valid to say he held a very limited view on the scope of these clauses and others have widened it. He believed it was a very wide scope.

Preston Brooks wants to speak with you about states rights

Edited June 18, 2008 by Censored by Laurie

[CaribbeanGreen]

Preston Brooks wants to speak with you about states rights

Well played, sir. I'll be the Sumner to your Brooks anytime.

Go Cocks!

[Cerebus]

Could? It already happened years ago. I forget the specifics but there was some barbecue joint in Alabama that was segregated, It claimed the public accomadation discrimination laws didn't apply to them because they did a local business, they weren't engaged in interstate commerce so Congress couldn't regulate them under the commerce clause. Well, the ketchup on the tables was manufactured and bottled in another state, even though the business' clientel was entirely local, the Court ruled they were engaged in interstate commerce because they purchased supplies manufactured in another state.

Yes, I know it happened. I meant it could and did enforce that.

[Cerebus]

Preston Brooks wants to speak with you about states rights

I carry a bigger cane.

Tell Congressman Brooks his second can contact mine.

(John Denver is my second in case anyone asks)

[UNTflyer]

Cerebus, I agree with almost all your points. Certainly the laws of the federal government are supreme to those of the states. But I disagree that Marshall's intent was to expand the scope of the implied powers beyond those that enable Congress to execute its enumerated powers.

"We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion, with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution, which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it, in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

In this particular case, the creation of the bank was neccesary to perform an enumerated power: collect taxes. We can't very well have Congress stuffing money under their matresses. My point is that this ruling has been taken far beyond its intent. I don't believe Marshall intended for Congress to have the power to pass laws funding the following:

• $10,000,000 for the Tuscaloosa, AL downtown revitalization
• $250,000 for the University of Alaska for the 50th anniversary celebration of Alaska's statehood
• $1,000,000 for mobile computers for Wasilla, Alaska police cars (that's $86,000 per police car)
• $2,565,000 for 33 abstinence education programs and $950,000 for the Please Touch Museum in Philadelphia
• $35,000 for a weight loss program for 1,000 federal employees at the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C.

Are these really programs that Marshall intended for Congress to fund? What enumerated power do these funding laws enable the Congress to excercise? Under the Interstate Commerce clause... technically, yes you can say they impacy Interstate commerce in some way. But if you are willing to concede that then you must be willing to concede that anything and everything can be regulated, taxed, and funded.

For every dollar we give the feds, we lose a little more control and a little more freedom. Government exists to serve the People... we do not exist to fund the government.

Edited June 18, 2008 by UNTflyer

[Baby Arm!]

This thread reminding anybody else of Dr. Bunch's Constitutional Law class. I loved that class (enough to take both semesters!). Wonder if he's still at UNT?

Ahhh memories...