State's Rights
Feb. 11th, 2005 10:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThat pesky 10th Amendment. The one the Right says the left ignores, and the Left says the right abuses.
I'm pretty fond of it. It says the Feds can't come in and poke their nose in local business, without showing a federal case for it.
What bothers me at the moment is the amazing attempts on the part of this adminstration to trample them. To consolidate power in the hands of the feds.
Calif. passed a law allowing for medicinal uses of marijuana. The feds have tried to strongarm the state into refusing to allow the law to work.
Ore. passed a law allowing for legally assisted suicide, with safefguards. The Feds have gone after it.
The new holder of the office of AG has filed a suit against a church in New Mexico, because he/the administration, doesn't like the psychedelic tea they use (it's not peyote, but some Brazilian plant). That one is the closest to a federal case, because at least the seeds had to be imported.
Marriage, ought to be local, but the Feds passed a law (under Clinton) to make it a Federal Case. That, it seems, wasn't good enough, so they want to pass an amendment.
This crap was big under Nixon, but better handled. To save gas they passed the 55 mph speed limit. A state could opt out, but it would lose higway funds. Ariz. got around it by making speeding, for the first 15 mph a "wasting of natural resources" violation. Which meant it wasn't points against your license. The fine was also fairly small. They could, if the cop wanted, make it speeding, which had higher fines. This usually was done to out of staters, and those who were doing something stupid, as well as speeding (and yes, that seems a 14th amendment violation to me, but if you didn't know about the law, how were you to know you'd just been unequally protected?).
In '82 they did the same thing to make the drinking age a federal standard. A state could leave it at 18, but the feds would hold back highway funds. And still insist on the state maintaining the Interstates they had.
Now we have them trying to make driver's licensing a federal issue.
This is more subtle, just. If a state allows a non-citizen of the US to have a license, there are federal requirements. If they allow illegal aliens to take the test, and legally drive, then no one from said state will be allowed to get on airplanes, enter federal buildings (which ought to be amusing) or, in general, do anything where the Feds demand an ID.
Which is nonsense. James Sensenbrenner (R-WIS), who represents a State which allows illegals to get licenses, says this is to prevent terrorists from attacking us. Nonesense. They all had legal ID, passports (which would work just fine to get on a plane) and visas; which would, under his plan allow one to get a driver's license, and thus onto a plane, into a federal building; and all other such places where the feds demand identification.
I'm still in the army because this sort of strongarm tactic isn't allowed. When I was younger, and more foolish I made a mistake. Came to work hungover. I wasn't fit for duty (and we were short staffed, so I thought I had to come in. These days I know better). My Bn Commander happened to show that day. He had a fit.
Told my Company Commander to give me an Article 15. This isn't a court martial, but it would have hurt my career. My CO told him she'd look into it. Now, the fact of the matter is that, for that chunk of time, I wasn't, tecnically, in his command; so it was all moot (that however is/was vague enough, and I inexperienced enough it wouldn't have mattered, and I'd have taken the 15). But, unless he was personally willing to do it (nominally in his purview) he couldn't make her do it. Bluster all he wanted, but in the end it was like trying to sheepherd the wind.
My Plt. Sgt. stepped in, told her no, this wasn't worth that and he'd counsel me. I got a good talking to (in that it I learned things, not just got chastised, which I did, but not much) and was told the lack of judgement (good intent, crappy execution) would put my chance of promotion on hold for a year or so.
A sad day when the Army has better protections for its members than the Constitution seems to have for the States.
But it's worse than that. Another provision of the law gives the Dept. of Homeland Security the right to waive all laws it finds to be an impediment to building a fence on the border.
Ponder that, a Dept. of the Gov't being giving carte blanche, "The bearer of this has done what he has done for the good of the state." All laws. Void, by administrative fiat.
Angels and ministers of grace defend us.
I'm pretty fond of it. It says the Feds can't come in and poke their nose in local business, without showing a federal case for it.
What bothers me at the moment is the amazing attempts on the part of this adminstration to trample them. To consolidate power in the hands of the feds.
Calif. passed a law allowing for medicinal uses of marijuana. The feds have tried to strongarm the state into refusing to allow the law to work.
Ore. passed a law allowing for legally assisted suicide, with safefguards. The Feds have gone after it.
The new holder of the office of AG has filed a suit against a church in New Mexico, because he/the administration, doesn't like the psychedelic tea they use (it's not peyote, but some Brazilian plant). That one is the closest to a federal case, because at least the seeds had to be imported.
Marriage, ought to be local, but the Feds passed a law (under Clinton) to make it a Federal Case. That, it seems, wasn't good enough, so they want to pass an amendment.
This crap was big under Nixon, but better handled. To save gas they passed the 55 mph speed limit. A state could opt out, but it would lose higway funds. Ariz. got around it by making speeding, for the first 15 mph a "wasting of natural resources" violation. Which meant it wasn't points against your license. The fine was also fairly small. They could, if the cop wanted, make it speeding, which had higher fines. This usually was done to out of staters, and those who were doing something stupid, as well as speeding (and yes, that seems a 14th amendment violation to me, but if you didn't know about the law, how were you to know you'd just been unequally protected?).
In '82 they did the same thing to make the drinking age a federal standard. A state could leave it at 18, but the feds would hold back highway funds. And still insist on the state maintaining the Interstates they had.
Now we have them trying to make driver's licensing a federal issue.
This is more subtle, just. If a state allows a non-citizen of the US to have a license, there are federal requirements. If they allow illegal aliens to take the test, and legally drive, then no one from said state will be allowed to get on airplanes, enter federal buildings (which ought to be amusing) or, in general, do anything where the Feds demand an ID.
Which is nonsense. James Sensenbrenner (R-WIS), who represents a State which allows illegals to get licenses, says this is to prevent terrorists from attacking us. Nonesense. They all had legal ID, passports (which would work just fine to get on a plane) and visas; which would, under his plan allow one to get a driver's license, and thus onto a plane, into a federal building; and all other such places where the feds demand identification.
I'm still in the army because this sort of strongarm tactic isn't allowed. When I was younger, and more foolish I made a mistake. Came to work hungover. I wasn't fit for duty (and we were short staffed, so I thought I had to come in. These days I know better). My Bn Commander happened to show that day. He had a fit.
Told my Company Commander to give me an Article 15. This isn't a court martial, but it would have hurt my career. My CO told him she'd look into it. Now, the fact of the matter is that, for that chunk of time, I wasn't, tecnically, in his command; so it was all moot (that however is/was vague enough, and I inexperienced enough it wouldn't have mattered, and I'd have taken the 15). But, unless he was personally willing to do it (nominally in his purview) he couldn't make her do it. Bluster all he wanted, but in the end it was like trying to sheepherd the wind.
My Plt. Sgt. stepped in, told her no, this wasn't worth that and he'd counsel me. I got a good talking to (in that it I learned things, not just got chastised, which I did, but not much) and was told the lack of judgement (good intent, crappy execution) would put my chance of promotion on hold for a year or so.
A sad day when the Army has better protections for its members than the Constitution seems to have for the States.
But it's worse than that. Another provision of the law gives the Dept. of Homeland Security the right to waive all laws it finds to be an impediment to building a fence on the border.
Ponder that, a Dept. of the Gov't being giving carte blanche, "The bearer of this has done what he has done for the good of the state." All laws. Void, by administrative fiat.
Angels and ministers of grace defend us.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-02-11 09:13 pm (UTC)grrrrr....
What the Freepers think of 418 is...informative.
Date: 2005-02-11 11:31 pm (UTC)I accidently brought them up when I was googling for general net reaction - or if nay - on the bill, and checked it out.
As with the generally negative reaction from the Libertarian-Meocon sector to the VA miscarriage proposal, there are a lot of them who are wigged by it. But they seriously don't Get It. The only thing that bothers them is whether or not they're all going to have to have standardized IDs with chips in them. The idea of going all SSSR, "Let me see your papers," freaks some of them.
Others, however, are showing themselves living embodiment of Franklin's Equation [(+S)+(-L)=-(SL)] and of Lewis' comment that the behavior that citizens of democracies like is not necessarily productive for the continued survival of said democracy.
IOW, plenty of them are okay with this, because "9/11 changed everything." The rest of them are fighting over whether or not the bill will require RFID chips and what sort of transmitting power RFID chips have and so on - as if that were the only concern.
And none of them even seems to have noticed the business with the security fence, at least down through the dozens of comments I skimmed, much less the significance of setting all the laws at the whim of an appointed minion of the executive. (Failure of empathy often seems to accompany, as well as to signal, a lack of imagination.)
And while their delusional state is revealed in the people who say things like "my Glock is all the security I'll ever need!" (tell that to David Koresh - oh wait, they can't) the utter lack of both empathy and imagination is also shown in that the only reason they can think of to oppose it is that they will be personally inconvenienced by having to carry internal passports.
They're *just* like the people I went to grade school, middle school and high school with.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 12:05 am (UTC)Thralls for me in Valhalla when that day comes.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 02:36 am (UTC)Not that I think it's likely, but after living in America I certainly understand the justification for gun ownership much better, and why you guys are just different from us silly Europeans in that regard.
Oh, and the whole business with having more maroons running around with delusions of unpopular revolution as well. As long as they stay behind the keyboard, I wish them no harm, but if they ever did decide to revolt ('the freepers are revolting!' 'no change there then'), well, God Speed the US Army, frankly.
On the main issue; one day, someone in the media is going to point out that the Bush administration talks a good fight but doesn't do anything to live up to its conservative credentials. Of course, that will only happen after he's out of office and people sheepishly begin to admit that they might have been a bit foolish to keep asking him to "keep them safe" from an abstract threat without safeguarding their own safety from the government. So, let's say 2050?
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 05:16 am (UTC)The things which can reduce cities (airplanes and artillery) have infrastructure requirements which make them more vulnerable than most people think (take out the fueling centers and airplanes don't work very well).
And, for all that people are, justifiably afraid of being shelled, a little bit of cover will save most people in the zone (and rubble is a great insulation against arty, and direct fire).
It would be possible, with a lot of positive spin, to paint the destruction of L.A. as needful, and use it pour encourager les autres, but it would be more likely to backfire, even after several million people were killed.
The hardest part would be getting the Army/Air Force to go along with such a plan.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 06:33 am (UTC)As I've said before (although not here) -- by the time it comes to the point of having to defend yourself against the US Government by force, the US Government will already have devolved to the point where it's no longer recognisable as the institution we know and love and hate. When the ballot box and fourth estate are insufficient, we've already lost and any defense is simply damage limitation. That's why I'm generally against promoting firearms as a defense against the government -- it's too much of a last resort and, I think, takes too much emphasis away from the things we have to do to prevent us having to employ the last resort.
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 06:44 am (UTC)At that point I will hie me to the hills and try to lay low 'til it blows over. If I have to I'll just take my time and we'll hump it to Canada. I ought to be able to rally a large enough group to be safe(ish) and small enough to live off the land and fly under the radar.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 06:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-13 06:52 am (UTC)TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 12:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 05:18 am (UTC)This administration has shown a lack of guts. Faced with disquiet they have knuckled. He/they have yet to use the veto.
They are afraid, so make them worry.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 05:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-02-12 07:30 pm (UTC)He was allowed in for two years on a day pass. Someone leaked him confidential CIA docs about Valerie Plame. He was allowed to use an assumed name. He wasn't going to be able to get a hard pass (which seems to be the effect of his never-ending day pass) because he didn't make a living as a journalist.
So how did he make his living? Who was paying his bills?
They say this was the way it works, but the Pres, as evidenced in the Gaggle notes, asks reporters about their newborn kids, so it's a little disingenous to say, "He was some random joe off the street."
Take stock in Duracell and shine flashlights everywhere.
This ought to be easier than the attacks on Clinton, there's more dirt, and more truth.
TK
no subject
Date: 2005-02-15 08:29 pm (UTC)allowancehighway funding". Either they have the authority to legislate the damn drinking age themselves, or they don't, in which case butt out.