Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Article 1 section 8:
[Congress has the power]
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Building
Article 4, Section 3 Clause 2,
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Federal Government doesn't have any right to just grab land. Once a state becomes a state the land in that state belongs to the people of the state. The Federal Government can purchase from the state a parcel of land for particular purposes like Army or Navy bases. Congress is charged with maintaining an Army and Navy and it is reasonable for them to need bases.
Article 4, section 3, clause 2 seems to give the Federal government unlimited ability to take control of any land that they want but that seems arbitrary to Article 1 section 8 and the 10th amendment.
So how do you reconcile it? You have to look at the intentions of the founders. The best source for that is the Federalist Papers and the Convention Debates keeping in mind that the Constitution was seen as creating a stronger more powerful Federal Government as opposed to what they had with the limited power granted by the Articles of Confederation. It was recognized that the A of C were not good enough, that we needed something more. Sure some were fine with the limited power but the debates began anyway and they agreed on something better in the end. The one theme that is consistent is that the founders were always in favor of the States and the people having control except where it was absolutely necessary for the Federal Government to have control.(such as coining money, raising armies etc...) In other words the founders were primarily interested in limited government and diffusing federal authority over the states for the protection of individual liberty.
Madison writes in Federalist Paper 45 “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… The [federal powers] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce… the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Does Bundy have a point? Maybe so. Is he the first person to resort to civil disobedience to make that point? Absolutely not. From the Boston Tea Party and Whiskey Rebellion to Civil Rights, Abortion, Occupy movements and 420 Smoke-ins we have a history of making statements, and affecting changes, with acts of civil disobedience.
I for one have a huge objection to the BLM having the ability to bring the kind of firepower that they did. Is there anyone here that can justify that? Does it not concern you that a Federal Bureaucratic Agency can just bring an army of guys to your doorstep like that? I mean think about that for a minute. The fact that they have that ability in the first place is disturbing yet we don't even debate that. We've just come to accept it.
Is that consistent with "the powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” ?
Who else has that kind of firepower? The IRS? The FAA? If I want to start a radio station and spew anti government propaganda is the FCC going to show up with 200 men in full body armor and automatic weapons to shut me down? What about the EPA when I choose not to pay the carbon tax they impose on the air I breath?
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy said over the weekend, according to the Times. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
About the same way I feel about Biden saying "they're gonna put y'all back in chains".
Probably not the best choice of words.
But I think the comparison Bundy was trying to make was that many blacks while technically freed from slavery are still enslaved by a Federal Government that would buy their votes with subsidies.
In the context of individual liberty, is a man that is controlled by another individual any worse off than one who has had his very existence made dependent upon the government?
It's kinda like holding a guy's head in the toilet and telling him you'll let him up for a breath if he'll just take your food stamps. Then, once he has taken the food stamps to save his life you hold over his head the fact that he took food stamps from you and is now somehow beholden to you for you saving his life.
First we brought you Jon Stewart's initial salvo against Clive Bundy and Sean Hannity. Next we had Sean Hannity's response. Now Jon's response to Sean's counter.
First we brought you Jon Stewart's initial salvo against Clive Bundy and Sean Hannity. Next we had Sean Hannity's response. Now Jon's response to Sean's counter.
First we brought you Jon Stewart's initial salvo against Clive Bundy and Sean Hannity. Next we had Sean Hannity's response. Now Jon's response to Sean's counter.
“They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton,” Bundy said over the weekend, according to the Times. “And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”
About the same way I feel about Biden saying "they're gonna put y'all back in chains".
Probably not the best choice of words.
But I think the comparison Bundy was trying to make was that many blacks while technically freed from slavery are still enslaved by a Federal Government that would buy their votes with subsidies.
In the context of individual liberty, is a man that is controlled by another individual any worse off than one who has had his very existence made dependent upon the government?
It's kinda like holding a guy's head in the toilet and telling him you'll let him up for a breath if he'll just take your food stamps. Then, once he has taken the food stamps to save his life you hold over his head the fact that he took food stamps from you and is now somehow beholden to you for you saving his life.
But I think the comparison Bundy was trying to make was that many blacks while technically freed from slavery are still enslaved by a Federal Government that would buy their votes with subsidies.
We are all enslaved by vote buyers. Try taking away Medicare from old folks. Try taking away the home mortgage deduction from the rich and middle class. Try cutting unneeded military bases from the military. No different reaction than trying to cut welfare from the poor.
They will all turn on you and vote for folks who promise to keep them intact. Bundy is no different from those he despises. It just took his seemingly racist comments for some to see this fact.
How do you Bundy supporters feel about him now it is known he is a pro slavery raciest?
The very word slavery is repugnant to most Americans. But what would happen if the president announced that all recipients of Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ect all government programs would seize receiving those benefits starting on the first of the month?
Nice straw man argument. Was it like when they cut off unemployment benefits that the recipients would get off their ass and go to work? Did the unemployment numbers fall?
. But what would happen if the president announced that all recipients of Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ect all government programs would seize receiving those benefits starting on the first of the month?
Jim
What would happen?
They will all turn on you and vote for folks who promise to keep them intact.
We are all enslaved by vote buyers. Try taking away Medicare from old folks. Try taking away the home mortgage deduction from the rich and middle class. Try cutting unneeded military bases from the military. No different reaction than trying to cut welfare from the poor.
The very word slavery is repugnant to most Americans. But what would happen if the president announced that all recipients of Welfare, Food Stamps, WIC ect all government programs would seize receiving those benefits starting on the first of the month?
Jim
Why, where cjohnny54(cjohn)$ and sperm?
your tax payer assisted by certain member in congress...
They will all turn on you and vote for folks who promise to keep them intact.
We are all enslaved by vote buyers. Try taking away Medicare from old folks. Try taking away the home mortgage deduction from the rich and middle class. Try cutting unneeded military bases from the military. No different reaction than trying to cut welfare from the poor.
You missed the point. Their reaction would be pure panic and they would resort to looting and pillaging to survive. That means the "Haves" in society would have to contend with violent desperate people. We have 47 million people on welfare in this country that's a lot of pissed off motherfuckers.
