The amendment to the Constitution that turned Senators into
Congressmen-At-Large. Prior to that idiotic move they were selected by
their home State governments who in turn were elected by the population. As
Senators they were responsible primarily to the home State and represented
that State directly while the House of Representatives represented the local
areas and the citizens directly. The States at that time had effective
legislative power over the federal government since their were only two
Senators per State. Absent that power to check the federal government the
states lost control and the wisdome of the Federalist Papers came true.
Completely constitutional all the way. The second thing the federal
government did to assume complete control was gather up the purse strings.
Not just the obvious income tax but over time control over all financial
issues, banking laws, insurance, you name it. The third point is regulatory
powers over everything, no exceptions. One Senator even stated it didn't
matter what state he was from, he was part of the federal government. And
last that I'll mention but not finally, the ability to ignore the 10th
Amendment derived from this same fundamental change AS DID the curious
notion that a Supreme Court ruling is the final say so. Under the old checks
and balances system no single part nor all parts of the federal government
could rule within themselves or over the states. A little applied
gradualism and a lot of red herrings, presto! One day you wake up and find
it ain't the party of Roosevelt anymore. Not hard when there are zero
checks and balances in place.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
news
What exactly caused this? Name the legislation and I'll certainly look
into
it.

Gilligan

"Michael" wrote in message
...
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates
powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The
People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That
has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government.
The
states have no power whatsoever and in point of fact serve no useful
function anymore. They are leftover and for that matter highly
inefficient
historical curiousities. What you are refering to is the way things
used
to
be before the checks and balances system was dismantled. The portion of
the
Constitution you refer to was amended about 90 years ago. The word
state
is
now splled with a small 's'.

Think I'm wrong? HOW then would a state, such as colorado compel the
Federal Government to do anything?

He was a pusher?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:9iwqd.243004$9b.190902@edtnps84...

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:

Jesus liked wine.

He wasn't addicted.

He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his
book.

CM

Overproof wrote:

"Horvath" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:


Jesus liked wine.

He wasn't addicted.


He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his
book.


He wrote a book?

Cheers

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:

"Horvath" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:


Jesus liked wine.

He wasn't addicted.


He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over his
book.


He wrote a book?

I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was
actually written by ghost writer

CM

More than one, and the translations are many and conflicting.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:CByqd.199960$df2.130059@edtnps89...

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:

"Horvath" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:


Jesus liked wine.

He wasn't addicted.


He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over
his book.


He wrote a book?

I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was
actually written by ghost writer

CM

"Overproof" wrote in message
news:CByqd.199960$df2.130059@edtnps89...

"Nav" wrote in message
...


Overproof wrote:

"Horvath" wrote in message
...

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 18:08:57 GMT, "Scout"
wrote this crap:


Jesus liked wine.

He wasn't addicted.


He was brewing it and passing it around..... it's mentioned all over
his book.


He wrote a book?

I believe it was described as a definitive book .... but I think it was
actually written by ghost writer

a holy spirit writer?
scout

"Michael" wrote
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. ....

This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal.

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 10:32:25 -0500, "Vito" wrote:

"Michael" wrote
That is left to the States. The Constitution limits and delegates powers
to
the Federal Government. Those powers that aren't are left to The People
and
the States respectively.


Where did you ever get such foolishness as the above statement? That has
been gone, finished, zipped, zeroed, nada'd, goose egged for many many
decades. The states can do nothing without permission from and in
compliance with the rules and regulations of the federal government. ....

This is only true because the federal government is a treasonous criminal.

yep, and because after the civil war states were made aware of the
consequences of opposing the government usurpation of their powers.

add to that the ignorance of most of my fellow countrymen about the
appropriate role of government in a constitutional republic.

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
Horvath wrote in message
. ..
On 25 Nov 2004 14:10:03 -0800, (Joe) wrote
this crap:

BULL****! Ive seen it all from junkies ......


And you think that stuff should be legal?

Is was not legal(except the drinking) and it all happened. You think
laws are going to stop it?

Why in the hell should a tax payer pay 35,000.00 a year to house some
stupid fool that got caught with a bag of weed? I rather give the 35K
to an old person that needs it, or some cancer patient that needs it .....

Second that. And that's the half of it. The vast majority of crime is drug
related - addicts robbing and killing to support their habits and dealers
fighting over turf. It was the same with booze during prohibition but now
whoever hears of winos mugging people for a $2 bottle of wine. Legalize
drugs and addicts will still kill themselves but prolly no faster than now
and they wouldn't have to rob or kill innocent people after a $500/day habit
became a $5/day habit.

Cop I know disagreed til the NARCs called them to a hostage situation. The
mob had sent a hit man to kill a local dealer. The negotiator cut a deal and
when the hitter came out a sniper shot him in the heart. Didn't stop him
from blowing one cop's head off with a pump gage, turning and shooting two
others legs out from under them, then turning on my buddy trying to rack
another round ... but not quite making it. My buddy got to empty his
partner's locker and take his effects to the man's wife and kids! We now
agree - saving these people from themselves isn't worth a single dead LEO,
or anybody else. That's why I want drugs legalized.

"John Cairns" wrote
Well I would think that most believe just the taking makes it immoral,

Why would you think that? IIRC most Americans (at least) have experimented
with illegal drugs.