quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

Are there any lefties using made up bull shit smear tactics

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Either way....

Liberal Democrats have been caught flat footed

quote:



How Real Is The Fear?


The prospect of a serious judicial rehabilitation of the Tenth Amendment is real, though perhaps not immediate.  And change this sweeping is unlikely to come simply because a relative handful of judges and lawyers change their minds on an issue of constitutional interpretation.  A broader change would need to take place in society so that the idea of transferring more activities from Washington to the states appeals to public opinion to the point where presidents appoint judges who share this philosophy, the Senate confirms them, and the new majority begins to set a new direction for the law.

Arguably, we are nearing a zone where something like that could happen.  The apparent Republican front-runner Governor Rick Perry has strong views on the Constitution.  His book Fed Up! Our Fight To Save America From Washington is essentially an essay calling for a return to the concept of a federal government limited to its enumerated powers.  Let unemployment stay above 8 percent through November of 2012 and President Perry could be sending the names of judicial nominees to a Republican Senate. With a couple more allies on the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas could get pretty close to the lava pits of Mount Doom.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The real problem will come if Thomas can figure out how to get the Tenth Amendment back into constitutional thought in a serious way.  The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb.

Damnit, FDD!

We pretty much already got the 2nd Amendment back by stealth!  Now your going to wake the bastards up that we are on target for the 10th! 

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

No, he didnt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The real problem will come if Thomas can figure out how to get the Tenth Amendment back into constitutional thought in a serious way.  The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb.

Damnit, FDD!

We pretty much already got the 2nd Amendment back by stealth!  Now your going to wake the bastards up that we are on target for the 10th! 

LOL. An imaginary Ragnarok, the second amendment hasnt changed since......geez, it was passed, and there were no real threats to it, couple of dipshits, and the 10th historically hasnt been used for much, since the checkbook has the effect of law, don't want to drive 55? No federal highway funding, no problem, that is indeed a states rights issue. Don't want to raise the drinking age to 21? States rights issue, goodbye federal funding.

Yanno, it is the poor southern states that are still at the forefront of that 10th amendment battle, they want their states rights, are they willing to forego the federal monies?

I think that once they have been to that dance with the ribbons in their hair, they aint gonna wanna shuck that party dress again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn



Of course they are the most important paragraphs to you, mr. dead-cat-face, being as that they present the most far flung breach of anything to do with reality, and spin a most creative rendition of mankind's dive into the abyss as the latest sunflower.

As always.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

The real problem will come if Thomas can figure out how to get the Tenth Amendment back into constitutional thought in a serious way.  The Second Amendment was a constitutional landmine for the left; the Tenth is a nuclear bomb.

Damnit, FDD!

We pretty much already got the 2nd Amendment back by stealth!  Now your going to wake the bastards up that we are on target for the 10th! 

LOL. An imaginary Ragnarok, the second amendment hasnt changed since......geez, it was passed, and there were no real threats to it, couple of dipshits, and the 10th historically hasnt been used for much, since the checkbook has the effect of law, don't want to drive 55? No federal highway funding, no problem, that is indeed a states rights issue. Don't want to raise the drinking age to 21? States rights issue, goodbye federal funding.

Yanno, it is the poor southern states that are still at the forefront of that 10th amendment battle, they want their states rights, are they willing to forego the federal monies?

I think that once they have been to that dance with the ribbons in their hair, they aint gonna wanna shuck that party dress again.

No, the words of the amendments haven't changed: just the interpretation of what they mean.

As far as the 2nd not being changed by the current court ... go tell that to Chicago and DC.

As far as federal monies and the 10th ... of course they are going to take it.  It's green mail.  Otherwise, the states are bled through taxes, and receive nothing for it.

But we all know that the issue can't be settled state by state, by an occasional refusal to kowtow to the federal behemoth.  The article was quite clear that going back to the more correct legal interpretation of the 10th won't be easy, and may never occur.  However, it is certainly one way to reign in the ever growing power of government (federal, at least).

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?

The same thing some call Geithner's "fraudulent tax returns"

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?

The same thing some call Geithner's "fraudulent tax returns"

So felonius behavior then. Glad we cleared that up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

So, are we supposed to forget the fact that he fraudulently filed required financial disclosures apparently in an attempt to conceal sources of income?

No, he didnt.

What do you call checking the box that says his wife had no income? For 10 years? In which she made in excess of $500,000?

The same thing some call Geithner's "fraudulent tax returns"

So felonius behavior then. Glad we cleared that up.

Why don't you show us some of your posts condemning Geithner. And it didnt clear up anything, since neither did anything felonious.