Come join us for The Peoples Day Rally

[PennyQuilts]

I think Joel228 is on the money.

[mugofbeer]

I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.

I can't say that I agree with the phasing out of Social Security because it would be completely changing the rules that some have lived by for their entire lives. Should anyone count on SS as their sole means of income after retirement, God no! Should it be there as a supplement to savings, absolutely and that is what it was designed to be. Should there be a point where it should be phased out? Absolutely, if someone has $5million in the bank, there is no need in the world for that person to get SS.

Many activities of the Federal Government should be transferred to the states. Some of the departments you mentioned above should be. Social services should be as should programs pertaining to social issues - such as abortion. These should not be Federal issues but state issues. OK is not California or Mass. If California or Mass want to allow and pay for abortions, let them. If OK doesn't want to, it shouldn't be forced to. This is a big country and big differences in opinions and values.

Issues of regulation that are national issues, should be regulated nationally. Financial services is and should be nationally regulated. Insurance is state regulated but should be nationally regulated since it is a national issue.

[Bunty]

You slavers still havent articulated why you are so afraid of the teabaggers. Why are you all ducking the question?

Who are slavers? Is is someone who pays taxes without protesting it?

[Bunty]

Your infatuation and hatred toward them betrays your line that they are irrelevant to you. You and the rest of the slavers are afraid of them. You show nothing but contempt for anyone who refuses to bow to the state and chooses personal liberty over bondage to authority. Every comment you make, every thread you start, every response you make just further proves my point.

As a comparison, think of the Westboro Baptist Church gang of imbeciles. Here is a group that gathers regularly to spew vile ignorant hateful garbage... they are truly worthy of your contempt. Yet, nary a word from the slaver gang.

But when a group of people gather whose basic message is "We support personal liberty, lower taxes, smaller government, and responsible government spending".... oh HELL NO. The whole gang of you go falling all over yourselves in a rush to demonize them.

Why the disparity? Why are you so much more offended by the idea of FREEDOM than the putrid intolerant filth that the Westboro's spew? Why are you so much more threatened by it?

Nevermind the fact that pointing out a handful of morons out of hundreds of thousands is not very intelligent way to characters are large and varied group of individuals. Hell, I could cherry pick from the countless idiotic and ignorant statements that you, ronronnie, gmwise, okanacerous, HWTJ, and the rest of your ilk make on a routine basis on this board and put them in a video. Do you know how laughably foolish the lot of you would look?
I mean honestly, do you think that a collective group of people that doesn't know the difference between a right and an entitlement who still can't learn it after being taught repeatedly has any wriggle room to comment on the "ignorance" of anyone else?

lol, Of course, Caboose, I trust you look on quite approvingly of all the obsession there is on here to discredit and ridicule President Obama. Seems like that's what the majority of the thread topics are about. By the way, have you written any of your legislators lately? It might be time better spent than bitching on here.

[PennyQuilts]

Who are slavers? Is is someone who pays taxes without protesting it?

I suspect he means people who are taken care of by the government and in so doing, sacrifice their freedom for the privilege. It is quite an insult because it contrasts slaves who went into bondage against their will with those who go willingly and enslave their fellow citizens on the way.

[rcjunkie]

lol, Of course, Caboose, I trust you look on quite approvingly of all the obsession there is on here to discredit and ridicule President Obama. Seems like that's what the majority of the thread topics are about. By the way, have you written any of your legislators lately? It might be time better spent than bitching on here.

Obama needs no help in this matter, he's doing a fine job all by himself.

[Caboose]

I suspect he means people who are taken care of by the government and in so doing, sacrifice their freedom for the privilege. It is quite an insult because it contrasts slaves who went into bondage against their will with those who go willingly and enslave their fellow citizens on the way.

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

[Bostonfan]

6 page thread starting as an invitation to a rally, yet not one person on this forum who has posted in this thread actually went. Not sure why that is, but interesting nontheless.

[Luke]

Thought this was worth noting...

On April 15, thousands of activists participated in tax day rallies around the country. Here in Washington, D.C. a large rally was held on the National Mall beneath the shadow of the Washington Monument.

From Politico:

Tea party activists are divided roughly into two camps, according to a new POLITICO/TargetPoint poll: one that's libertarian-minded and largely indifferent to hot-button values issues and another that's culturally conservative and equally concerned about social and fiscal issues.

The poll was conducted over 5 hours during the rally and 457 respondents filled out the questionnaire. The results were generally what many of us would have expected...

The results, however, suggest a distinct fault line that runs through the tea party activist base, characterized by two wings led by the politicians who ranked highest when respondents were asked who "best exemplifies the goals of the tea party movement" - former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), a former GOP presidential candidate.

Palin, who topped the list with 15 percent, speaks for the 43 percent of those polled expressing the distinctly conservative view that government does too much, while also saying that it needs to promote traditional values.

Paul's thinking is reflected by an almost identical 42 percent who said government does too much but should not try to promote any particular set of values - the hallmarks of libertarians. He came in second to Palin with 12 percent.

When asked to choose from a list of candidates for president in 2012, Palin and Paul also finished one-two - with Palin at 15 percent and Paul at 14 percent.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=34773

[Easy180]

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

Screw the unemployed!!!

[Caboose]

Screw the unemployed!!!

Yeah because the ONLY alternative to government dependency is unemployment! Right? What a profound point!

[Bostonfan]

Soonerqueen, are you there???? Are you going to discuss tea bag rally that you were inviting everyone to? Why are you so quiet about this?

[rcjunkie]

6 page thread starting as an invitation to a rally, yet not one person on this forum who has posted in this thread actually went. Not sure why that is, but interesting nontheless.

I went, along with my brother, sister and several members from our Church!!

[Bostonfan]

I went, along with my brother, sister and several members from our Church!!

Why did you go? How was it? Did you get much accomplished?

[Bunty]

Slavers enable agents of the government to enslave the population by creating a society of dependency. Slavers trade their freedom and the freedom of their fellow man for the security of of being "taken care of" by the government. Slavers literally sell their fellow man into bondage to the state.

Sounds like all you're doing is defining how the government operates its prison system.

[Midtowner]

I'll answer your questions, JerzeeGrl...

I advocate constitutional government according to the 10th amendment. There are numerous government services that should be removed. Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor, the EPA. There are numerous agencies that need to be downsized drastically such as DOT, Homeland Security, FDA, FCC, and others. While tricky, I support phasing out Social Security, Medicare, and any federal welfare program.


Personally, my issue is less with the amount of taxes I pay and more with the purpose of the taxes. I want to support the military, transportation infrastructure, and other critical pieces of the Federal government described in the Constitution. I do not wish to fund any government services that I feel are a violation of the Constitution. Is my opinion or wishes supreme and more important than others? Nope, but I do get to vote and I do get to exercise my right to voice my opinion to my elected officials. Why villify the tea partiers for doing that?


This is particularly tricky, and one I'm not sure Tea Partiers have thought through completely. To return to constitutional government immediately would be disastrous for many people. I believe in voting for people who will not expand already overreaching federal powers, who will be willing to make steps and cuts toward constitutional government as opportunities present themselves. It is impossible to get everything we want. It would be too disruptive. I just want steps in the right direction and to stop running the wrong way.


I object to federal intrusion into personal and state's freedom in many areas... I firmly believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to outright ban abortion if that be the will of Oklahoma's voters. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to educate our children without taking money from other states and without the Federal government's interference. I believe the people of Oklahoma should be able to determine what forms of retirement or health care should be mandated if any, and tax or fund those programs on a local level. I also oppose a federal ban on gay marriage (though I support Oklahoma's right to ban it). In other words, I believe we as Oklahomans should be able to decide issues for ourselves right here in our state except where the constitution specifically gives powers to the Federal government to interfere.

What is your particular expertise in constitutional law?

And in light of the general welfare clause (Art. I, sec. 8), how are these agencies unconstitutional?

[joel228]

What is your particular expertise in constitutional law?

I am a moderately well-informed and well-studied citizen. Does one need a law degree in order to vote or voice his opinion on political issues now? I do not demand that you agree with me. And I only demand that my elected officials agree with me if they want my vote. There are PhD's in Constitutional Law that both agree with me on 10th Amendment and there are those who disagree. Again, I do not think my voice is superior to yours, but I have just as much right to speak up as anyone else.

And in light of the general welfare clause (Art. I, sec. 8), how are these agencies unconstitutional?

I think it is an extreme stretch to take the inclusion of the words "general welfare" as a blank check that can be broadly interpreted to mean anything Congress wants. It seems clear that "common defense and general welfare" is both defined and has its scope described in the remaining list that makes up the body of Article 1, Sec. 8. In other words, Section 8 itself enumerates what is meant by "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and it should be limited to those enumerated items.

[Midtowner]

I am a moderately well-informed and well-studied citizen. Does one need a law degree in order to vote or voice his opinion on political issues now? I do not demand that you agree with me. And I only demand that my elected officials agree with me if they want my vote. There are PhD's in Constitutional Law that both agree with me on 10th Amendment and there are those who disagree. Again, I do not think my voice is superior to yours, but I have just as much right to speak up as anyone else.

One doesn't need a law degree to have an opinion on these things, but a few books and a high school or undergrad diploma doesn't make one a Constitutional scholar.

To truly understand the subject and how Constitutional Law, which is created in the courts, is created, one need not have a law degree, but it sure helps.

You can have an opinion on the way things ought to be, but that does nothing to controvert the fact that things are not the way you either perceive them to be or wish they were. The case law does not support your position and at the end of the day, the case law wins.

I think it is an extreme stretch to take the inclusion of the words "general welfare" as a blank check that can be broadly interpreted to mean anything Congress wants. It seems clear that "common defense and general welfare" is both defined and has its scope described in the remaining list that makes up the body of Article 1, Sec. 8. In other words, Section 8 itself enumerates what is meant by "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and it should be limited to those enumerated items.

Well then you don't really understand what the clause is doing. The general welfare clause in Art I, Sect. 8 is speaking to the spending power of the U.S. government in that it can spend money on anything Congress wants to spend money on.

The spending power is primarily how the Dept. of Ed. functions -- it promulgates policies and the states can choose to follow those policies and get cash or not follow those policies and lose money. The states still get a choice though. So there's no 10th Amendment issue and your argument there doesn't really fly.

As far as the EPA, DEA, FCC, etc., go, those are agencies which are created by enabling statutes. Typically, their powers are derived from the federal government's ability to regulate interstate commerce, and of course from their enabling statutes. Congress typically grants these agencies discretion over a fairly broad area, then the agencies are able to make rules (in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act) to carry out Congress' mandate... but that's all well and good because on the one hand, Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce while on the other hand, the Administrative Procedure Act guarantees citizens' due process rights are not infringed upon. There's also judicial review which precludes any other unconstitutional, arbitrary and capricious action by federal agencies.

So yes, you can have an opinion, but no one with a formal legal education ('cept some wingnuts) will take you seriously.

[joel228]

You can have an opinion on the way things ought to be, but that does nothing to controvert the fact that things are not the way you either perceive them to be or wish they were. The case law does not support your position and at the end of the day, the case law wins.

First, I have no problem admitting I'm idealistic. And sadly, I agree with you about case law. Of course, in my opinion, that is part of what is severely wrong with this country. I don't believe case law is law. I believe statutes are law. Courts have no legislative power, and the very term "case law" seems to betray that important balance of power between the branches of our government.

Well then you don't really understand what the clause is doing. The general welfare clause in Art I, Sect. 8 is speaking to the spending power of the U.S. government in that it can spend money on anything Congress wants to spend money on.

There are plenty who disagree with you. There are some sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States who would disagree with you on this point. It is also hard to read the writings of those who signed the Constitution and imagine that they were intending to give Congress a blank check here.

BTW, just to be fair, as I have not been extremely active on this forum and am not aware of your credentials in constitutional law, would you mind sharing?

The spending power is primarily how the Dept. of Ed. functions -- it promulgates policies and the states can choose to follow those policies and get cash or not follow those policies and lose money. The states still get a choice though. So there's no 10th Amendment issue and your argument there doesn't really fly.

Sure the states can refuse to receive money, but if Oklahoma does that, do I get to opt out of a portion of my Federal income tax that supports the Dept. of Education? This is akin to saying, "You will buy this car for $10000. You don't have to take the car if you don't want to, but you're going to pay $10000 anyway." Is this really called a choice? If Article 1, Sec. 8 means what you say it does, why do we even have the 10th Amendment?

So yes, you can have an opinion, but no one with a formal legal education ('cept some wingnuts) will take you seriously.

I'm fine with that. You can refuse to take me seriously and that doesn't bother me a bit. (Of course, you aren't asking me to vote for you either.) However, if someone does want my vote, they need to take these concerns seriously. And if the Tea Party grows large enough, politicians will have to take these concerns seriously. That's the reason to assemble, so that we cannot be marginalized.

[Midtowner]

First, I have no problem admitting I'm idealistic. And sadly, I agree with you about case law. Of course, in my opinion, that is part of what is severely wrong with this country. I don't believe case law is law. I believe statutes are law. Courts have no legislative power, and the very term "case law" seems to betray that important balance of power between the branches of our government.

The concept of case law is rooted in the concept of stare decisis (look it up if you don't know what that means). It has been part of our common law tradition since the 1200s in Ancient England. The system carried over to the Colonies and then was followed by the United States. There is absolutely nothing extraconstitutional about case law. The Constitution need not adopt the English common law (but 49 states actually do this, Louisiana being the outlier) because at the time of the founding, this was one of those things that didn't even need to be said -- the Common Law was simply the way the legal system worked, everyone knew it and everyone accepted it. And stare decisis went right along with that.

Understand that since Marbury v. Madison (in 1801) established the fact that the Supreme Court had the power to review actions of the executive and actions of Congress to determine whether those branches are following the Constitution that we've had this check on what would otherwise be unlimited executive and congressional discretion. Consider: If Congress passed an unconstitutional law, for example, killing everyone less than six feet tall, who would have the power to stop them?

There are plenty who disagree with you. There are some sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States who would disagree with you on this point. It is also hard to read the writings of those who signed the Constitution and imagine that they were intending to give Congress a blank check here.

No one on the Supreme Court disagrees with the current construction of the general welfare clause. Hell.. Scalia, the furthest justice to the Right actually has publicly endorsed a Hamiltonian [federalist] construction of the General Welfare clause. By "plenty of people" you won't be able to name a single source who is way out of line with what the law is and what everyone thinks it ought to be. To suggest that the Congress doesn't have the power to spend federal money in any way it wants to spend it (assuming no rights are infringed) is completely without basis.

BTW, just to be fair, as I have not been extremely active on this forum and am not aware of your credentials in constitutional law, would you mind sharing?

Been to law school.

Sure the states can refuse to receive money, but if Oklahoma does that, do I get to opt out of a portion of my Federal income tax that supports the Dept. of Education? This is akin to saying, "You will buy this car for $10000. You don't have to take the car if you don't want to, but you're going to pay $10000 anyway." Is this really called a choice? If Article 1, Sec. 8 means what you say it does, why do we even have the 10th Amendment?

Yes it's a choice. The Supreme Court has said that the states have to be given a choice. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) for a pretty good discussion. The 10th Amendment doesn't apply because the spending clause is an enumerated power. The 10th Amendment basically means police powers [health, safety, morals, welfare, education] and areas that the federal government has either abandoned to the states or encouraged them to legislate on their own. I don't think your thinking here is coherent -- how could the powers which are reserved to the states limit the way the federal government can spend money?

I'm fine with that. You can refuse to take me seriously and that doesn't bother me a bit. (Of course, you aren't asking me to vote for you either.) However, if someone does want my vote, they need to take these concerns seriously. And if the Tea Party grows large enough, politicians will have to take these concerns seriously. That's the reason to assemble, so that we cannot be marginalized.

Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.

[PennyQuilts]

Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.

Another lawyer, here - I think your concerns as a citizen are valid and there is some dispute among constitutional scholars (and I am not one) about how it is all going to shake out. The smart money is propbably what Mid is saying but the race aint over until someone crosses the finish line. And you are dead right that, constitutional scholar or not, if they want your vote, they need to take your concerns seriously.

And I'm no wingnut.

[Midtowner]

Penny.. we have federal agencies and the Department of Education and so on and so forth. EVERYONE with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law knows that not only are these agencies just fine, but the law insofar as what they can do is deep and nuanced.

What does one have to do to cross your finish line?

[PennyQuilts]

Penny.. we have federal agencies and the Department of Education and so on and so forth. EVERYONE with a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law knows that not only are these agencies just fine, but the law insofar as what they can do is deep and nuanced.

What does one have to do to cross your finish line?

They have to have a ruling from the supreme court, for me.

To have people buy health insurance strikes me as well beyond the intent of the commerce clause - it forces them to engage in commerce when they might not want to - for starters. There are no limits to federal power to control the lives of individuals if this is constitutional. And the fact that they might bring it under the right to tax, in some way, is ludicrous. As for the Department of Education - I haven't done the reserach - was that challenged? Surely it has.

[PennyQuilts]

But I want to add that I really don't think pulling attorney rank to demean, stifle or embarrass laypeople is called for. Plenty of brilliant people don't have a legal education but they can understand all this. It isn't rocket science. It is one thing to educate someone who lacks a legal education. It is another to say, "You don't understand this because you aren't a lawyer." Or words to that effect. And even if someone is flat out wrong on how the constitution works, that doesn't mean that their opinion on the subject shouldn't be respected. This is a government of the people - not a government of the lawyers.

[joel228]

Midtowner,

I am aware of English common law, what it is, how it works. I just don't like it when case law seems to contradict statutory law and case law wins. However, I know it's the way things work. Forgive my idealism a little bit.

Not understanding the general welfare clause as you do does not disqualify me from this discussion. Either I'm misunderstanding your point of view, or you are still describing a false choice. If Sec 8 says that federal government has unlimited ability to tax and an unlimited ability to spend that money however it wishes, then exactly what limits are there to the federal government? It in effect can get anything it wants from the states, and you seem to defend it with this false choice of the states can choose not to participate (while being forced to pay for it regardless). I personally don't care how many constitutional scholars defend that, that isn't a government of, by, and for the people. That is oppression and bullying. Constitutional or not, I'm not voting for it.

Your concerns are not serious. You may think they are serious, but that's only because you don't really know what you're talking about. You have this imagined [and false] idea of what the Constitution stands for and you're wasting valuable time and energy defending that concept. You don't have to go to law school, but a basic, rudimentary understanding of things would be nice.

My concerns are serious. You are free to marginalize them and ridicule me. Ultimately, my opinion of what is constitutional or unconstitutional doesn't matter a bit, since last I checked, nobody's nominated me for a federal bench. But my opinion of the way this country should be run or shouldn't be counts just as much as a law school graduate. Candidates for office can dismiss me with your ease if they choose, but not without consequences at the ballot box.