I think Ron Paul's message is still greatly misunderstood, even among us

[Rhys]

The fact that so many are so concerned with the Federal Government is proof. The Constitution gives so much power to local governments, that it's a shame not to use it.

There's other things too, so my point is, we have a lot of learning left to do ourselves. We're not there yet so it's premature to think about what's next. We need to keep working on the states whom haven't voted and keep Ron Paul in the public eye. Saying "it's not about Ron Paul anymore" is both true, and not true. It's never been about him, but the message MUST be fully understood before further action can be taken.

Another example is the Petraeus post... send him a card? He's in the military. He serves the Government. He better not start thinking about a mutiny or anything, because that could lead to Military Rule, or worse, we get conqured; especialy at his rank.

[NightOwl]

The fact that so many are so concerned with the Federal Government is proof. The Constitution gives so much power to local governments, that it's a shame not to use it.


OK, but for one thing, the Constitution doesn't "give" anything to local governments. The Constitution has nothing to give. It was created by delegates from the states, and ratified by conventions in the states. The states, in other words, as sovereign bodies, held all powers, delegating a few powers to the federal government and reserving the rest for themselves.

Whatever powers local governments enjoy, they enjoy them not because the Constitution "gave" them those powers. They enjoy them because they started off with them, and never delegated them to the federal government through the Constitution in the first place.

Second, the concern with the federal government is not frivolous or a sign that we don't understand. It is precisely because the federal government has gone beyond its legitimate powers that local governments are unable to exercise theirs. The two issues go hand in hand.

[pinkmandy]

You're forgetting Dillon's Rule. Local govts have only as much power as their respective states give them and our state representatives have sold their souls (our rights) to the federal bureaucracy.

There's a lot to be done all around and local is where we need to be entrenched long term. Still, we need to keep our eye on the federal govt and raise as much hell as possible every chance we get. We need Congressmen, Senators, and Judges if we want to downsize the role of the federal govt.

[Danke]

OK, but for one thing, the Constitution doesn't "give" anything to local governments. The Constitution has nothing to give. It was created by delegates from the states, and ratified by conventions in the states. The states, in other words, as sovereign bodies, held all powers, delegating a few powers to the federal government and reserving the rest for themselves.

Whatever powers local governments enjoy, they enjoy them not because the Constitution "gave" them those powers. They enjoy them because they started off with them, and never delegated them to the federal government through the Constitution in the first place.



Someone forgot to tell Abe that.

[Rhys]

OK, but for one thing, the Constitution doesn't "give" anything to local governments. The Constitution has nothing to give. It was created by delegates from the states, and ratified by conventions in the states. The states, in other words, as sovereign bodies, held all powers, delegating a few powers to the federal government and reserving the rest for themselves.

Whatever powers local governments enjoy, they enjoy them not because the Constitution "gave" them those powers. They enjoy them because they started off with them, and never delegated them to the federal government through the Constitution in the first place.

Second, the concern with the federal government is not frivolous or a sign that we don't understand. It is precisely because the federal government has gone beyond its legitimate powers that local governments are unable to exercise theirs. The two issues go hand in hand.

ok, see... my point proven. I didnt even get my own thing right.

[Rhys]

You're forgetting Dillon's Rule. Local govts have only as much power as their respective states give them and our state representatives have sold their souls (our rights) to the federal bureaucracy.

There's a lot to be done all around and local is where we need to be entrenched long term. Still, we need to keep our eye on the federal govt and raise as much hell as possible every chance we get. We need Congressmen, Senators, and Judges if we want to downsize the role of the federal govt.

no. that's my point. we just need our states to say FU to the federal govt. we don't need the fed govt. to do it for us or even because of us.

[NightOwl]

ok, see... my point proven. I didnt even get my own thing right.

Sorry -- I hope I didn't seem too harsh. I teach college history, and I'm constantly getting students who tell me the Constitution "gives" powers to the states or "gives" us the right to free speech. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but I'm just concerned that we not get into this habit, for if people become convinced that government has given them these things, well, what government gives, it can also take away.

[Rhys]

Sorry -- I hope I didn't seem too harsh. I teach college history, and I'm constantly getting students who tell me the Constitution "gives" powers to the states or "gives" us the right to free speech. I know it sounds like nit-picking, but I'm just concerned that we not get into this habit, for if people become convinced that government has given them these things, well, what government gives, it can also take away.

not at all. I agree with you completly, just never thought of it in that way. That's the kind of education I'm advocating with this post... before we start branching off and getting ahead of ourself.

[pinkmandy]

no. that's my point. we just need our states to say FU to the federal govt. we don't need the fed govt. to do it for us or even because of us.


Yeah, I get what you're saying and I agree. ;) Figuring out how to do that is the tough part...it does come down to local legwork but at the same time we need to be loud about the abuses of our govt. That encourages non corrupt people to run for office and will hopefully, someday, scare those who would not act in the best interests of this country.

I think part of the problem is we do not hold our elected officials accountable in a way that deters them. They get a slap on the wrist or get pushed out of office. Big deal. I'd like to see prison sentences, long ones, imposed for violations. I suppose we could enact legislation at a state level for representatives of said state? Can we do that?

[Rhys]

I'd like to see prison sentences, long ones, imposed for violations. I suppose we could enact legislation at a state level for representatives of said state? Can we do that?

sure, but we really just need checks and balances to be restored.

Go to your local municipal building and ask what offices are open this year, and pay the fee to run. You might win just cause no one else is running. ;)

[pinkmandy]

But wouldn't you think that would help restore checks and balances?

Example, going to war without a declaration. Paul very clearly told them the war was illegal, they knew it. They ignored the law. I'd love to see those who voted to give that authority to the President thrown in prison. I know we couldn't do that retroactively but we could have it in place for future wars. I'm not a fan of a bunch of new regs and laws, but just a few broad ones- basically follow the GD Constitution and stop selling out to the highest bidder.

It seems to me our founding fathers figured having them watch each other then getting them out of office if necessary would be enough. Maybe so but I don't think it works that way now with all the corruption in the parties and in every level of govt and the bureaucracy. Or maybe I'm just looking for a quick fix like throwing all the traitors in prison and starting from scratch. Yeah, pie in the sky...

[Rhys]

But wouldn't you think that would help restore checks and balances?

Example, going to war without a declaration. Paul very clearly told them the war was illegal, they knew it. They ignored the law. I'd love to see those who voted to give that authority to the President thrown in prison. I know we couldn't do that retroactively but we could have it in place for future wars. I'm not a fan of a bunch of new regs and laws, but just a few broad ones- basically follow the GD Constitution and stop selling out to the highest bidder.

It seems to me our founding fathers figured having them watch each other then getting them out of office if necessary would be enough. Maybe so but I don't think it works that way now with all the corruption in the parties and in every level of govt and the bureaucracy. Or maybe I'm just looking for a quick fix like throwing all the traitors in prison and starting from scratch. Yeah, pie in the sky...

who's authority do they go to jail? who's jail? i dunno. i need some convincing still. Seems like the founders would have put it in there already.

[pinkmandy]

I don't know, either. I'd say state if a state legislature passed legislation which applied to that state's representatives. Perhaps something about ceding state rights to the fed or violating the Constitution as a representative of the state? So it wouldn't be federal. Then again, we can't even get legislation passed for transparent voting so what are the chances for something like this? I just get so angry when I think about what people have gotten away with, kwim?

[Rhys]

sorry wrong thread.