Should Tennessee emulate Oklahoma??

[onlyut4me]

Originally Posted by KYVolFan

Yo there folks, there was a minor disagreement several years ago argued back and forth by the several states that took better than four years to resolve. That minor squabble cost the states millions upon millions and imeasurable pain and suffering. In time an agreement was reached that determined that States Rights do not exist. The event resolving the issue in case you folks forgot was called the American Civil War or The War of Northern Agression depending upon the perspective.

just because one side has more wealth and better infrastructure doesnt make it right. especially when it comes to the constitution.

[KYVolFan]

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it?

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to seceede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to seceed because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by dan4vols

Had the south had an infrastructure of munitions and weapons factories Abraham Lincoln would've been know as the surrender president.

Had the South had equivalent or superior industrial capabilities, then they would not have held on so tightly to the Slave Issue.

[therealUT]

Originally Posted by KYVolFan

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it?

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to seceede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to seceed because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

The South certainly had the right to Secede in 1860 and 1861. However, the Federal Government certainly had the right to collect its arms and equipment from Ft. Sumter. I would agree that sending Federal Troops to Sumter was in fact Lincoln's way of baiting the South into a fight. Let's remember though, the Federal Troops were fired onto. At that point, South Carolina became an enemy of the US.

[onlyut4me]

Originally Posted by KYVolFan

You're right but no where in the Constitution does the clause "separation of Church and State" appear. Does it?

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to secede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to secede because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

Dont forget the fact that Rhode Island, New York and Virginia(the most powerful state at the time)retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Also, at the time of Louisiana purchase the northern atlantic states threaten secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede four times before the civil war. their legislature even passed a resolution of secession during the early days of our country. Thomas Jefferson himself actually wished them luck if they decided to do so. the war was not about slavery or even states rights. the war was about money. specifically the taxes being collected on imports in the southern states. southern port states actually paid over 80% of the national import taxes that were collected. Lincoln couldn't let that income get away from the federal government now could he. Charles Dickens himself said the war was not over slavery but instead northern desire for economic control of the southern states. oh well, the victors of war get to write their version of history i guess.

[onlyut4me]

Originally Posted by therealUT

The South certainly had the right to Secede in 1860 and 1861. However, the Federal Government certainly had the right to collect its arms and equipment from Ft. Sumter. I would agree that sending Federal Troops to Sumter was in fact Lincoln's way of baiting the South into a fight. Let's remember though, the Federal Troops were fired onto. At that point, South Carolina became an enemy of the US.

they were not collecting arms and equipment. the were taking in food and supplies. lincoln said he would not give up fort sumter. so yes he was absolutely baiting.

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by KYVolFan

Prior to the Civil War, it was almost universally accepted that any state had the right to secede, hell even the City of New York considered secession from the United States. The Constitution said we were a Nation of Sovereign States. The South had no right to secede because those states paid most of the taxes collected by the Federal Government by far. Without the South and it tax offerings to the Washington Bureaucracy , the Federal Government would have been virtually penniless.

The constitution is subject to interpretation and he who has the power does the interpretation.

When Alabama seceded from the Union, Winston county seceded from Alabama.

Originally Posted by onlyut4me

Dont forget the fact that Rhode Island, New York and Virginia(the most powerful state at the time)retained the right of secession in their act approving the Constitution. Also, at the time of Louisiana purchase the northern atlantic states threaten secession. Massachusetts threatened to secede four times before the civil war. their legislature even passed a resolution of secession during the early days of our country. Thomas Jefferson himself actually wished them luck if they decided to do so. the war was not about slavery or even states rights. the war was about money. specifically the taxes being collected on imports in the southern states. southern port states actually paid over 80% of the national import taxes that were collected. Lincoln couldn't let that income get away from the federal government now could he. Charles Dickens himself said the war was not over slavery but instead northern desire for economic control of the southern states. oh well, the victors of war get to write their version of history i guess.

Now the question; How many states ratified the 16th amendment??? (thus rendering the personal income tax legal)

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

well if you look at the federal government, it has grown exponentialy since the great depression. The New Deal was one of the most intrusive set of acts ever passed. From there on out, the government has just gotten larger. I have a feeling its only gonna get worse, i mean come on theres going to be a "climate czar" and a civil defense force????

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by GASOUTHERNVOL

well if you look at the federal government, it has grown exponentially since the great depression. The New Deal was one of the most intrusive set of acts ever passed. From there on out, the government has just gotten larger. I have a feeling its only gonna get worse, i mean come on there's going to be a "climate czar" and a civil defense force????

Right, we get governmental solutions for government caused (or imagined) problems.

Every new president creates a new federal agency and federal agencies impose new regulations at the rate of 500+ per day.

The shadow government coming out of the shadows???

Introducing our new energy/environment (read global warming) 'czar', Carol Browner;

excerpts;

....an ethical cloud still hangs over Browner’s EPA legacy.

On her last day in office, nearly eight years ago, Browner oversaw the destruction of agency computer files in brazen violation of a federal judge’s order requiring the agency to preserve its records.

Incredibly, Browner asserted that there was no work-related material on her work computer.
(Shades of Sandy Burglar??)

After a two-year legal battle, Judge Lamberth finally held the EPA in contempt of court for the systemic file destruction

Browner weaseled out of any serious repercussions.

Browner got caught by a congressional subcommittee using taxpayer funds to create and send out illegal lobbying material to over 100 grassroots environmental lobbying organizations. Browner exploited her office to orchestrate a political campaign by left-wing groups,

These are the very same groups – anti-business, anti-sound science, pro-eco-hysteria – that Browner would be working arm in arm with as Obama’s “energy czar.”

Washington Times, Jan 12, 2009, Stevan Dinan.

Until last week, Carol M. Browner, President-elect Barack Obama's pick as global warming czar, was listed as one of 14 leaders of a socialist group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.

By Thursday, Mrs. Browner's name and biography had been removed from Socialist International's Web page, though a photo of her speaking June 30 to the group's congress in Greece was still available.

Socialist International, an umbrella group for many of the world's social democratic political parties such as Britain's Labor Party, says it supports socialism and is harshly critical of U.S. policies.

The group's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, the organization's action arm on climate change, says the developed world must reduce consumption and commit to binding and punitive limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

...................Her name has been removed from the Gore organization's Web site list of directors, ...(continued)

(actually 'tsar' [derived from caesar] is the correct transliteration, 'czar' is not. The word is spelled in the cyrillic alphabet with four letters, 'tse', 'ah', 'er', 'myakees znock' [silent soft sound.])

Cyrillic alphabet.

Prepare yourselves for the next Tsar, the Tsar of ACD!!!

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

have you ever seen "hitchikers guide to the galaxy"? If you have, you know the scene where they are on the planet and if you have an idea you get smacked in the face, and the planet is basically ran by beuracrats?

[gsvol]

Originally Posted by GASOUTHERNVOL

have you ever seen "hitch hikers guide to the galaxy"? If you have, you know the scene where they are on the planet and if you have an idea you get smacked in the face, and the planet is basically ran by bureaucrats?

Two top problems in America:

1) entrenched bureaucrats

2) entrenched academians

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.

As I sit here at the restaurant at the end of the universe, I am having O'Rourke appetizers.

A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.

The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop.

Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.

Whatever it is that the government does, sensible Americans would prefer that the government does it to somebody else. This is the idea behind foreign policy.

There's something about Marxism that brings out warts; the only kind of growth this economic system encourages.

You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money.

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

Feeling good about government is like looking on the bright side of any catastrophe. When you quit looking on the bright side, the catastrophe is still there.

--------------------------------

(And in many of the more relaxed civilizations on the Outer Eastern Rim of the Galaxy, it has long surplanted the great Encyclopaedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older and more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper, and secondly it has the words Don't Panic printed in large friendly letters on its cover.)
---------------------------

[GASOUTHERNVOL]

to quote V for Vendetta "A people should not fear its government, a government should fear its people"