Remember the two-clicks rule!
So, the resolution is a meaningless act designed to pander tea party types?
I’m well aware that there are people in Texas who take their opposition to federal centralization of power seriously, and who are consistent in their application of it.
But there are plenty who oppose federal power only when their own ox is being gored, only when the particulars happen to involve policies they find objectionable. There are many, many such people among Texas Republicans, and the attitudes of idiots like Clothahump are not exactly unusual.
Is it supposed to be some kind of pro-active move to prevent universal health care coming to Texas, a state with some of the worst health care in the country? That’s how I read it.
Good luck with that.
Not only is it meaningless, it’s not unique to Texas. Same bill’s come up in a lot of states for some reason.
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Sessions/2009/Bills/House/HTML/H849v1.html
Here’s North Carolina’s.
Yea, glancing at it again, they’re not only meaningless but pretty gutless as well. They say that their are “many federal madates” and “pending proposals” that violate state sovereignty, but they don’t actually name, or even hint at, one actual specific such proposal. Hence they can wave at vaguely defined “federal over-reach” without having to actually risk committing themselves against any actual federal program or regulation.
The Tenth Amendment Center even lets you leave messages! (Although I’m not sure how long mine will last.)
Wankers.
ETA: Only lasted about a minute. But somebody had to read it before they hit DELETE! (And I wasn’t really being rude.)
Sounds like Rand Rover is using some of these arguments. It figures.
He said he agreed with Perry about the size of the Federal government. He never claimed not to be hypocritical about his partisanship.
I read this as two-chicks rule. Better rule, IMO.
It’s always amusing to find out which constitutional amendment people have contempt for. It’s pretty amusing.
Well, MSNBC ran an article today that I think explains where my neighbor is coming from:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32145266/ns/us_news-life/
He either can’t or won’t answers my question about how this resolution will affect anything.
I wonder if these non-binding resolutions should be taken as a shot across the bow of Congress that states are waking up to the fact that they have the power to call a constitutional convention. If the states get sufficiently fed up, they do have recourse.
Don’t split your sides, but for me it’s definitely the Eighteenth.
I’m going to agree with you on that one.
Are we anywhere near 2/3 on that? A lot of states are having problems with the overreaching Fed. It’s funny how this follows partisan lines. The same people making fun of Conservatives in Texas in this thread likely thought that using Federal agents to arrest cancerous grandmothers in California for smoking medically prescribed pot was a Federal overreach.
This thread just goes to show that for the average partisan there isn’t really much in the way of a belief system, it’s much more important to make fun of the other team. The issue doesn’t matter, it’s that the Republican Governor of Texas is behind it.
It’d be interesting to see how many people would agree with it if it was California but disagree with it because it’s Texas, regardless of the actual merits of the issue.
Yes, the particular brand of blue mud varies over the years, but it’s always fun to see how compelled the natives are to rub it in.
The first page of a Google News search seems to indicate that somewhere between 30 and 37 states are taking action on the Tenth Amendment issue. Two-thirds would be 34.
I also found it interesting that according to the Wikipedia link I mentioned, the last time there seemed to be a serious threat of an “Article V” convention was in the 1980s, in response to (what were then) massive Federal budget overruns.
Sigh.
Read what I wrote again:
Did I say anything in there about what president is/was in office? Did I say anything in there about how it has taken for us to get fed up with it? It’s been happening since the 1930s, but it’s only been recently that the socialism has stopped creeping and started galloping.
Newsflash: Bush ain’t the boogeyman. Deal with it.
Yeah, it’s complete coincidence that this measure was introduced in Texas the month after Obama took office. No connection at all.
And you’ve proven yourself, over time, to be so reasonable and bipartisan that your own credibility on this issue is unquestionable.
No, he’s not.
All he is now is one of the three worst presidents in American history.
This has massive parlor game potential!