Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Czarjorge]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/prediction-market-starts_n_123136.html

[Ya-ta Boy]

Those numbers will go up when they read that Todd Palin twice registered with the Alaska Independent Party. (See link on the Sarah Palin thread, page 24).

I posted yesterday that the pressure will build this week to dump her. I wouldn't be surprised if she out by the weekend.

[Czarjorge]

What's even more odd is that though Palin remained a registered Republican she attended the AIP convention in 1994 with her husband. Perhaps not a glaring admittance to sympathy, as this happens all the time with pols, but odd nonetheless.

Hell, I'd love it if she came out hard for state's rights. That part of the Rep party platform is one I can get behind.

[Kuros]

[mises]

You can be sure it will rise above 14%. If you have a couple hundred bucks laying around the system is easy to use.

[Czarjorge]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Czarjorge]

Did I mention Calhoun?

[Kuros]

[Czarjorge]

What if I support the right of municipalities to make laws that supercede those of the state and federal government as long as they don't prevent fundamental human rights? Am I still a closet racist?

Wait... what?

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Czarjorge]

I respect most of your input Ya-ta, but I call shenanigans on your view of state's rights.

It would be state's rights for California to allow for medical marijuana. It's odd that the Feds don't mess with Alaska in that regard.

It would be state's rights for some states to choose not to participate in the welfare to work system. Would that be so bad?

It's really too bad that your view of the US causes you to dismiss the right of individual states to make laws that supercede federal laws. As I said no state or municipality should be able to override the inalienable rights of any individual, but states should be allowed to make laws that allow their citizenry to do as the majority sees fit.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Would this be a fair approximation of your position?

�Sir, as to the doctrine that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the extent as well as the limitations of its powers, it seems to me to be utterly subversive of the sovereignty and independence of the states. It makes but little difference, in my estimation, whether Congress or Supreme Court are invested with this power. If the federal government, in all, or any, of its departments, is to prescribe the limits of its own authority. and the states are bound to submit to the decision, and are not to be allowed to examine and decide for themselves, when the barriers of the constitution shall be overleaped, this is practically government without limitation of powers." The states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations and the people are entirely at your mercy.�
Senator Robert Haynes, South Carolina Jan. 21, 1830

The next day Senator Daniel Webster, Massachusetts replied: "Let it be remembered, that the Constitution of the United States is not unalterable. It is to continue in its present form no longer than the people who established it shall choose to continue it. If they shall become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedient partition and distribution of power between the State governments and the general government, they can alter that distribution at will..

If any thing be found in the national Constitution, either by original provision or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any construction, unacceptable to them, be established, so as to become practically a part of the Constitution, they will amend it, at their own sovereign pleasure. But while the people choose to maintain it as it is, while they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change it, who has given, or who can give, to the State legislatures a right to alter it, either by interference, construction, or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to recollect that the people have any power to do any thing for themselves. They imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than they are under the close guardianship of the State legislatures. Sir, the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general Constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves, first, to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the government themselves, in doubtful cases, should put on their own powers, under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility, to them just as the people of a State trust their own State governments with a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the efficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their own servants and agents whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might be trustworthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, and as independent as was practicable. Fourthly, they have seen fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known and admitted power to alter or amend the Constitution, peaceably and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imperfections. And, finally, the people of the United States have at no time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorized any State legislature to construe or interpret their high instrument of government; much less, to interfere by their own power, to arrest its course and operation."

[W.T.Carl]

It ain't gonna happen.

[Ya-ta Boy]