Just a liberal reminder

[liberty]

I don’t know why I went to the trouble to do this except it should be common knowledge. So here I go again: Cities are not sovereign and they are not part of the state, an arm of the state. Residents of a city are citizens of the state in which they live and are subject to the laws of that state. As a city they have form a municipal corporation that although it is located within the state’s territory operates separately.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign ... ted_States

However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of pre-ratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." Northern Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Chatham County (emphases added).Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County, and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power.'" Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.

[Crackpot]

Wes the reason Obama kept his mouth shut was to hinder the "this is an attempt by the US to overthrow our government". ( which may have been used as an excuse for an even more brutal crackdown) Diplomacy is also knowing when to keep your mouth shut.

[wesw]

crackpot, I can t believe that you actually swallowed that line.

I don t swallow the GOP crap about climate change.

come on man, you are not a sheep and you are not "all in" like econo or rubato

you are an independent thinker and a believer in liberty

believe it or not , I am no repub, and my views have only swung away from the liberal side in recent years

It was hard to admit that I was buffaloed, but I was

we are the middle, we don t need the parties. we are strong and we decide the fate of our nation, thru elections

believe me, I will turn against the Right as soon as I possibly can. my rants against their Leadership failings should indicate that.

I kow-tow to no party. I live and learn and adjust my views as I see new things.

[Scooter]

I don’t know why I went to the trouble to do this except it should be common knowledge. So here I go again: Cities are not sovereign and they are not part of the state, an arm of the state. Residents of a city are citizens of the state in which they live and are subject to the laws of that state. As a city they have form a municipal corporation that although it is located within the state’s territory operates separately.

And that blather means that DC is not part of the USA how, exactly?

Keep it coming, this is fun.

[Crackpot]

Wes

You unfortunately are just like most " independents" I've come across. You sit solidly in one camp save one or two ideas but you hold on to the label "independent" since it saves you from having to own the consequences of the policies you support.

As for Obama and Iran there were no positives in making statements for the uprising outside of local policies (and his opponents wouldn't accept him at his word anyway) and possibly have dire consequences for the protesters if he did. This isn't partisan thinking it's just true. We were/aren't in the position to back the opposition at the point so escalating the situation would only serve to get those sympathetic to us killed.

Just about anyone would agree that Ibamas foreign policy has been mediocre at best (and that is under the rosiest of outcomes in conflicts yet to be resolved) but it is pig ignorant to say just because Obama did (or didn't) do it it is wrong.

Or do you actually have an argument as to what Obama making comments about the uprising in Iran would have actually accomplished outside of a warm fuzzy feeling inside?

[wesw]

when good men say nothing......

you are wrong about me, crackpot.

I do not sit solidly in the repub camp, up until 5-6 yrs ago I was far more likely to support libs.

I have always eschewed partisan politics. even at 17, when I first registered and despised republicans I registered as an independent

I support the repubs now, while holding my nose, because I believe that the dems, in lock step, will lead the world to anarchy

freedom of thought is not welcome in the dem party or the repub party for the most part

I do not believe either side represents me

perhaps the huge leap in un affiliated voter reg is a sign that I am not alone

[oldr_n_wsr]

affiliated voter reg is a sign that I am not alone

You are not alone, I am unaffiliated also.

[liberty]

I hope this guy is a crackpot; I am praying the system will last another generation. But I do know this a country can’t do stupid stuff forever, sooner or later it all goes to hell.





http://thesovereigninvestor.com/exclusi ... m=referral


2016… The End of Social Security ( Leaked Evidence Stumps Obama, Stuns Retirees)
by JL Yastine
October 12, 2015
American seniors have been worried about our nation’s ability to continue to pay out Social Security.
As one retirement-bound Los Angeles resident puts it, “The money that I put aside now, it’s not like that money is going to be waiting for me.”
Unfortunately, several leaked reports now confirm that these fears will become an ugly reality, very soon.
Doug Bandow, a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan, and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, warns that seniors must plan for “Social Security’s coming crash.”
And in an alarming article, U.S. News & World Report argues that payouts will inevitably end, and says you must learn how to “prepare for the end of Social Security” now.
How could this happen?
As you know, Social Security operates as a classic Ponzi scheme — new contributions are used to pay off earlier contributors.
The problem is twofold: Our government tapped into Social Security savings, and there are not enough new contributors to pay those who already funded the system.
And the problem is worse than any government agency wants to admit.
However, one famous economist, James Dale Davidson, boldly states…
“We could see the end of Social Security as soon as 2016,
and there is nothing President Obama, Congress or
any other government agency can do to stop it.”
Yes, Social Security as we know it could end in 2016.
Before you dismiss Davidson’s warning, know that he has a remarkable track record of calling nearly every major economic shift over the last three decades.
For example, Davidson predicted the stock market collapse of 1999 and 2007, along with the fall of the Soviet Union and Japan’s economic downfall, to name just a few.
And his predictions have been so accurate, he’s been invited to shake hands and counsel the likes of former presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton — and he’s had the good fortune to befriend and convene with George Bush Sr., Steve Forbes, Donald Trump, Margaret Thatcher, Sir Roger Douglas and even Boris Yeltsin.
So, how can Davidson be so sure that Social Security will end in 2016?
As Davidson explains in a newly released video, “Right now, there are five massive cracks in the American economy’s foundation that are converging for the first time in history. This is a landmark development that I am convinced will trigger the greatest depression we’ve ever seen. Yes, worse than the 1929 Great Depression.”
Editor’s Note: Click Here to See the 5 Economic Cracks That Are Converging for the First Time in History.
Davidson’s new video is causing a controversy, not just because of what he says, but because the evidence he provides is irrefutable (he uses over 20 unquestionable charts to prove his point).
“I know that everywhere you turn things look pretty good,” Davidson goes on to say, “The market is near all-time highs, the dollar is strong and real estate is booming again. But remember, the exact same scenario played out in 1999 and 2007. The economy is unraveling right now, and fast. Very fast.”
Davidson warns that a 50% stock market collapse is looming, that “real estate will plummet by 40%, savings accounts will lose 30% and unemployment will triple.” (To see Davidson’s research behind these predictions, click here.)
And although our future may seem bleak, as Davidson says, “There is no need to fall victim to the future. If you are on the right side of what’s ahead, you can seize opportunities that come along once, maybe twice, in a lifetime.”
Indeed, in his video, Davidson reveals what he and his family are doing to prepare right now, and even profit. (It’s unconventional and even controversial, but proven to work.)
While Davidson intended his video for a private audience only, original viewers leaked it out and now tens of thousands are downloading the video every day.
With his permission, I reposted the video below. To start the presentation, simply click on the play button

[Scooter]

Davidson predicted the stock market collapse of 1999 and 2007

Those would be the stock market collaopses that actually took place in 2000 and 2008, right?

So the rest of it can be written off as bullshit. Leave it to the village idiot to give it credence.

[MajGenl.Meade]

For Immediate Release
October 25, 1995

For More Info Contact: Anne Dunne
410-576-0900


EXPERTS SAY FOSTER "SUICIDE" NOTE IS A FORGERY

At a press conference this morning at Washington's Willard Hotel, James Dale Davidson announced the findings of an international panel of forensic experts who examined a copy of a note that was found in Foster's
briefcase shortly after his death.

The panel of three forensic handwriting experts have determined that the note is a forgery, and not written by the late Deputy White House Counsel.

James Dale Davidson, Editor of Strategic Investment, a premier world financial newsletter, offered the following statement today:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Strategic Investment has asked a forensic panel of handwriting experts to examine the so-called "suicide" note, said to have been written by the late Vincent Foster.

The panel's conclusions were collected over a three month period. Each panelist worked independently and came to their own conclusions without interference.

They completed their study with far greater care, thoroughness, and apparent accuracy than the federal institutions that were intended to protect us. It is indeed ironic, that Vincent Foster, as the number two
lawyer in the White House and one of the highest ranking law enforcement officials in this land--would have his own death covered up.

The fabrication of a "suicide" note by high officials, is just one more indication that Vincent Foster did not commit suicide.

[liberty]

I don’t get your point, what does this have to do with social security and the fiscal collapse of the US? I f you are saying that just because something is in print doesn’t make it so, I agree. I expressed doubts about the guy and his article. I noticed he appears to work for some investment company. But I also know that we can’t keep barrowing money at the current rate. What happens when all tax revenues go to pay the interest on the debt?


Also have you noticed the unemployment rate is about five percent. Why do you think it is not likely to go full employment? What do you think would happen to unemployment if the minimum wage is raised and why?





quote="MajGenl.Meade"]

For Immediate Release
October 25, 1995

For More Info Contact: Anne Dunne
410-576-0900


EXPERTS SAY FOSTER "SUICIDE" NOTE IS A FORGERY

At a press conference this morning at Washington's Willard Hotel, James Dale Davidson announced the findings of an international panel of forensic experts who examined a copy of a note that was found in Foster's
briefcase shortly after his death.

The panel of three forensic handwriting experts have determined that the note is a forgery, and not written by the late Deputy White House Counsel.

James Dale Davidson, Editor of Strategic Investment, a premier world financial newsletter, offered the following statement today:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Strategic Investment has asked a forensic panel of handwriting experts to examine the so-called "suicide" note, said to have been written by the late Vincent Foster.

The panel's conclusions were collected over a three month period. Each panelist worked independently and came to their own conclusions without interference.

They completed their study with far greater care, thoroughness, and apparent accuracy than the federal institutions that were intended to protect us. It is indeed ironic, that Vincent Foster, as the number two
lawyer in the White House and one of the highest ranking law enforcement officials in this land--would have his own death covered up.

The fabrication of a "suicide" note by high officials, is just one more indication that Vincent Foster did not commit suicide.

[/quote]

[MajGenl.Meade]

What's this got to do with DC?

[Scooter]

I don’t get your point, what does this have to do with social security and the fiscal collapse of the US?

When he gets the years that stock market crashes happened wrong in hindsight, how can anyone place any confidence in his laughable "predictions"? When he buys into completely batshit conspiracy theories, how can anyone with the brain cells God gave a lampshade take anything he says seriously?

Do you ever ask yourself why you are always so ready to swallow whatever pablum you come across that feeds into your preconceived prejudices?

Actually don't bother, that is far more thinking than what passes for your brain is capable of processing, and we don't want to see smoke coming out of your ears from trying.

Still incapable of coming up with anything to substantiate the bullshit you posted in your OP? Quelle non surprise.

[liberty]

What's this got to do with DC?

So what about DC? This topic was never intended to be about DC, this part was to be about the importance of federalism. I think I will start one about DC so I can move on here. I thought you understood the point I was making.

I Know you are smart, so I don’t understands why the question. However, I understand and respect the importance of questioning; the world would be a better place if people asked more questions and assumed less. So here you are in brief:

The United States is a federation or to be more precise a federal democratic republic. The federation is composed of fifty states only their existence as a part of the US is insured. Everything else is property, a possession of the US and available, not that it would happen, for sale, trade or give away and that includes
DC.

There is an easy way to tell who the members of the federation are: They all have seats in the United States Senate and can not be denied their representation in that body.

Added:
Wow, I didn’t think of this: Just because Star Trek is fiction and Captain Kirk and his crew are citizens of the United Federation of Planets doesn’t mean that a federation is not a real thing.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Just a reminder for lib

British Dictionary definitions for United States of America Expand

United States of America
noun
(functioning as singular or plural) a federal republic mainly in North America consisting of 50 states and the District of Columbia:

Not that it will do any good you liberal will not be restricted by anything the constitution or anything else. It really doesn’t matters this country is pretty much screwed anyway; perhaps we would be better off if we vote for Putin.

There is only one thing wrong with the definition: D.C. is not a part of the federation any more than a city is a part of a state. The district is a creation of the federal government on land that is on loan from the state of Maryland. The US Government could abolish the current district, return the land to Maryland and relocate DC to any other federal territory.

The district does not have a sovereign government and therefore has no right to exist.

Today

So what about DC? This topic was never intended to be about DC, this part was to be about the importance of federalism. I think I will start one about DC so I can move on here. I thought you understood the point I was making.

I Know you are smart, so I don’t understands why the question (well that makes sense)

Please don't start one. You already did that.

[liberty]

I am not picking a fight; I am just pointing out that you guys have to be constantly reminded of the basics. Anyone who cared would have known that this provision of the Brady Bill was unconstitutional.
The federal government has no right to coerces state officials (sheriff )into doing anything. They do not work for the federal government, they work for the people directly.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printz_v._United_States


The Brady Act[edit]
In 1993, Congress amended the 1968 Gun Control Act by enacting the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub. L. 103-159. This 1993 Act required the Attorney General to establish an electronic or phone-based background check to prevent firearms sales to persons already prohibited from owning firearms. This check, entitled the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) went into effect as required on November 30, 1998.
Interim provisions[edit]
The Act also immediately put in place certain interim provisions until that system became operative. Under the interim provisions, a firearms dealer who proposes to transfer a handgun must receive from the transferee a statement (the Brady Form), containing the name, address and date[clarification needed] of the proposed transferee along with a sworn statement that the transferee is not among any of the classes of prohibited purchasers, verify the identity of the transferee by examining an identification document, and provide the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of the transferee's residence with notice of the contents (and a copy) of the Brady Form.
When a CLEO receives the required notice of a proposed transfer, they must "make a reasonable effort to ascertain within 5 business days whether receipt or possession would be in violation of the law, including research in whatever State and local recordkeeping systems are available and in a national system designated by the Attorney General."
The plaintiffs[edit]
Petitioners Jay Printz and Richard Mack, the Chief Law Enforcement Officers for Ravalli County, Montana, and Graham County, Arizona, represented by Stephen Halbrook and David T. Hardy respectively, filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act's interim provisions. They objected to the use of congressional action to compel state officers to execute Federal law.
Higher court decisions[edit]
In each case, the District Court held that the provision requiring CLEOs to perform background checks was unconstitutional, but concluded that provision was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background check system in place. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the Brady Act's interim provisions to be unconstitutional.
Majority decision[edit]
The majority of five justices ruled that the interim provisions of the Brady Bill are unconstitutional. In his opinion, Justice Scalia states that, although there is no constitutional text precisely responding to the challenge, an answer can be found “in historical understanding and practice, the structure of the Constitution, and in the jurisprudence of this Court.”
Historical understanding and practice[edit]
Scalia concedes that legislation compelling judges to carry out federal legislation has been passed but considers that the nature of the courts, which occupy a vertical hierarchy that requires consideration of prior decisions by federal or state courts, exempts this from applying in this case. Furthermore, contrasting the frequency of legislation applying to judicial courts to the absence of legislation applying to state executives shows that this power was not granted.
The structure of the Constitution[edit]
Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon. His opinion states that the Framers designed the Constitution to allow Federal regulation of international and interstate matters, not internal matters reserved to the State Legislatures. The majority arrives at the conclusion that allowing the Federal government to draft the police officers of the 50 states into its service would increase its powers far beyond what the Constitution intends.
The Court also offered an alternative basis for striking down the provision: it violated the constitutional separation of powers by robbing the president of his power to execute the laws; that is, it contradicted the "unitary executive theory". The Court explained
We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws.
Finally, the majority cited previous rulings by the Supreme Court in similar situations. In New York v. United States, the Court invalidated a provision in a bill that "coerced" states to comply with a federal radioactive waste-disposal regime, holding "[t]he Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program". New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 188 (1992).
The dissent[edit]
In his dissent, Justice Stevens suggests the Commerce clause of the Constitution, giving the Federal government the right to regulate handgun sales, can be coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause, giving Congress the power to pass whatever laws are necessary and proper to carry out its previously enumerated power. Federal direction of state officials in this manner is analogous to ordering the mass inoculation of children to forestall an epidemic, or directing state officials to respond to a terrorist threat. He is very concerned with the ability of the federal government to respond to a national emergency and does not believe that "there is anything in the 10th amendment 'in historical understanding and practice, in the structure of the Constitution, or in the jurisprudence of this Court,' that forbids the enlistment of state officers to make that response effective." Moreover, the text of the Constitution does not support the Majority's apparent proposition that "a local police officer can ignore a command contained in a statute enacted by Congress pursuant to an express delegation of power enumerated in Article I."
Effects of the decision[edit]
The immediate effects of the ruling on the Brady Bill were negligible. The vast majority of local and state law enforcement officials supported the interim provisions and were happy to comply with the background checks. The issue ended with the completion of the federal background check database. However, Mack and Printz v. United States was an important ruling in support of States' Rights and limits on Federal power.
The political poles have reversed from Mack and Printz, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center; where Mack and Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power. Professor Ann Althouse has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Mack and Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism," Mack and Printz provides a circuit-breaker that might allow local and state officials to refuse to enforce regulations curbing individual rights. Moreover, "y denying the means of commandeering to the federal government, the courts have created an incentive [for Congress] to adopt policies that inspire [rather than demand] compliance, thus preserving a beneficial structural safeguard for individual rights," and "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights."[1]

\

[Scooter]

Anyone who cared would have known that this provision of the Brady Bill was unconstitutional.
The federal government has no right to coerces state officials (sheriff )into doing anything.

Anyone who cared could have done 15 minutes of research and learned: (1) the federal government does coerce state officials to enforce federal law all the time, (2) the sparse jurisprudence on the question generally has been mixed, (3) the Supreme Court has upheld federal laws representing a far greater infringement on a State's autonomy than the Brady Bill, (4) the district court ruling in Printz was reversed by a split decision of the appeals court, which was itself reversed by a split decision of the Supreme Court, (6) Scalia, the purported strict constructionist, did not base his opinion on any actual words found in the Constitution; instead, he claims that the structure of the document imposes limits on federal power beyond what the words say, and so (7) anyone who claims to "know" that the Brady Bill provision was unconstitutional is talking out of his ass, as usual.

Granted, this "commandeering" (to use Justice O'Connor's term in a previous case) of state apparatus to carry out federal responsibilities is a bit different from the usual case, but it is far from singular.

At the worst, what Congress did could be characterized as conscripting state officials into federal service. But Congress has the power to conscript labour, and dual sovereignty doesn't exempt state officials from that. Oh, and FYI, the Military Selective Service Act required the involvement of state governors and other state officials in the creation of local draft boards. Was that also federal overreach, or did it just make good sense in spite of weakening the unitary executive?

State and local police already get involved in federal cases, and vice versa. How much, if any, of that is mandated by law, I don't know, but by Scalia's reasoning it would still violate separation of powers. What does that do to the validity of arrests and searches made under federal warrants but executed by state/local police? Are states that authorize their police forces to execute federal warrants usurping federal authority, and vice versa? Over 100,000 people who were arrested will be very happy to hear that. Do you think their arrests should be quashed?

[Guinevere]

Wikipedia is not the law. 'Nuff said.

[liberty]

Wikipedia is not the law. 'Nuff said.

That is true Guin, but it is a convenient source of history that is usually reasonably accurate. Is there a particular historical point that you disagree with or is just distaste for the source of the information.

Let me ask you this: Do you considered the federal system useful in protecting our liberties? I am sure Gob and our other British friends see it as unnecessary; both Britain and France have single systems and they are reasonably free. And it cost us a lot of money; it would be cheaper to do away with the states and the senate, and have the remainder of the national government rule the country directly from Washington. If it is not a beneficial system why waste money on supporting it, but if it is beneficial we should protect it from federal intrusion.

"The political poles have reversed from Mack and Printz, especially after the attack on the World Trade Center; where Mack and Printz protected conservative local authorities from liberal federal power, it also now protects liberal local authorities from conservative federal power. Professor Ann Althouse has suggested, retained in its strong form, the anti-commandeering doctrine announced in Mack and Printz "can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people";"the federal government might go too far in prosecuting the war on terrorism"

[Sue U]

Federalism as practiced in the US has its pros and cons, but all democratic governments in every country of significant geographic size have devolved powers -- including legislative powers -- to local and regional governments. In Britain, for example, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own legislatures. France has 96 departments with their own legislative councils. There are very few places (if any) in the world that are run solely by an autocrat from a national capital. But federalism by itself is nether an indicator nor a guarantee of democracy.