|
|
Alabama bill outlawing Obamacare |
Post Reply 
|
| Author | ||||
alabamatoy 
Admin Group 
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Alabama bill outlawing ObamacarePosted: 23 March 2010 at 6:22am |
|||
|
This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system.
http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/searchableinstruments/2010RS/Printfiles//SB233-int.pdf
|
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
 |
||||
|
Guests
Guest 
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2010 at 8:01am |
|||
|
That's just eye candy. Federal law trumps state law. There only two ways to fight it. One is in the courts. The other is by changing the federal law. Pretty much unless the courts agree that it is unconstitutional, we're stuck with it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2010 at 2:46pm |
|||
I think this is the whole issue - States Rights. We had a war about this once..... |
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
ibrokeit
Senior Poster 
Joined: 26 February 2010 Location: Marshall County Status: Offline Points: 253 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 23 March 2010 at 3:28pm |
|||
|
I am 21 and would not be surprised if I see this country split sometime in my lifetime...
|
||||
|
2001 Taco Ext Cab- SAS'd, linked, locked, bobed, S/Ced, chromo'd, caged, dual cased, and always broke'd
|
||||
|
||||
|
bluetoy
RCRC Club Visitor 
Joined: 17 February 2004 Location: Skyline, Jackson County Status: Offline Points: 2222 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 1:48am |
|||
Who was your history teacher ? That war was totally about slavery !
 |
||||
|
TOYOTA FOUR WHEEL DRIVE................need I say more?
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 4:07am |
|||
|
I hope your comment was made "tongue in cheek" but umm - no it wasn't. There were several issues involved. The federal government had passed several laws that put import/export tariffs on products that only applied to items entering and leaving the southern ports. The northern states had far more industry than the south which resulted in the south having to import more goods than the north. The lack of industry in the south also required the southern states to export the raw materials they produced, much of which had these tariffs applied. The population of the northern states had grown far faster than the southern states which caused the north to have greater representation in Congress and made the south feel it wasn't being represented as it should be. “Taxation without representation”, sound familiar? These issues had developed over several decades. Slavery was obviously a hot topic but certainly not the only issue, or even the primary issue, involved in the southern states withdrawing from the Union. Lincoln's initial goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery became a rallying point for the people of the north. |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 4:25am |
|||
|
From the Tea Party mailer:
1) UPDATE: SB233 is out of committee, but it is not currently scheduled for a vote. We need to contact Senator Lowell Barron and a few others to get this bill on the schedule to be voted on. NEW CONTACT INFO below. SB233: This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Alabama, to prohibit any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. Read it all at the following link: http://alisondb.legislature. MELT THE PHONE LINES!! Call Senator Barron and respectfully demand that this issue is brought to the floor so that the voters of Alabama can have an up and down vote! Call Senator Barron NOW at the following numbers: Personal Cell: 256-996-5916 (Please TEXT this phone number and send "SB233" or Leave a message) State House: (334) 242-7858 Business: (256) 623-2298 Local Office: (256) 218-3090 Email: lowell.barron@alsenate.gov (Seemed to work for me, but I have heard it may not work) We also suggest you to contact Seth Hammet (Speaker of the House) and Mike Millican as well. Here is the House switch board number ask to talk to them by name. (334)353-1046 |
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 4:28am |
|||
|
When I was a kid, my father's supervisor's NAME was "States Rights Gist Finley". Everyone called him "States". I have always had an interest in the Amercian Civial War history (my Mother called it the "War of Northern Agression") and even as a child, it was impressive to me that this issue was important enough to someone to name their child "States Rights".
So we are going down this path again.
|
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 4:39am |
|||
|
"Lincoln's initial goal was the preservation of the Union. Slavery became a rallying point for the people of the north."
Lincoln emancipated the slaves to hasten the end of the war. Slaves made up large parts of the population in certain areas of the south and were considered threatening, and he felt that they might bring the Confederacy down from within. Lincoln himself wanted to export slaves to Liberia to end slavery prior to the outbreak of the war, but realized that would be virtually imposible to execute.
|
||||
|
||||
|
-BeNt-
Newbie 
Joined: 08 March 2010 Location: Scottsboro Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:26am |
|||
Not always true, Galveston County in Texas isn't required to pay social security tax because they have a government run 401k in that county. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514 I think State amendments can over ride federal law as long as it doesn't impose on anyone's constitutional rights or civil liberties, so unless it does that I think they can. I'm not sure on that though because I'm not a judge or lawyer though! Depending on who you get to fight for the state versus the federal government it could swing either way if you ask me. This is far from being over with I think, there are several states that are opposed to it and I think several that are suing which will tie up this bill for several years before it over.
I have contacted his phone, suggest we blow it up, and left a message with his office. At least this would give people in Alabama, hopefully, a choice without being penalized. Edited by -BeNt- - 24 March 2010 at 7:39am |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:40am |
|||
|
Galveston County has a program that meets the intent of the federal SS program and has an exemption. I’ve seen a few examples of this type of thing. If any county or state had simply passed legislation that said "Screw SS, we ain't paying it here!" the federal government would have slapped them on the head and said "Oh yes you are". State laws and constitutions cannot override federal law or the US constitution and the only reason state legislatures are introducing and passing bills that “overturn” federal law is for show. It has absolutely no legal standing and is a complete waste of time. However, I’ll say that I’d rather they waste their time on something like this that has no real purpose than spend the time passing bills that screw with my life. So I say “Waste on!” |
||||
|
||||
|
-BeNt-
Newbie
Joined: 08 March 2010 Location: Scottsboro Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:45am |
|||
|
Opps, I did misinterpret the law here. Article IV of the constitution states:
"acts of the Federal Government are operational as supreme law throughout the Union . . . enforceable in all courts of the land. The states have no power to impede, burden, or in any manner control the operation of" federal law." Which means, useless state bill......blah! So it seems mdmTJ is 100% correct they used a loophole, or exclusion, that a county/state must meet the same requirements to in tax law to by pass a social security input. Rough day for me lol. |
||||
|
||||
|
bluetoy
RCRC Club Visitor
Joined: 17 February 2004 Location: Skyline, Jackson County Status: Offline Points: 2222 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:46am |
|||
 I take it you didn't sense my sarcasm. I know the issues. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who actually think the civil war was primarily about slavery thanks to the liberal teaching in our public schools these days.
You must have forgot that I drive a trail rig with a confederate flag on the hood. My favorite t-shirt that I have, has a big rebel flag on the back and reads "if this flag offends you, you need a history lesson" . I've always been interested in civil war and confederate history, so I know a little about the issues.
|
||||
|
TOYOTA FOUR WHEEL DRIVE................need I say more?
|
||||
|
||||
|
-BeNt-
Newbie
Joined: 08 March 2010 Location: Scottsboro Status: Offline Points: 16 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:49am |
|||
|
:) I used to have that same shirt. Eh next thing you know we will be using the Euro.....or Amero yuck.
|
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 7:50am |
|||
I actually did detect the sarcasm and I've seen your hood. My comments were directed more towards those that don't understand history.
|
||||
|
||||
|
bluetoy
RCRC Club Visitor
Joined: 17 February 2004 Location: Skyline, Jackson County Status: Offline Points: 2222 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 8:28am |
|||
|
Just making sure you understood. I didn't want to be mistaken as someone with white guilt and misinformation.
I also have a huge passion for native american history. Therefore, I have zero trust in anything the government promises. Edited by bluetoy - 24 March 2010 at 8:31am |
||||
|
TOYOTA FOUR WHEEL DRIVE................need I say more?
|
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 8:49am |
|||
|
Its time for a Constitutional Convention of the states to add an amendment to squash this thing
Edited by RL-RRC - 24 March 2010 at 10:08am |
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 9:07am |
|||
What exactly would you like to see squashed? And what constitution are you proposing be amended?
|
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 10:07am |
|||
|
Well how about an amendment that makes it illegal for the congress to pass any law that mandates you to buy a good or service for starters.
|
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 10:12am |
|||
The United States Constitution, you have another in mind?
|
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
unlblkrubi
RCRC Club Visitor
Joined: 24 February 2008 Location: Green Mtn Status: Offline Points: 702 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 24 March 2010 at 11:37am |
|||
|
Guess Obama will change the"Star Spangled Banner" shortly also. Bet he hates the part of "land of the free".
|
||||
|
'18 Renegade Trailhawk
'15 JKUR-Warn-AEV-Rigid-KC-ARB |
||||
|
||||
|
-DRM-
Senior Poster
Joined: 01 March 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 808 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 12:26am |
|||
No, it doesn't necessarily. And that assumption is part of the problem. |
||||
|
DRM
www.4x4spot.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 2:26am |
|||
|
Guys, it's right there in the Constitution. Article VI - This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. What part of this is hard to understand? Yes, there are cases where the federal government chooses to overlook state laws. But these cases are by far the exception, not the rule. One current example is medical marijuana issue in California and even there the feds will step in if individual specific circumstances trigger federal attention. The US Constitution and federal law trumps state constitutions and state law. That is a fact. It is documented and has been used numerous times to thump states in the head over the years over various issues. Even where there isn’t a federal law regarding an issue the federal government frequently finds a way to bring states under control. Anybody remember how we ended up with a national 55 mph speed limit? The feds told the states to pass state laws or the states wouldn’t get federal highway funds. The same tactic has been used to force the states to raise the minimum age requirement to purchase alcohol. We don’t need an amendment to the US Constitution to say the US government can’t require us to purchase health insurance. Where is the authorization in the current Constitution that says they can? There are several arguments that are used to justify the forced purchase of health insurance: 1 – The “promote the general Welfare” part of the Preamble to the Constitution is used for this justification. This is also used to justify many other things done by the Congress and Federal government. However, the Preamble merely acts as an introduction to the Constitution and does not assign any powers to the federal government nor does it restrict the powers of the federal government. 2 – Interstate Commerce, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” The problem here is that health insurance is not interstate commerce. In fact, it is limited to intrastate commerce by law. I live in Alabama and I’m prohibited by law from purchasing health insurance from a company in Tennessee. How is this considered interstate commerce? 3 – Comparisons with the requirement to purchase auto insurance. Most states require people to purchase some minimum level of liability insurance for any vehicle operated on the public roads. The argument is that if we can be required to purchase auto insurance, what’s so different about being required to purchase health insurance? There are several huge differences between the two requirements. The biggest one in my mind is that auto insurance requirements are established by state laws and the health insurance requirement is a federal law. Auto liability insurance is intended to protect the public from your actions. If you cause damage to property, injury, or death while operating the vehicle liability insurance is there to compensate the damaged parties for the losses/damages. Auto liability insurance on my car does not compensate me for damage to my car or injuries I sustain in a wreck I cause. The requirement to purchase auto insurance is not a universal requirement on everybody. If you don’t own a vehicle you aren’t required to purchase insurance. If the vehicle is not licensed and operated on public roads you don’t have to have insurance. If you have a lien on the vehicle the person holding the lien can require you to carry a minimum level of insurance to protect his investment but that is a matter of contract between the two parties involved and not a matter of law. There are other arguments out there, but frankly my brain isn’t engaged very well this morning. As far as amending the US Constitution, we can’t get the Congress and courts to recognize the true meaning of numerous aspects of the current Constitution and its Amendments. What makes us think that is going to change just because of some pesky new amendment? There are two ways to propose amendments; 2/3 of both house of Congress vote to propose an amendment or 2/3 of the states ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments (never been done). While it could be good to do some Constitutional tweaking, I would seriously doubt it would happen. The Constitution has been amended 26 times since it was ratified in 1788. It’s not a quick or easy process. A far better recourse is the ballet box. Elections have consequences and we need to remember that. The number one reason most people vote for any individual is name recognition. Why do you think you see a forest of signs along the highway with nothing but the idiot’s name? The more often most of us see a particular name, the more likely we are to vote for him. How else do you explain the fact that George Wallace carried the majority of the black votes? Voter education is key, but how do you achieve that in a society that thrives on 30 minute sitcoms? How many people have actually read even just portions of the various health care reform bills? For the people that did read part or even all of the various bills, how much were they able to truly understand? There has been so much hype about these bills that most peoples’ eyes just glaze over when the subject comes up. I’m afraid that with our sitcom mentality most people will no longer care about the issue in November when we have an opportunity to do some Congressional house cleaning and that is the real shame in all this. I didn’t mean for this to become a rant but we need to be realistic about what has happened and what our recourses are. Our best recourse is the upcoming elections in November and then in 2012. To look at state laws and state constitutional amendments is a waste of time. Our best hope other than the upcoming elections is the lawsuits filed by several states. We can hope the courts understand and uphold the Constitution. |
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 2:53am |
|||
|
I disagree that the best recourse is the ballet box. We voted our selfs into this mess and we have voted on all the crap that has lead to the decline of the constitution for the last 100 years. Washington is complete corrupted on its greed and power. We have lost the checks and balances that we once had with the executive and legislative branches in bed with each other and with no concern with what the people want. They are no longer Representatives, they are tyrants! I believe the only real hope lies in the states to reel back the federal government. Our founders only gave th federal government 4 real powers, defense on this nation, to set foreign policy, resolve state to state problems and to up hold the US constitution. Oh how the the feds have managed to take over from there.
Listen to Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. Edited by RL-RRC - 25 March 2010 at 2:58am |
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 3:14am |
|||
|
You’re right. But doesn’t this go along with my statement that voter education is critical?
You’re right. But doesn’t this go along with my statement that voter education is critical?
How do you propose to do this?
Again, you’re right. The problem isn’t the Constitution. The problem is people taking an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and then not living up to that oath. Some of them actively choose to ignore the provisions of the Constitution while others are probably truly ignorant of what the document says and means. We all know that the 2nd Amendment is about hunting Bambi and the 1st Amendment is about putting a crucifix in a jar of urine. We elect them. We continue to send the same idiots back term after term. Whenever the subject of booting all the idiots out of office domes up everyone agrees. “They all need to go! But my guy is OK”. If we really want to change things we have to do it at the ballot box. The only other way is through force of arms. Are you ready for that? Or do you see another option other than the ballot box or force of arms? |
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 3:46am |
|||
Yes the states could amend the constitution to cut almost all current powers that the federal government has. Then the feds would have nothing to leverage with. Write language that unequivocally gives back the states the power they should have.
|
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 5:22am |
|||
What amendments would you propose?
|
||||
|
||||
|
RL-RRC
Admin Group
Forum Curator Joined: 19 April 2006 Location: Kirkland,TN Status: Offline Points: 1000160 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 6:13am |
|||
|
Well there are plenty of smarter people than me that could come up with better ideas but for me first I'd have an amendment that would require a balanced budget, no deficit spending, put term limits on all political offices of 2 terms, remove the income tax and replace it with a consumption tax, ban all property taxes. I could probably go on forever here
|
||||
|
96 Lexus lx450
85 Toyota Truggy built by Don 69 FJ40 Chance favors the prepared! |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 6:32am |
|||
|
I would support just about any tax system that eliminates or greatly reduces the IRS. Below is a series of proposals I posted in a thread a while back: 1. Every law, rule, or regulation at any level of government must be a stand-alone item. No amendments, riders, hidden items,... There can be nothing in any law, rule, or regulation that does not directly relate to the title of that law, rule, or regulation. The title of a law, rule, or regulation must directly reflect the subject of that law, rule, or regulation. 2. Every law, rule, or regulation at any level of government must be reviewed, at a minimum, every 20 years. During the review any parts that need to be revised to reflect changing times will be rewritten to comply with provision #1. Any parts that are determined to be no longer needed will be rescinded. Each level of government has a stated period of time to complete an initial review and update process; cities, 5 years; counties, 10 years; states and federal, 40 years. At the end of the this initial review and update period any law, rule, or regulation that has not been updated to comply with this provision will be deemed rescinded and will no longer be enforceable in any manner until such time it is properly updated. 3. No person holding elected office at any level of government may reap the benefits of any pay raise or any increase in any compensation that goes into effect after he enters that office. The only way he can get any increase in pay or compensation of any kind is to resign from office and remain out of office for at least one full term. After staying out of office for at least one full term, he can run for election and if elected receive the pay and benefits that are in place at the time he returns to office. During this absence from elected office he cannot hold any other elected office at any level of government, hold any tax paid position of any kind, be employed by any employer that is a government contractor, or act as a lobbyist. If elected to a position, the total compensation received will at no time be greater than it was on the first day in office regardless of how long you remain in office. 4. Contributions from businesses or individuals may only be used for campaign purposes; they may not be used for any personal expenses. Any person running for re-election must pay for his campaign expenses with either personal funds or campaign contributions. No tax funds will be used for campaign purposes. Security provisions normally assigned to the office will be provided during the campaign. Government owned or tax funded transportation will not be used for travel related to re-election unless the person pays for the entire expense of that transportation. Travel related to security provisions will be provided by the appropriate agency. Tax funds will not pay for time spent campaigning unless it is in the form of accrued vacation. Time spent campaigning for re-election will be either vacation time or leave without pay. Any day in which campaign activities are conducted will be considered a campaign day regardless how much time is devoted to the campaign activity. Any person elected to office will be responsible for the removal of all campaign signs and posters related to that election to include those put out by his opponents. Removal of these signs and posters must be accomplished within 30 days of the election. The election winner may seek reimbursement for expenses related to sign and poster removal from his opponents but he remains responsible for the removal of these items regardless of the outcome of any efforts to collect. 5. No person may receive any retirement benefits from any elected position unless the retirement benefits are the result of contributions made by that person. 6. No person holding an elected position may benefit from any programs or benefits that are not available to the common citizen. While the common citizen may not necessarily have access to the exact program or benefit the elected person has access to, the programs available to the common citizen must be equivalent in nature and funded in the same manner as the programs and benefits available to the elected person. Security routinely provided to the position is exempt from this provision. 7. No legislative body (city/county council, state legislature, US Congress, may pass any provision that applies to the common citizen but does not apply to that body. 8. Any person holding any elected position at any level of government must resign from that position before running for election to any other elected position. If he is not elected to the newly sought position and he desires to return to his previously held position, or any other elected position, he must remain out of office for at least one full term and can then run for election. During this absence from elected office he cannot hold any other elected office at any level of government, hold any tax paid position of any kind, be employed by any employer that is a government contractor, or act as a lobbyist. 9. Budgets at all levels of government must be “balanced”. There will be no deficit spending except in the case of emergencies related to disasters or war. 10. The judicial branch at all levels will limit their decisions to existing law and the respective constitution (state or US). There will be no “interpretation” of the law or constitution. The judicial branch will not make policy or create laws. They will not find new meaning within the existing laws or respective constitution. Violation of this provision will be justification for removal from office. 11. No person that is in the US illegally may hold any job in this country or receive any benefits that are funded by tax funds from any level of government. Children of persons in the US illegally will not attend tax funded schools or take part in any activities that receive tax funds from any level of government. Persons in this country illegally will be actively sought out and deported. Only those with verifiable medical emergencies will be allowed to remain in the country and once the emergency condition is resolved that person will be deported. 12. No country that acts in a manner that is in conflict with our national interests will receive any tax funded assistance from this country. This assistance includes cash, material items, or assistance from tax paid US personnel. Persons from these countries will not be permitted to immigrate into the US. |
||||
|
||||
|
-DRM-
Senior Poster
Joined: 01 March 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 808 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 6:43am |
|||
The part you seem to be ignoring: they have to have the authority to make that law in the first place. Maybe you are just fine with the fed usurping powers not granted by the Constitution, but don't assume the rest of us us who have a legitimate problem with that assumption of power share your view. |
||||
|
DRM
www.4x4spot.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 7:10am |
|||
I'm not ignoring that point at all. The federal government overstepping the limits of the Constitution has pissed me off all of my adult life. In fact my attitude began when I was in high school where I learned what the Constitution is and what it means. I am a retired Army officer and I take the oath "support and defend the Constitution" very seriously. I may be retired but I consider myself to be still bound by that oath. Unfortunately too many that take that oath don't take it seriously as I stated previously. I am only saying that for the states to now pass laws and amendments that attempt to overturn federal law is pointless and does not address the real issue. The real issue is just what you said. Congress didn't have the authority to pass the law to begin with. We can hope the courts agree with us. It's certainly not the first time it's happened but it will continue to happen as long as we permit it. The only ways to change it is by ballot or force of arms. The Congress and Presidents have over the decades stolen more and more of the states' powers and the peoples' freedoms. We have elected those people and we continue to return them to office. As long as we elect people that trample on the Constitution and appoint judges that do the same we aren't going to change anything, are we? |
||||
|
||||
|
-DRM-
Senior Poster
Joined: 01 March 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 808 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 7:52am |
|||
|
I completely disagree about it being "pointless". The states are passing VALID laws, the fed is passing laws IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO PASS.
This opens the way for the states to take it to the courts and prove their point. A "state class action lawsuit"... awesome! |
||||
|
DRM
www.4x4spot.com |
||||
|
||||
|
Guests
Guest
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 8:19am |
|||
|
Several states are already taking it to court. Like I've said before, I hope the courts see this legislation as unconstitutional. If the courts strike down this legislation maybe it will pave the way to further actions. Do you really think several new state laws and amendments will matter in the outcome of the trials? I just don’t think it will have any impact on the issue. |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 25 March 2010 at 10:03am |
|||
Remember the Bush/Gore voting thing down in Florida? Quickly wound up in the supreme courts. I expect this health care thing will also.
I just wanted them to pass the amendment to prevent giving Viagra to the convicted rapists. That's damned embarassing that it didnt get approved.
|
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 March 2010 at 7:52am |
|||
|
Update from the Tea Party folks:
NEW PLAN: Senator Lowell Barron is not responding to our pleas regarding SB233 so we are going to shift our efforts to get this bill on the senate schedule for a vote.
SB233: This bill would propose an amendment to the Constitution of Senator Lowell Barron: lowell.barron@alsenate.gov
Speaker of the House, Seth Hammet: seth.hammett@alhouse.org
Senator Smitherman: rodger.smitherman@alsenate.gov
Senator Penn: myronpenn28@hotmail.com
Senator Poole: poole@mound.net
Senator Benefield: kbenefield@acs-isp.com
Senator Zeb Little: zeb@zeblittlelawfirm.com
Senator Wendell Mitchell: wmitchell@faulkner.edu
Senator Preuitt: ???
Senator Mitchem: legislator@mclo.org
Phone:
House switch board (334) 353-1046. Ask to talk to them by name. Or call the numbers below:
Senator Lowell Barron:
(256) 996-5916 (you can also text this number)
(334) 242-7858
(256) 623-2298
Speaker of the House, Seth Hammet:
(334) 242-7668
(334) 222-4469
(334) 222-5905
Senator Smitherman:
(334) 242-7870
(205) 322-0012
(205) 322-3768
Senator Penn:
(334) 242-7868
(334) 775-9778
(334) 738-4486
Senator Poole:
(334) 242-7889
(205) 371-6337
(205) 371-6337
Senator Benefield:
(334) 242-7874
Senator Zeb Little:
(334) 242-7855
(256) 775-7707
(256) 734-6348
Senator Wendell Mitchell:
(334) 242-7883
(334) 244-1877
Senator Preuitt:
(334) 242-7898
(256) 362-6900
(256) 362-5253
Senator Mitchem:
(334) 242-7876
(256) 582-0619
(256) 498-6600
2) RALLY for SB233: March 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM in Montgomery on the steps of the Statehouse. Senator Beason will be explaining the bill to the media and explaining why it’s important that Alabamians be allowed to vote on this very crucial constitutional amendment which prohibits any person, employer, or health care provider from being compelled to participate in any health care system. Additionally, tea party groups will be presenting the coalition letter in support of the four bills facing the state legislature. You can sign the letter here: http://www.alabamaeagle.org/ |
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
BamaBleach
RCRC Club Visitor
Joined: 04 May 2009 Location: Huntsville, AL Status: Offline Points: 202 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 26 March 2010 at 8:05am |
|||
|
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution lays out what power Congress has: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 12 April 2010 at 1:21am |
|||
|
If you want to encourage passage of SB233, here's a note on how to do so from the Hsv Tea Party:
|
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
alabamatoy
Admin Group
I dont work here anymore... Joined: 16 February 2004 Location: Signal Mountain Status: Offline Points: 9442 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 April 2010 at 12:30am |
|||
|
Apparently , the bill is dead. Apparently, Mike Millican, Chairman of the House Health Committee, folded under pressure from Speaker Seth Hammett and Rep. Ken Guin and they have killed the Healthcare Freedom Act (SB233).
|
||||
|
"If you didnt buy your 1st gen 4Runner new, then YOU are a newbie!!"
BRC Life Member |
||||
|
||||
|
cj8lvr
RCRC LLC Member
Joined: 10 February 2005 Location: Madison, Madison County Status: Offline Points: 7948 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 15 April 2010 at 6:37am |
|||
|
So can we fire Mike Millican in November? ...and Hammett and Guin?
Jackasses.
 |
||||
|
___/| [_\__\],
l___l__L-O|||||O_ _()_)__()_)___()_) Jake White Owner of CartoTracks.com Trail Maps Past RCRC - VP Past Nat'l CJ-8 Scrambler Owners Association President |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
|
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
mdmTJ wrote: