Seamus wrote:

@BK Campbell: I’m sorry to poke a hole in your inner tube, “Ironsides”,

That's so cute I forgot to pay any mind to the rest.

It is amusing to hear the whining from the most comfortable part of the population how they are abused by the federal government. If later day Confederates want to make it a two to nothing armed contest between the states and the federal government, go for it.

My old Grand-pap used to say “watch where the money flows”. If you look chart of where each dollar of tax is generated and the return to the states of federal dollars in spending you will see that the federal government seems to be sending allot of cash to the very same people who castigate them. Those same people literally bite that hand that feeds them. Attached is a chart from 2005, in that yearTennessee got $1.27 for every $1.00 sent to the feds in taxes. You are in a recession/depression and you are now receiving much more back from every dollar sent the federal treasury than you did in 2005. You folks are lucky to be a part of the USA with it’s deep pockets. That money is brought to you by the feds taken from the generous taxpayers in the states who don’t get their money back.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

So from one who lives in a state that pays in more money to the feds than we ever receive back from the feds I can’t wait for you all to leave.

When Seth explained to all you "newly self-appointed constitutional scholars" that the Constitution, "..is a starting point for making other laws. It’s not the sum of all possible laws, nor was it intended to be so", I have to ask if any of you didn't already know that? Thanks Seth, you are truly master of the obvious!

I guess the difference between him and you "newly self-appointed constitutional scholars" is that you all childishly refuse to accept the idea that those other laws can be just about anything Congress happens to feel is in the country's best interest. You are wacky enough to suggest that those other laws must actually be pursuant to the few and carefully enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution cannot bind a government that has the people's mandate! Furthermore, you commit political blasphemy by pointing out that US S CT justices are part of the federal government itself and might be biased when it comes to disputes between the federal government and state governments. You seem to imply that they are fallen mortal men rather than black robed deities! You are paranoid enough to think that if the federal government is allowed to judge the extent of its own powers it will always rule in favor of itself in an arbitrary fashion. You just don't get it! The federal government only wants what's best for you!

It all sounds so good but at the end I read that: "She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force."
Years ago I read about ALEC. That's how the powers-that-be get all the States and their rulers marching along in lock step. ALEC supplies the propaganda and models for legislation that is taken back to each State so unify everything nicely for the Feds. So what is Susan really up to?

The following should be motive enough for States signing on to coalition to compensate for our unconstitutional Federal Government.

North Dakota boasts the only state-owned bank in the nation. The Bank of North Dakota (BND) was established by the state legislature in 1919 specifically to free farmers and small businessmen from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad men. As a result they are operating at a budget surplus of billions of dollars.” (Full report Link: http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/but_governor.php

Most likely the powers controlling our banking system will try to stop this. Thus our legislature can request our Governor create a coalition of Governors creating State Banks to end our financial crises and end the absurdity of not having money being an excuse for not meeting our moral and legal requirement to our citizens (to ourselves) : Lincoln created debt free interest free constitutional money Green Back to save the Union.

The flaw in the so-called State sovereignty resolutions, in my opinion, is the failure to make the separation of power between the States and their federal government the first and primary principle.

In the New York State Convention debating ratification of the proposed constitution in 1788, John Jay, who was one of the authors of the Federalist Essays and would later become a justice of the United States Supreme Court, expressed this principle as follows:

“What are the objects of our state legislatures? Innumerable things of small moment occupy their attention; matters of a private nature, which require much minute and local information. The objects of the general government are not of this nature. They comprehend the interests of the states in relation to each other, and in relation to foreign nations.”

The federal government was empowered to deal with foreign affairs and relations between the States while the States would concern themselves with domestic affairs. Thus, the powers delegated to the federal government in the body of the Constitution are confined to this separation of power. In other words, the powers granted to the federal government only pertain to activities on one side of the separation of power fence not to activities on the other side of the fence. The federal government has used perversions of the delegated powers to bulldoze the separation of power fence but the States have failed to make rebuilding the fence their primary goal.

By not rebuilding the fence first, the States have created a problem for themselves. When the federal government usurps power through the delegated powers, the States cry foul and invoke the Tenth Amendment. This allows the federal government to simply assert that the Tenth Amendment does not apply because the Amendment only pertains to powers not granted. Thus, your Tenth Amendment Resolutions are meaningless because we are operating under the delegated powers.

When the States start invoking separation of power resolutions, they will open the door for immediate and unqualified nullification because the federal government does not exist and has no power out side of its federal [relations between the States] and foreign powers.

We can summarize the thing which put us into this situation in one word: COMPLACENCY. Yes, it's an oversimplification of a somewhat complicated process, but it has corroded our beloved Republic just the same.

My Father's term would be "half-ass", meaning we, the people, throughout generations, have half-assed our own futures -- and those of generations to come -- through our own complacency. We all have been guilty of it to various degrees, and the time has come to abolish it from our lives, forever. We must read, study, learn and KNOW our American history. We must become experts on everything related to our American heritage, and we must teach this to both existing generations, as well as future generations.

I tip my hat to Rep. Lynn for her letter and for taking the initiative to rally the sates together in opposition to the tyranny that has run unchecked for entirely too long. May God bless and protect her in all her efforts, and the efforts of those who choose to do the right thing along with her.

It is great to see we still have a few people at some level of government that cares about her state and country, and has the integrity and courage to stand up and be heard. I wish you and the relatively few others like you, success in your campaign to once again restore relevance to our
Constitution. I pray others will join you in your quest to restore America to her greatness, a time when narcism in politics was the exception rather than the rule.

Thank you Representative Lynn, and thank you Tennessee. I hope other states will follow your lead.

Rita, Virginia Beach,VA

Obama is a pawn of European banking powers, the perfect sell to employ 21st century methods of domination. He is silently extinguishing liberty like freedom from intended sickness, and the monetary denomination. He cannot defeat constitutional resistance, once the 50-some states wake up! It's called the United S.... for a reason!! Now it's sliding into worse tyranny, the invisible sort. Was W Bush there to gage how stupid the American people are? Or maybe just to lower the bar of presentation for an American President, to make a mortal one possible..

I have discovered it is hard to properly conceive of a place as America if you do not have a relationship with God. Even a conception of Him is not good enough because you cannot conceive God without experiencing Him.
The reason we set a time off in the day to pray is because experiencing the Almighty is an act of extreme will and devotion and cannot be maintained 24/7. We don't need to suppose the Founding Fathers were praying to the Lord on particular matters of statecraft but instead were striving to understand the nature of God through revelation-baiting to understand what form physical nature will deliver Liberty as a homeland. However, whether this is possible from the other forms of God in the world begs the question, "how can I discover if I already believe in Him?" I state the conversation in prayer cannot be upheld 24/7 since God comes if one is voluntary. God can be asked questions on at all times (being timeless). Considering all will be with God on death regardless of this lifetime, it might be good to understand where you're going.

I cannot censure others for not believing in God or being spiritual. It is the blind God gives all humans upon birth to forget Him and have to live to get to know Him. Who are we to judge what time this takes, even if death must bring it to them? The devil is in the details.

"Being every strong man is a strong woman." I agree.

I am from Alabama but now reside in Texas. I have been talking up for Texas to do the same thing. I am not in any legislature but I can voice my opinion to others around me. I encourage others to do the same thing. Blessings on you for taking this action. I hope other states will wake up and do the same thing.

William Bradford. You underestimate the competing interests for the fleece of our herd. Not only do we possess the parasitical elite domestically but other power conglomerates are seizing assets and control globally. Each new innovation is the means of controlling our information. So in a closed system with one ruling class, an active middle class is still a problem due to its inherent stability. Harder to nefariously shake money out of.

Seems as if we've had this discussion with a federal government run amok before. It's time to do so again. God Bless the good folks of Tennessee and God Bless America.

Fantastic! An elected legislator who actually supports this country and it's principles, instead of the pimps, perverts (Barney Frank), tax cheats (Tim Geithner) Islamic Socialists (Obama), and the army of liars, crooks, corrupt weasels (Pelosi, Reid, Byrd,Baucus, et al., )who seek to destroy it. I'm confused though. If the sole function of these aforementioned traitors is to lie, cheat, and steal their way into public office, why are they interested in killing the goose that lays the golden egg? The more that ordinary people are working, producing, and contributing, the more these bastards will have to steal. If people are not working and producing, there won't be as much for these weasels to steal. Why don't real Americans get off their butts, march on Washington, and haul these bums out of their comfortable offices and hang them from lamp posts? And if there are no lamp posts, line them up against the Capitol building and shoot them. I could go on, but the readers get the point. God save America! The politicians certainly won't.

Doc.

I'm surprised for an educated man like yourself (you named yourself doc, short for doctor, from the latin 'doctus' for 'learned man.' Very modest of you), I am surprised you would elect to employ an ad hominem fallacy as the basis of your argument. As you were privately educated, the public system too much a strain for your heightened sensibilities, then I need not inform you this fallacy is one among many Aristotle enumerated in times it was acceptable to condescend to others. I doubt you find the principles of equality hold much traction, being self confessed as a learned hater of educational opportunity for all.

If you understand evolution, you will have to admit many factors interweave to permit sexual selection of one mate by another. Try as you might, your efforts are in vain to stop the marauding hands of the many molesting the treasured dynasty of the one. Yourself, that is. But there I go referring to those Greeks again! It must be terribly boring having taken that and sundry other topics to make you a stellar arbiter of ontological worth.

I've always wondered about people like you who judge on such scant information. What I really enjoyed is the lack to pick up a single philosophical thread. Why not challenge the first syllogism? Or the efficacy of the free market to determine social mandates? I wouldn't hazard a presumption these thoughts are beyond you, but this performance left much to be desired on the x-axis of thought and the y-axis of expression. I'll hate to discuss your z-axis of invective again since we only watch you count imaginary number.

Terry Morris. Thank you for your rebuttal. From the legalist perspective of tenthers, my argument and any others pertaining to greater social goods trumping constitutional arrangement will not succeed. This is true. But then the constitution also has to be viewed as what it truly is, an appeal Seth has already made. Being the foundation of extrapolating further laws to guide behavior and institute beneficial policy for citizens, no slippery slope is emerging since this may be the intention behind all constitutions: elaboration.

Being notoriously wasteful and having that reputation falsely imparted to all parts from some are two different ideas not to be unaddressed. There is a difference between hearsay and evidential truth. The news syndicates are not a good source. These are captured by specific political perspectives that spin the events for self-confirmatory reports. I challenge people to understand which parts, which departments are wasteful and smear the deserving with black tar and feathers. But to say the entire federal government is wasteful is like receiving the diagnosis of being inefficient without being specified as the digestive, cardiovascular, lymphatic et al. systems are amiss.

To concede to you an important point, the federal government is justified to levy troops for protection since every state on its own would be too unwieldy and riven by rivalry to act together on a sustained basis. But what is more inefficient for a system than to not cover all targets aparty to its function? If there is a water shortage, is it the responsibility of the individual states or the federal government to resolve the crisis? If the federal government were to step in and it is not their constitutional prerogative, should water be given to the thirsty?

If the United States government does not have the legal prerogative to shape universal healthcare come what may, how is the machinery forging forward? And why are the biggest opponents the economically interested parties and not advocates or lawyers, even Supreme Court Justices? It's business as usual in American politics.

Many of us have been hoping and praying for a new Jefferson to emerge to help lead the charge to take back the sovereignty of our states. Today, I believe we have found her in Rep. Susan Lynn. I am so proud that Rep. Lynn is leading the way here in Tennessee.

Many of us have been hoping and praying for a new Jefferson to emerge to help lead the charge to take back the sovereignty of our states. Today, I think we have found her in Rep. Susan Lynn. I am so proud that Rep. Lynn is leading the way here in Tennessee.

This working group comprised of the Several States could very well turn into a Constitutional Congress for which the Federal Government is powerless to prevent. We need to reverse decades of progressive deconstruction of our United States Constitution.

Stephen,

Your inability to reason logically is a direct result of "universal" education.
While it would be laudable that others would suggest you educate yourself, I think that when your dream of a perfect socialists workers paradise is finally realized you should be the first on the train to the re-education camps.
I'm starting to think this is a genetic problem and that society ought to simply remove you mental midgets from the gene pool...for the good of society.

To Burke 101--Ok sir, here's your discussion. 1) Stimulus $$ have been proven to be a waste. What did this country do before stimulus $$ were introduced? Yes, we had problems, like the Great Depression of the 1930's, WWII, and the following smaller wars against "Communism" but we also had a self reliant populace who "made do" without some thuggish goverrnment agency looking down their throats. 2) Federal highway funds date from the 1950's when President Eisenhower and an honest Congress mandated that this country have a nationwide transportation system which turned out to be the envy of the world. Key words here are "honest Congress", not the self serving pimps, slimes, cowards,perverts, traitors and Socialists we are now saddled with. 3)Pentagon contractors--good riddance to the bastards. 4)Federal grants to universities and students-- again,good riddance--maybe our young people will start to learn again from honest professors, not left leaning slimebags. 5)No way is the government going to close military bases and NASA facilities--they need them too much. TVA closures--again, nope! 6)No Federal help to local law agencies in fighting drugs, dope and illegal aliens. Good--- now maybe our local police can do their jobs without looking over their shoulders at Government nazis with their own agendas. Sincerely, William Bradford, ex-career Military, unemployed History/English teacher in Mexifornia, the world's 7th largest economy.

I can pretty much agree with everything here with exception to the issue of salary caps. That is a bit of a double edged sword.

Were there not these enormous bailouts to specific industries (which I was totally against) I would find the caps revolting. However now and until the funds are paid back, we are unwilling shareholders. As such I find not having the salary caps even more revolting.

In theory, (we are talking about government so nothing goes according to plan) the money saved by these salary caps could be used to repay the bailouts at a more accelerated pace, thus liquidating our shares that much sooner.

Stephen and others:
Every business stands for election on a constant and continuing basis. Every time someone chooses to buy or not to buy is a vote for or against that business. Businesses that abuse there client base will soon find a new provider of goods or services.
I recently felt poorly handled by my auto insurance provider. It made me take a look around for a new insurer. I found one with high recommendations from trusted friends and moved both my auto and home insurance. I elected a new company!
Our constitution allows only very limited, enumerated powers and authorities for good reason. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government, by usurpation, are now involved in far more than they should be and with each area of activity they now control our lives much more than they should.
We were meant to be a union of sovereign states with a central government to provide a very few services that we cannot provide on our own. It is way past time that we begin the process of shrinking the central government back to its intended powers and authorities and take responsibility for ourselves in an environment of freedom.
I must protest letting an assumption continue to stand that the only rights we have from our Creator are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration of Independence states that "among these, are," and that all of our rights as free men are "endowed by our Creator."

Sic semper tyrannis!

Stephen,

Though I very much disagree with you, I personally don't have a big problem with your arguing that it is a legitimate function of government to create and maintain a "universal" healthcare system. Government is notoriously inefficient and wasteful at virtually everything it does. But even if you're right about government healthcare, there are proper constitutional procedures to follow in order to make it so. Namely the amendment process shifting that power from the state governments to the central government. Speaking of which, no one is arguing that the individual states can't establish government-run, tax-based healthcare systems within their own borders. Indeed, several of the states already have such systems to one extent or the other, mine included. But it seems to me that your liberty and mine and every other American's is contingent on insuring that government can't just run roughshod over the constitution like it was last Sunday's newspaper. That's gone on long enough in this country. And you've got to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

If one unalienable right is the one to liberty, and liberty is contingent on health, and health is contingent on access to healthcare, and 'we the people' is equality in opportunity... I know the issue is that Obama does not have the directly stated authority to enforce a healthcare regime. Isn't it careless though to leave these decisions up to business interests whose only concern is profit? It makes bad policy because health is not a business, you do not make profit from another's mortal loss unless it is by crime. It is criminal to treat uneconomic matters like health as a business foremost. This may be the mandate for the legal definition of corporation but the corporation does not represent 'we the people.' These people do not hold public office, are not elected for their own merits by the populace, and are not accountable for effort to raise the general well being of those who are outside the shareholders' bracket.

These constitutional quandaries are greased by the tears of the disinvested while they wait for the well off to extend them the same courtesy enjoyed by those in every other major English-speaking power on the globe.

Hey Seamus,

Look me up.
Email me please.

Doc@ see website URL

Seamus wrote:

@BK Campbell: I’m sorry to poke a hole in your inner tube, “Ironsides”,

That's so cute I forgot to pay any mind to the rest.

Here is a note to Political Parties:

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." --James Madison, letter to William Hunter, 1790

The reason, common, God-fearing people are "leery" of Political Parties is henceforth stated:

When your party comes to power, REPEAL the "rotten legislation contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights." What do you do? You just continue to "pile more junk on top of the pile."
Stop it. REPEAL, REPEAL, REPEAL then we, the people, will begin to once again believe that this party is serious about the Foundations of this Beloved Country.

The years of accumulation of disgrace must be REPEALED. The Office of the President must be limited to the President and his cabinet. We can not have this Office of the President operating as "a little government within a government"
The bureaus under this Office must be eliminated. These bureaus "eat out the substance of the people" daily with their rules, regulations and mandates. The "Executive Order" formerly directed to "empty trash cans in the White House" is now, the legislative arm of the President minus Congress. Totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Some suggestions from one who has loved this Country. I have "no vested interest" except I Love My Country and I want this Country returned to the Foundations and the Faith of our Beloved Fathers.

For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson

Seamus I am not offended at all. It does surprise me to learn that we actually have no Govt. because the Constitution was only witnessed. Does this go for each state Constitution as well? I stand by my post regardless. As many have pointed out already, this did not start with Obama but began in 2007 when republicans and George Bush were calling the shots. I am aware that Bush is no more of a patriot than Obama is and neither care what the Constitution says. There has been a fight for the heart of America for a very long time. At last it has gotten to the point where people are taking sides. I pray to God that freedom has enough on her side to win.

@BK Campbell: I'm sorry to poke a hole in your inner tube, "Ironsides", but the Constitution is just what GW Bush called it, "a goddamned piece of paper!" It's NOT a contract, because it was never signed. It was only WITNESSED. Witnesses witness parties agreeing to a contract. They are not themselves the parties to the contract. What we have here is a failure to communicate. The PTB have done a bang-up job of hiding the facts.

NO ONE IS OBLIGED TO DO A GODDAMNED THING that the government orders them to do, but when one complies with their orders you have assumpsit contract! So to all the sheeple, Baaaah baaaah! (chop) That is how your world will end, unless you wake up and take your INDIVIDUAL sovereignty back.

Seth, Fred, Seamus and all other like minded folks, please step to the back of the line. Some of your points are valid but to expect us to accept everything the Fed. Govt. throws at us because it has been allowed to do so in the past without challenge, is not what this movement is about. Our Constitution has been badly mistreated and the answer is certainly not to give up on the health of the documents that proclaimed our Independance. The point of the Tenth Amendment movement is the fact that we have all the remedies spelled out in our Constitution. This is NOT about democrats or republicans at all. You can fight that war if you wish but the real battle is for our Constitution and whether it will be the authority behind our lives or not. It is never too late until the last patriot is dead or in prison. Then still, it is only a matter of time.

Listen up here... You state government types never had anything to say when the Federal Government was stuffing your districts with PORK. So now that it's doing something you DON'T like, you want to mobilize against it? It's too late! The monster you have been feeding for over 200 years has now gotten big enough that it doesn't need you anymore. You complacent shills are going to have to sleep in the bed you yourselves have made!

It is amusing to hear the whining from the most comfortable part of the population how they are abused by the federal government. If later day Confederates want to make it a two to nothing armed contest between the states and the federal government, go for it.

My old Grand-pap used to say “watch where the money flows”. If you look chart of where each dollar of tax is generated and the return to the states of federal dollars in spending you will see that the federal government seems to be sending allot of cash to the very same people who castigate them. Those same people literally bite that hand that feeds them. Attached is a chart from 2005, in that yearTennessee got $1.27 for every $1.00 sent to the feds in taxes. You are in a recession/depression and you are now receiving much more back from every dollar sent the federal treasury than you did in 2005. You folks are lucky to be a part of the USA with it’s deep pockets. That money is brought to you by the feds taken from the generous taxpayers in the states who don’t get their money back.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

So from one who lives in a state that pays in more money to the feds than we ever receive back from the feds I can’t wait for you all to leave.

The next logical step is for Tennessee to again allow slavery and have their citizens covered in white sheets and hang a few FED's like their neighbors in West Virginia.

Ha ha ha

Another business owned politician, what a surprise.

The ceos do NOT deserve the pay they are giving themselves and it's not their money.

When Seth explained to all you "newly self-appointed constitutional scholars" that the Constitution, "..is a starting point for making other laws. It’s not the sum of all possible laws, nor was it intended to be so", I have to ask if any of you didn't already know that? Thanks Seth, you are truly master of the obvious!

I guess the difference between him and you "newly self-appointed constitutional scholars" is that you all childishly refuse to accept the idea that those other laws can be just about anything Congress happens to feel is in the country's best interest. You are wacky enough to suggest that those other laws must actually be pursuant to the few and carefully enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. You don't seem to understand that the Constitution cannot bind a government that has the people's mandate! Furthermore, you commit political blasphemy by pointing out that US S CT justices are part of the federal government itself and might be biased when it comes to disputes between the federal government and state governments. You seem to imply that they are fallen mortal men rather than black robed deities! You are paranoid enough to think that if the federal government is allowed to judge the extent of its own powers it will always rule in favor of itself in an arbitrary fashion. You just don't get it! The federal government only wants what's best for you!

Nice verbal embroidery Seth!

Although you completely mischaracterized the 10th Amendment movement, (which is anything BUT exclusively right wing), and failed to refute a single one of its non-partisan principles, such as limited decentralized government based on the idea that the text of the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, (something intellectual giants like Jefferson and Madison understood), you did manage to abuse those who ignored Bush area usurpations without resorting to foul language. Good job!

Unfortunately, these "Johnny-come-lately" folks you seem to think compose a large part of this movement have never made up its core membership or its intellectual leadership. But for those of them who have recently "seen the light" and are now joining us in promoting Constitutional federalism, I say "Welcome"! But as far as just about everyone else in the movement, both scholars and informed laymen like myself, we were just as critical of Bush then as we are of Obama today. Maybe you didn't notice that the article archives on this website date back to JAN 2007. GOLLY! That was actually BEFORE the federal government was dominated by the Democrats!

So when you ask, "Under what rock were all these 10th Amendment devotees hiding a few years ago?" I would say that if you knew anything at all about this movement and its long history, you'd realize we haven't been hiding, we've just been ignored until recently. As Gandhi said, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."

If adopting your sloppy and abusive manner of debate is what you mean when you say we should embrace "the use of facts and ordinary reasoning" I WANT TO BE WEIRD!

Seth, did you have something meaningful or worthwhile to say, other than stating the obvious about the constitution not being the sum total of all laws? About all I can make out of your post otherwise is this -- that you despise people who are your political and ideological opposites, and count them both unqualified and unworthy to sit at the same table with your intellectually superior self. See there, I summed up your lengthy, bloviating rant in one short sentence. See how easy that is.

John, not to be a wise-*ss, but who really wants you under those conditions? You're certainly entitled to make your own choices and to establish your own conditions for becoming a part, or not, of a voluntary movement such as this one. But, you see, you and your kind aren't going to make or break the movement depending on whether you decide to participate in it or not for ideological or other reasons. I mean, this isn't "big-tent conservatism" here. You know, that brand of "conservatism" that's willing to be all things to all people all the time, thus it's anything but. What we're talking about here, John, is a clear and explicit constitutional restriction on the power and scope of government. Either you're with that or you're not. But no one's going to hold the train at the station while you twiddle your thumbs, promising to board when everything meets with your approval. You're just not that important, John. Sorry.

Please, please so that we and our children may have hope for a future free of the dark evils that is communism..call your representatives and DEMAND!!! they join this movement. Yes you need to DEMAND it and you have that right it's just been forgotten / hidden for way to long. I can see now why I don't know my natural born AMERICAN rights like I should. They don't really teach it or hammer it in at schools anymore just like our pledge. It's like learning your multiples via flash cards as you repeat over and over...over the material. Learning the constitution, pledge, and national language should be the most important teachings as you have to learn history to have a future. I am sick and tired of being dictated to by my, tax payed, government who works for me. They work for us as in " We the People " ..what employer lets there employees dictate and control them? It's truly time to burn these cancerous amendments and start over with the basics. We would be doing such a disgrace to a untold amount of heroic, brave, patriotic and honorable men and women to not stand up for ourself and take back what was given to us by there incomprehensible sacrifice. This is not going to be easy; it's going to be down right nasty achieving this but it must be done.

For the sake of AMERICA and your quality of life turn off the reality shows and dedicate a little time towards your future by becoming engaged and exercising your natural constitutional rights.....write your elected officials.

Our 10th amendment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th...

Lets put the tea in the harbor where it belongs!

I'm wondering what wisdom the "several states" (nice command of outdated English!) have to offer beyond run-of-the-mill political disagreements over particular policies. Why not debate policies rather than go constitutional and obscure the debate?

For all those newly self-appointed constitutional scholars out there, here's a hint: that document is a starting point for making other laws. It's not the sum of all possible laws, nor was it intended to be so. Somehow these bizarre constitutional fundamentalists have dreamed up a hysterical legal crisis because they're politically weak and intellectually bankrupt.

Most of these people are a bunch of uneducated scandalmongers and conspiracy loons who wouldn't recognize "original intent" if it kicked them in the ass.

It appears that the biggest "state right" being violated by Obama right now is the right for states to go bankrupt if their finances are hosed and if their leaders don't understand economics or economic history.

It's amazing how these freaks keep ranting about "we the people" when at heart they don't recognize the validity of the lawful election in which a decisive majority chose the current leadership. They're just whiny losers who have to dress up their childish urges in melodramatic constitution and republic talk. They're mostly either opportunists (like probably this exalted Tennessee legislator) or under-informed over-opinionated followers of whatever conservative nationalist mantras get yelled the loudest.

For all their deep feelings, these Johnny-come-lately cranks didn't recognize that the biggest affronts to freedom in recent memory happened during the Bush years--warrantless wiretapping and all the "Patriot Act" intrusions. Under what rock were all these 10th Amendment devotees hiding a few years ago?

Part of the responsibility in a "republic" is to be able to have reasoned discussion, not kooky emotional tirades about "patriots" and their bizarre mix of theocratic insights (they seem to think the founding of the US was tied to biblical events--maybe this is a Mormon view?) and historical fictions (oh the Founding Fathers? many of them were not pious Christians like their 21st-century worshipers are!).

If you can't embrace the use of facts and ordinary reasoning, I don't see how you can have a place at the table of public policy.

Always a big supporter of the 10th amendment, however this effort is as transparent as they come. Where was it when it was truly needed during the Bush administration. The anti Obama comments expose this effort for what it truly is. When you want to propose this when Obama's term is up 7 years from now, when we don't know what party will be controlling the White House and Congress, sign me up, until then work on the right wing wackos trying to tear this country down.

Bernard: Have you ever read the Constitution? The amendments are clear but what are the changes you are suggesting? There are always court challenges but court challenges do not fundamentally change the document. New cases are always brought before the Supreme Court and depending on the makeup of the court interpretations differ. The "white" guy thing is old, tired, and a red herring. It was not a religious document but it was based on our Christian principles. You need to re-read and come back when you are prepared to make a real comment that shows you should be taken seriously.

The constitution protects the individuals freedoms rich, poor, sick or healthy. It has nothing to do with government healthcare...

Freedom for all!!!

The people posting on here seem to have no knowledge of the Constitution nor how the US Government has evolved over 200 years. The issues of States rights VS Federal rights has been debated in courts and elsewhere since alnost the day the Bill of Rights was approved. The Constition was written for a country of 3 million white citizens (half of them women who could not vote) it is not a religous document. The courts and legislatures have had to intepret, amend, and allow for advances and changes in society.

Government exists to benefit the least of us: the sick, the poor, etc. I suggest you join the 21st century. A diverse world much better than any supposed past that only existed for rich white men!!

Health care for all!!!

You see the red herring is what will you do without the federal money but the real question is what will the feds do if we stop sending the money to DC?

It's kind of a racket. The federal government takes money from the citizens, gives itself a cut, then returns some of it in programs which the states are obligated to implement.

The real issue is how far the various state governments are going to take the Tenth Amendment resolutions. There was a similar move back in the early 1990s which I supported. But it fizzled.

One problem I have seen is that whenever we get a good conservative movement going (Tenth Amendment, teabaggers), the issue dissipates because:

1) The government makes some vague promises which buy off public anger; the government then reneges, but by this time the people in the movement have gone home.

2) Some celebrity news story dominates the media. I imagine Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson are far more important than sound fiscal policies!

3) Conservative media spokesmen tell us that the solution is to vote for a real Republican next time around and that will solve all of our problems.

As I read these posts, I realize one very important aspect of America,in all her glory; and that is the people. The basic human beings that are part of the fabric and color that is us.

Nothing worth while will be easy. Hardship came in the form of starvation, and death in the beginning of our great nation. For those who say we will give up much in the form of government largesse; if we get back our income capability and give the funds instead to the state in which we live, we will have lost nothing. The short run will be hard. Oh,but in the future we will look, once again with pride, on bringing America back from the brink of total disaster.

That is where I want to stand. Force government to its knees and give back to the people what is rightfully theirs. And use the system which was given to us those long years ago to do it. Rightful and righteous indeed.

Stephen: If you want anyone to take you seriously; argue that way... The language is unnecessary... Thanks.