<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: States Revolt Against the Federal Government</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/</link>
	<description>Concordia res Parvae Crescunt</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 18:17:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sky</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-405847</link>
		<dc:creator>sky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Dec 2010 20:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-405847</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I heard about constitional reset begins with a vote petition for redress of grievous felony to your govenor.Petition must be tuned to your state constition and code,FOI Laws,can lawfully obligate govenor to a timely responsive reply by asking for a copy of that paticular duty authorized record of public law,to sworn officer. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I heard about constitional reset begins with a vote petition for redress of grievous felony to your govenor.Petition must be tuned to your state constition and code,FOI Laws,can lawfully obligate govenor to a timely responsive reply by asking for a copy of that paticular duty authorized record of public law,to sworn officer. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Teresa</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-384560</link>
		<dc:creator>Teresa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2010 01:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-384560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Texas is unique from other states in that when it entered the Union, it gave itself an out.  Article One, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states in part that:  &quot;...[Texans] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.&quot; 
 
This is a unilateral choice for Texas.  We don&#039;t have to get &quot;permission&quot; from D.C. to act.  It&#039;s my greatest hope that Texans will one day &quot;reform&quot; their working relationship with Washington in a way similar to the following:  Texas will not comply with, or fund, UN-enumerated (as expressly read in Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) federal laws or regulations until the Texas State Legislature has vetted, approved, and funded said items.  In addition, Texans must insist that Federal Court decisions will only be observed and respected in Texas if those rulings reflect the original intent, and expressed jurisdiction of the federal courts.   
 
Teresa 
San Marcos Texas 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Texas is unique from other states in that when it entered the Union, it gave itself an out.  Article One, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution states in part that:  &quot;&#8230;[Texans] have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.&quot; </p>
<p>This is a unilateral choice for Texas.  We don&#039;t have to get &quot;permission&quot; from D.C. to act.  It&#039;s my greatest hope that Texans will one day &quot;reform&quot; their working relationship with Washington in a way similar to the following:  Texas will not comply with, or fund, UN-enumerated (as expressly read in Article One, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) federal laws or regulations until the Texas State Legislature has vetted, approved, and funded said items.  In addition, Texans must insist that Federal Court decisions will only be observed and respected in Texas if those rulings reflect the original intent, and expressed jurisdiction of the federal courts.   </p>
<p>Teresa<br />
San Marcos Texas </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tenth Amendment Center &#124; The Ruthless Truth blog</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-324701</link>
		<dc:creator>Tenth Amendment Center &#124; The Ruthless Truth blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 00:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-324701</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] States Revolt Against the Federal Government [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] States Revolt Against the Federal Government [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: theunknownamerican</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-324519</link>
		<dc:creator>theunknownamerican</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 03:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-324519</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I kind of think it will be hard to sell getting rid of the 17th amendment but if I can actually throw an idea out and that would be to make it that if a senator of a state wants to vote yes on anything he/she must first get approval from the legislature of the state they represent.   This way they can be democratically elected and if they have to approve anything it has to get approval from the state government itself.   This should restore some balance between the state and federal governments.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I kind of think it will be hard to sell getting rid of the 17th amendment but if I can actually throw an idea out and that would be to make it that if a senator of a state wants to vote yes on anything he/she must first get approval from the legislature of the state they represent.   This way they can be democratically elected and if they have to approve anything it has to get approval from the state government itself.   This should restore some balance between the state and federal governments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317860</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 02:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Again, 14 states nullifying federal laws on marijuana is NOT a popular movement?  Absurd. 
 
But - supporting the constitution and supporting the views of a political ideology don&#039;t always go hand in hand.  In my view, conservatives are the worst offenders of this.... 
 
And no - we&#039;re not a political party - or a movement.  We&#039;re an organization that puts out information about the constitution.   You&#039;ll be hard-pressed to find a better one out there anywhere.   
 
Our sole goal is to present the constitutional view on everything - conservatives and liberals alike can play their games distorting it, or making excuses for not following it.  They both do it every day.... 
 
Now, if you&#039;d like to tell us that the federal government being involved in the drug was is somehow constitutional, we could have a discussion about that.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again, 14 states nullifying federal laws on marijuana is NOT a popular movement?  Absurd. </p>
<p>But &#8211; supporting the constitution and supporting the views of a political ideology don&#39;t always go hand in hand.  In my view, conservatives are the worst offenders of this&#8230;. </p>
<p>And no &#8211; we&#39;re not a political party &#8211; or a movement.  We&#39;re an organization that puts out information about the constitution.   You&#39;ll be hard-pressed to find a better one out there anywhere.   </p>
<p>Our sole goal is to present the constitutional view on everything &#8211; conservatives and liberals alike can play their games distorting it, or making excuses for not following it.  They both do it every day&#8230;. </p>
<p>Now, if you&#39;d like to tell us that the federal government being involved in the drug was is somehow constitutional, we could have a discussion about that.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317857</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 02:40:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michael, civility in debate is something you might want to try. There was nothing &quot;idiotic&quot; about my saying that a movement needs public support to succeed, and marijuana legalization is a fringe issue opposed by 2/3 of all voters. You&#039;re right that the Constitution isn&#039;t a popularity contest. But, you and TAC aren&#039;t the Constitution. You&#039;re a &quot;think tank&quot; with a goal of convincing people that you&#039;re right. Or, at least that&#039;s what I assumed until now. But, you&#8217;ve clarified that for me. You don&#8217;t care about your image like those nasty politicians do. Tell me, if the North America Man Boy Love Association were to achieve it ends in a state (with an activist judiciary, anything is possible), would you support their nullification attempt? Would you repeatedly run articles saying, &#8220;We must help NAMBLA nullify federal laws opposing child molestation!&#8221; Or would you realize that you and TAC (and the 10th Amendment itself) will lose virtually all public support the moment you are perceived as supporting NAMBLA&#8217;s cause?  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michael, civility in debate is something you might want to try. There was nothing &quot;idiotic&quot; about my saying that a movement needs public support to succeed, and marijuana legalization is a fringe issue opposed by 2/3 of all voters. You&#39;re right that the Constitution isn&#39;t a popularity contest. But, you and TAC aren&#39;t the Constitution. You&#39;re a &quot;think tank&quot; with a goal of convincing people that you&#39;re right. Or, at least that&#39;s what I assumed until now. But, you&rsquo;ve clarified that for me. You don&rsquo;t care about your image like those nasty politicians do. Tell me, if the North America Man Boy Love Association were to achieve it ends in a state (with an activist judiciary, anything is possible), would you support their nullification attempt? Would you repeatedly run articles saying, &ldquo;We must help NAMBLA nullify federal laws opposing child molestation!&rdquo; Or would you realize that you and TAC (and the 10th Amendment itself) will lose virtually all public support the moment you are perceived as supporting NAMBLA&rsquo;s cause?  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317861</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 19:48:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Again, 14 states nullifying federal laws on marijuana is NOT a popular movement?  Absurd. 
 
But - supporting the constitution and supporting the views of a political ideology don&#039;t always go hand in hand.  In my view, conservatives are the worst offenders of this.... 
 
And no - we&#039;re not a political party - or a movement.  We&#039;re an organization that puts out information about the constitution.   You&#039;ll be hard-pressed to find a better one out there anywhere.   
 
Our sole goal is to present the constitutional view on everything - conservatives and liberals alike can play their games distorting it, or making excuses for not following it.  They both do it every day.... 
 
Now, if you&#039;d like to tell us that the federal government being involved in the drug was is somehow constitutional, we could have a discussion about that.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Again, 14 states nullifying federal laws on marijuana is NOT a popular movement?  Absurd. </p>
<p>But &#8211; supporting the constitution and supporting the views of a political ideology don&#039;t always go hand in hand.  In my view, conservatives are the worst offenders of this&#8230;. </p>
<p>And no &#8211; we&#039;re not a political party &#8211; or a movement.  We&#039;re an organization that puts out information about the constitution.   You&#039;ll be hard-pressed to find a better one out there anywhere.   </p>
<p>Our sole goal is to present the constitutional view on everything &#8211; conservatives and liberals alike can play their games distorting it, or making excuses for not following it.  They both do it every day&#8230;. </p>
<p>Now, if you&#039;d like to tell us that the federal government being involved in the drug was is somehow constitutional, we could have a discussion about that.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317858</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 19:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s become clear to me now that TAC isn&#8217;t a serious effort to achieve anything. It is a self-indulgent exercise that is less concerned with making changes in the real world and more concerned with talking amongst yourselves (like the Libertarian Party). You can&#8217;t accomplish your goals without popular support, and you can&#8217;t get popular support by identifying yourself with unpopular issues. To try to do so is, to use your word, idiotic.   
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&rsquo;s become clear to me now that TAC isn&rsquo;t a serious effort to achieve anything. It is a self-indulgent exercise that is less concerned with making changes in the real world and more concerned with talking amongst yourselves (like the Libertarian Party). You can&rsquo;t accomplish your goals without popular support, and you can&rsquo;t get popular support by identifying yourself with unpopular issues. To try to do so is, to use your word, idiotic.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317837</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 14:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What&#039;s even MORE idiotic about that statement is the assumption that nullifying federal marijuana laws is &quot;unpopular&quot;!! 
 
14 states are now actively defying the federal government.  How many are doing that on unconstitutional national health care or unconstitutional gun laws?  ZERO. 
 
Rick - you&#039;ll do well to learn from these people...instead of hiding from them. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#039;s even MORE idiotic about that statement is the assumption that nullifying federal marijuana laws is &quot;unpopular&quot;!! </p>
<p>14 states are now actively defying the federal government.  How many are doing that on unconstitutional national health care or unconstitutional gun laws?  ZERO. </p>
<p>Rick &#8211; you&#039;ll do well to learn from these people&#8230;instead of hiding from them. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/26/states-revolt-against-the-federal-government/comment-page-1/#comment-317836</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 May 2010 14:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=5568#comment-317836</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[you seem to have TAC confused with a political party.  Keep that kind of &quot;give a good image&quot; garbage to the politicians.  We are here to talk about what is constitutional and what is not - regardless of political affiliation of popularity.  The Constitution isn&#039;t a popularity contest. 
 
The worst offense of conservatives to me is this viewpoint - &quot;Don&#039;t talk about unconstitutional actions unless it&#039;s popular to conservatives&quot; 
 
And - &quot;don&#039;t talk about marijuana - even is it is a HUGE example of how nullification works.  We don&#039;t want examples of success - unless it&#039;s conservative.&quot; 
 
Well, show me one, and we&#039;ll highlight it more.....get out there and nullify, Rick. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>you seem to have TAC confused with a political party.  Keep that kind of &quot;give a good image&quot; garbage to the politicians.  We are here to talk about what is constitutional and what is not &#8211; regardless of political affiliation of popularity.  The Constitution isn&#039;t a popularity contest. </p>
<p>The worst offense of conservatives to me is this viewpoint &#8211; &quot;Don&#039;t talk about unconstitutional actions unless it&#039;s popular to conservatives&quot; </p>
<p>And &#8211; &quot;don&#039;t talk about marijuana &#8211; even is it is a HUGE example of how nullification works.  We don&#039;t want examples of success &#8211; unless it&#039;s conservative.&quot; </p>
<p>Well, show me one, and we&#039;ll highlight it more&#8230;..get out there and nullify, Rick. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
