COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dhorowitz3

    OK total random question. Why in the world did Sen. Mike Johanns vote against the DeMint amendment this week to deny funding to the DOJ for purposes of legal action against Arizona. Johanns introduced a bill just this week that would force the feds to reimburse states for such legal costs. Did he press the wrong button?

  • deano64

    throw off such government that would tax us without representation.

  • Dave_in_Fla

    He got a by name mention on Rush yesterday. Usually only Erick gets those *grin*

  • eastbaylarry

    As in the fees, fines and penalties imposed by unelected bureaucrats and ‘agencies’.

    Here in California the California Air Resources Board, (CARB), has actually put small business owners in jail for the ‘crime’ of selling vehicles which did not meet the impossible requirements of the ever-expanding regulations.

  • gwalt

    I live in John Lewis’ Georgia 5th—–I know all about it.

    BTW—Erick—-what do you think the chances of Lewis being knocked off by Fenn?

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    what’d Rush say?

  • snowshooze

    That is great!
    States holding the Federal Government responsible and liable in court.
    It would open a floodgate and all the States could join right in.
    Um..ok but why ever would he do a total about face, well I can only guess the two apparent possibilities:
    1. He was pressured
    2. He wants to brace the Federal Government in court and stomp them.

    If the States could seek reimbursement, they could take over all border security and enforce it at their discretion. Build fences, facilities, processing stations, unlimited potential.
    The stakes are so high in that event that the Federal Government cannot afford to lose, they would also have to begin to honor their guarantee to the States to protect the borders…and this might lead to the enforcement of all their guarantees and responsibilities to the States.
    I have been waiting for this. The first shot has been fired.
    I guarantee the Federal Government will not take this laying down.

  • snowshooze

    That is great!
    States holding the Federal Government responsible and liable in court.
    It would open a floodgate and all the States could join right in.
    Um..ok but why ever would he do a total about face, well I can only guess the two apparent possibilities:
    1. He was pressured
    2. He wants to brace the Federal Government in court and stomp them.

    If the States could seek reimbursement, they could take over all border security and enforce it at their discretion. Build fences, facilities, processing stations, unlimited potential.
    The stakes are so high in that event that the Federal Government cannot afford to lose, they would also have to begin to honor their guarantee to the States to protect the borders…and this might lead to the enforcement of all their guarantees and responsibilities to the States.
    I have been waiting for this. The first shot has been fired.
    I guarantee the Federal Government will not take this laying down.

  • moderaterepub

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Hm1QyypyE

    CRINGE. Is this the best they can do? The RGA’s Remember November camapign blows this out of the water.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    Hubby bought me an old college Intro to American gov’t book from 1922.

    I quote:

    “But is the tax constitutional when it is not clearly either a revenue measure or a means of rendering effective some other delegated power? This question was raised by the law of 1902 laying a prohibitive tax upon oleomargarine , by the act of 1912 placing a similar tax upon the manufacture of poisonous phosphorous matches, by the narcotics drug laws of 1914 and 1919 imposing a tax upon registered dealers, and by the law of 1919 imposing a special tax on the incomes of concerns employing children under the age of sixteen.

    In cases coming before it at different times, the Supreme Court upheld both the oleomargarine and the narcotics law as revenue measures, refusing to inquire into the legislative motive. The constitutionality of the phosphorous match law has never been judicially tested. But when the child labor law was challenged, the Supreme Court for the first time took into account the real motive animating Congress, and made such motive a test of legislative action.

    Refusing to look upon the law as a revenue measure, the Court viewed it as an attempt by Congress to bring within its control, by means of the taxing power, matters normally falling to the states alone to regulate; and for this reason, the measure was held not to be a valid exercise of the taxing power.*

    *Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S., 20 (1922). For a brief critical review of this decision, see Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev., XVI, 612-616 (Nov., 1922). See also W. Thompson, Federal Centralization, Chap IV; New Republic, XXXI 177-179, 248-250 *July 12 and 26, 1922). J. r. Long, “Federal Police Regulation by Taxation,” Va. Law Rev., IX, 81-97 (Dec., 1922).

    **end excerpt

    Don’t know about you, but this sure did remind me of the states’ healthcare fight in the courts.

    Even then, Congress was up to the same old shenanigans.

  • hickorystick

    ?taxation without representation? comes right out of of John Hampden’s playbook. He coined a phrase, but I can’t remember it right now. A good guy, Hampden. Lot’s of townships and counties named after him in the US.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hampden

  • deano64
  • callawyn

    Today, we have the opposite problem. Nearly 50% of the population has a ZERO tax liability (about a fifth actually make money when they file their tax return).

    This is the Democrats BASE.

    Any surprise the people that get, on average, about $30k per year in entitlements and pay no taxes are in favor of higher taxes and more entitlements?

    It is a complete divorce of power from responsibility. The party in power has complete control of the purse strings, and represents people that pay no taxes.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    “Taxes are for the Little People.” – John F. ….Oops, I’m sorry, it was Leona Helmsley that said that. Current events confuse me sometimes…

  • Sundayjack

    I teach a 4th Amendment class each year and it all starts with the story about James Otis Jr. An amazing man. Perhaps the man most responsible, but least credited with the independence of this country. John Adams sat in attendance, watching with in wide-eyed amazement as James Otis argue against writs of assistance of the Crown, and he remarked, “There and then, the child of independence was born.” He should sit as a demigod for conservatives everywhere.

    Great, great stuff.

  • Aaron Gardner

    you should consider doing a full diary on this subject if you have the time.

  • Next93

    If those of us who pay into the government get the same representation as those who don’t, the effect of this ‘ dilution’ is the same as depriving us of representation. The two factors that led to the revolution were this (taxation without representation) and the refusal of the government to listen to the objections of the people. Looks like the Dems aren’t big fans of history.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica
  • jcincy

    This nation surrendered ‘taxation with representation’ when we added the 16th and 17th amendment to the Constitution.

    Article 1, Section 2
    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers”

    The 16th amendment bypasses the states for raising federal revenue. By taking the states out of the loop of raising Federal Revenue a critical check against the growth of the federal government was lost. Now the states beg the Federal government for money, instead of the Feds appealing to the states. He who has the gold, makes the rules.

    Tied to this is the change in how U.S. Senators are selected. Before the 17th amendment, U.S. Senators answered directly to their state legislatures. Now they ignore their constituents, until the election cycle comes around again every 6 years.

    Pre 16th-17th amendment a senator would never vote to use their states funds to build monuments to Robert Byrd… or if they did they’d be headed home.

    Term Limits?
    21 of the 25 longest serving senators started in office after the passage of the 17th amendment. Only one served in office entirely before this change.

  • Locked and Loaded
  • Locked and Loaded
  • Locked and Loaded
  • ncncnc

    I can’t imagine how Arizona can win. The whole point of the federal government is to provide a common front against foreign interests. That’s why there’s a federal army and war declaration power. The enforcement or non-enforcement of immigration has to be a countrywide thing, imagine how

    “If the States could seek reimbursement, they could take over all border security and enforce it at their discretion. Build fences, facilities, processing stations, unlimited potential.”

    crazy that would be. What Arizona is doing now is questionable, that suggestion is way beyond. How could you have a united country if each individual state was enforcing ingress at its own discretion?

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Proof that the evil motives and actions of a few today were predictably anticipated by our founders;

    All civilized Societies would be divided into different Sects, Factions, & interests, as they happened to consist of rich & poor, debtors & creditors, the landed, the manufacturing, the commercial interests, the inhabitants of this district or that district, the followers of this political leader or that political leader, the disciples of this religious Sect or that religious Sect. In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it.

    James Madison

  • qixlqatl

    “LOL – This is not the video of a confident organization. BTW – you are aware that the Spartans lost that battle, Rocky lost that fight, the Animal House guys were still expelled, and Howard Beale was murdered, right?
    Perhaps this video was appropriate…big rallying cry, and lots? of cheers from the throngs before the upcoming slaughter in November. ”

    Ouch, that’s a tough criticism ;)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV4qxMDT-QM

  • jcincy

    Good catch Locked and Loaded.

    http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm

    A brief history of the 17th amendment:
    http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

    One of the key players was William Hearst — newspapers, media, political power in the democratic party… think FDR and the New Deal.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com Veronica

    And congrats!

    You deserved it. :)

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The post is linked at the Youtube post but it’s here.

  • snowshooze

    And what I have mentioned here, and apparently Johanns as well, is not a war declaration, far from it.
    The general battlegrounds are that the Federal Government was charged with defending the borders, which they are not doing.
    And you can’t beg them to do it.
    As I understand the Arizona law reflects Federal law. Arizona would hand over illegals to the Federal Government…who apparently does not want them. It would be up to the Federal Government to deport them.
    There are expenses involved which should not fall to Arizona where that responsibility is assigned to the Federal Government.
    I think it is a pretty clear argument. Pure common sense.
    If the States have to go out and perform the duties the Federal Government has already been paid for and yet not performed, the States should see that money returned, and be reimbursed for any and all expenses ( And court fees ) incurred by their having to do the job themselves.
    The Federal Government is defaulting on their contract.

  • doncorleone

    Very recently, my wife and I went thru an i.r.s. audit, a 1st for both of us. After the interviewing process and the ensuing proctological exam, ( keeping good, detailed financial records, and having a great financial advisor, allowed us to have a pleasant result). Our financial advisor asked the i.r.s. agent about the goings on concerning the merging of international (world bank) tax laws and i.r.s. tax laws, and how that merging hadn’t exactly worked out very well, and was a contributing factor to the economic mess we are in, especially in regards to money flow, and credit acquisition. The i.r.s. agent agreed, he said that the merging of the tax laws, w/a much heavier influence of the international tax laws rather than i.r.s. tax laws was going to be a nightmare for him in the execution of his job. We as U.S. citizens are going to be taxed globally w/out representation. The next to last coffin nail has already gone in ( the financial regulatory bill), cap and trade is the last. We need to flood d.c. w/calls, letters and e-mails expressing our disfavour to our elected representatives. The “powers” that be wouldn’t be preparing the i.r.s. for our global taxation. The “healthcare” bill, and cap and trade, were already put into the ’11 budget. Both of those fiascos wouldn’t have been there, w/out the confidence of their passing.

  • redneck_hippie

    Service.

    h/t Drudgereport

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/world/europe/25britain.html?_r=2&hp

    Meanwhile Jan Schakowsky and others announced introduction of public option bill to the house:

    http://insurancenewsnet.com/article.aspx?id=209814

  • itrytobenice

    Aye.

  • redneck_hippie
  • 6eorge Jetson

    while here in the US the *momentum* is turning to the Left…at least until the next couple of elections.

    However, socialized Europe is still *WAAAY* to the Left of the US in absolute terms…As reflected by their market cumulative probabilities of soverign debt default.


                                     Click to see full size image

    Source

    Links to all parts of series published to date

    It’s also funny how the US has benefited from a Flight To “Quality” **Cough, Cough, on a relative basis** this year.

  • 6eorge Jetson


                                     Click to see full size image

  • 6eorge Jetson

    At first glance, I had to scratch my head. How can the probability of a US default be 3% for five years when the US can always print money to screw the bond holders by paying them off with baby dollars?

    Well, perhaps if things got that bad, the consequences of screwing the bondholders via an explicit default might be less than the consequences of screwing them by paying them off in baby dollars. Or perhaps there’s some other explanation, like the breakup of the United States…I don’t give that much weight, but it’s no longer batshoot crazy either

  • lineholder

    at the irony of it when I read this. Here Obama and his cronies are, determined to install “European” style policies in our country.

    But they are like the people who came late to the party. Europe is leaving, actually moving in a direction that is more conservative.

    So Europe says to Obama, “Hey, man, you know, it wasn’t what it was cracked up to be. We’re up to our backsides in bad debt.” But Obama/cronies are determined to have their turn at this, even when Europe collectively said at the G20 meetings, “Man, you really don’t want to do this!!! Take our word for it…it isn’t worth it”.

    In the meantime, every American with half an ounce of common sense is sticking their heads out the windows of their homes and yelling in the direction of DC, “It’s the economy, stupid”.

    What a farce this administration has become.

  • Sundayjack

    A diary about the story of James Otis Jr?

    I’ll try to pull something together.

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    Our problem today is the opposite: all the welfare sponges who get Representation without Taxation and can vote us into the poorhouse.