IntenseDebate - VicFedorov

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Health Care Nullificat... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

This is clearly to protect religion from government, and not government from religion. Because religion is good, helping to explain what is hard to understand, and government is morally ambiguos.

The free excercise of religion certainly can include prayers in school, provided they are not mandatory, or ordered.

The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself for messing up this simple law; judicial reform should spring from some of these clear errors by the court. Judicial reform can consist of more judges hearing a case: (1,3 7, or 9, judges are far too inhibited by the status quo. The more judges judging together, I believe, the more accurate a ruling) (Judges get burned out quick and go on automatic; shorten their terms) (There is nothing incredible about judging, most people are capable of hearing a case, making a judgement; open up the profession to the less exalted and more humble; stop exalting judges as incredible people capable of making a decision and exerting law---many people can do this, and should, together, for short terms, like jurists.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 0 replies · +1 points

I have to ascribe the lack of specific known trade pacts between states, which would bolster each states economy and production, to the swaddling of states by our federal government and republican design, and the relinquishing of state control to local officials in incorporated towns. The federal government structurally fails to care for the unique individual needs of each state, and local officials fail to see the general goals and interests of the whole state.

Allowing the federal government to manufacture money, inhibits sustainable economies, and hinders state economic development.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Health Care Nullificat... · 0 replies · +1 points

Having different health care reform legislation in each state, not only allows the more direct input of the people, but is a wonderful genus of competition, increasing the seriousness of our states and nation. Having a different program for each state will make time a experience be the judge, and let us view a wide sample of results to apply.
Examined with the eventual data of this opportunity, the course will be sown whereby the guidelines of wisdom and the nature of people and states are more seen; solutions come from within, not without. Today, when a state complains about its problems, (overdevelopment, high taxes, corruption) they do not turn to other states for help with a solution. Likewise, when a state does something right, other states don't learn from it. Mandating different solutions from different states, will teach the states to look to each other for guidance and help.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Health Care Nullificat... · 2 replies · +1 points

It is this thinking, that reduces the care a state could naturally give itself, and that reduces economic competition, which makes the government and media less able to see the states as natural care-takers of their needs.
Some states might develop health care programs that attract rich people to move there; others, health care programs that attract poor people to move there; we don’t know, we would have to see it play out. But the point is to encourage states to develop their own character, characteristics and identity, because the further that is honed and worked out, the better a state can take care of itself--because it has identify it can focus on, and character that can be applied

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Health Care Nullificat... · 2 replies · +1 points

What law allows congress to create health care? This is a fine test for the tenth amendment.
It would be great if each state came up with their own heath care legislation.
The national media could scrutinize and the public could learn about each one. We would see implemented 50 different plans. Time and experience would scrutinize all of them. We would learn from experience.
The reason why this natural ingenuity isn’t happening is two-fold. Both the federal government and the incorporation of towns by state constitutions with local officials have weakened the state government; and the federal government is devised to discourage bad impetus by states, as opposed to encouraging good impetus. This is so if you derive the nature of federal authority as initially incepted to, 1) keep the states from warring each other over disputed (Indian) territory, 2) Provide a large navy, and conscript a general army to protect us effectively from France, Spain, England and Indians and 3) Eliminate the duties and tariff states might impose on each other that would hinder trade.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 2 replies · +1 points

I construe, perhaps mistakenly, the prohibition on treaty, to include trade pacts. I construe the ban on Bills of Credit, which seem necessary should there be direct trade between states, as inhibiting such natural economic concourse. I see the prohibition of imposts as perhaps impeding the natural competition and character and sustainability that could arise
should trade pacts involve the passage of goods through certain states. And that these guidelines are controlled by congress, rather than the participants, direct us away from participants solving problems, and towards federal homogeneity. In general, the attacks on sovereignty herein, while preventing cruelty, or folly, by the states, have the spirit and effect, we may discern, of making states think less about their economic character and aligning such care with other states, and having established, a general economic nature that is neither truly competitive or wise or sustainable.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 2 replies · +1 points

But if you can grant me one remark to your last rebuttal: I derive the federal government’s discourage of state trading pacts and true economic competition from Article 1, section 10.
“ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.”

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 3 replies · +1 points

Cutting off funding for wars is the constitutional check limiting foreign policy congress fears to excercise.
Look, Michael, I am sorry to go off topic, and I firmly believe we’d be better off as 50 countries than one nation, that our federal government was meant to hold us together in perilous nascent times, but now holds us back, and the tenth amendment is intended to help this vision. (I firmly believe health care reform is better handled by the states and the people, and that we are missing the opportunity to see 50 resolutions regarding health implemented, which would allow then to observe which ones work and how.) In no way do I mean to detract from your endeavor of freeing us from federal tyranny; I am just more concerned with establishing free assemblies that free us from the tyranny of local officials. Both of us cite the tenth amendment.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 0 replies · +1 points

Whether free assembly is a natural form for community, which I think it is, or wisely legislated; the point is it came about in ancient Italy when Hannibal was coming from one direction and the Romans from another; a town had to decide which army to support, and choosing the loser would certainly make life worse---the patriarchy that ran the town had to call free assemblies to make the decision because the stakes were too high, they simply could not take responsibility for the decision, or, too many people objected to the side the patriarchy chose, compellingly so. So free assemblies were called to attempt to make these decisions easier, out of necessity in war time. This story shows that history is often ruled by irony.

16 years ago @ Tenth Amendment Center - Who Makes Foreign Policy? · 2 replies · +1 points

A referendum is not all present; deciding things with ayes and nays among themselves, that is what free assembly is; that people don’t know that; nor the right to petition the government to redress grievance is the right to bring up an issue in court; or that congress is only required to meet one day a year, or how the 9th amendment streamlines a form for the retention of rights (ask me about the logical tautology of the ninth amendment---a right that is retained by the people will not be denied or disparaged, and one that is denied or disparaged signifies it is not retained); all this indicates, as James Madison said, that knowledge is power; and there is no further proof of this than the lack of this good knowledge has led to a lack of good power: Our knowledge is limited is to keep us from powerful knowledge.

Free Assembly can come about in ironic ways. Here is one simplified story.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with VicFedorov

People I'm following

VicFedorov