‘Tenther’ Activists Add The Federal Highway System To List Of Programs To Kill
‘Tenther’ Activists Add The Federal Highway System To List Of Programs To Kill
In a recent radio interview, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) made the seemingly-innocuous statement that the federal highway system, as well as federal laws ensuring safe drugs and safe airplanes, are constitutional. Nevertheless, Shea-Porter is now under attack by “tenther” activists who believe that virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional:
Author and historian David Barton, the president of WallBbuilders, [sic] says Shea-Porter’s comments reflect her view that Washington government should run everything. He notes that both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say anything that is not explicitly covered in the Constitution belongs to the states and to the people.
“All of those issues belong to the states and the people. Healthcare is not a federal issue. It is a state and people issue — the same with transportation. The Constitution does say that the federal government can take care of what are called the post roads — those on which the mail travels — but outside of that, states are responsible for their own highways, their own roads, their own county, local, state roads,” he notes. “And her comment about, ‘Well, the Constitution doesn’t cover drug use and drug abuse’ — yes it does, and that is under the criminal justice issues that belong to the states.”
As ThinkProgress previously reported, conservatives are increasingly enraptured with tentherism, which claims that landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the VA health system and the G.I. Bill are violations of the 10th Amendment — and many leading conservative officials are determined to impose the tentherism on the country. Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) is a tenther, as are Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC). Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas embraces tenther claims that the federal minimum wage and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters, among other things, are unconstitutional.
Indeed, even federal highways opponent Barton is no small figure in conservative politics; Barton is one of six “experts” tasked with rewriting Texas’ public school textbooks to teach a right-wing alternative history to Texan children. Apparently, Barton and his fellow tenthers also want to rewrite the Constitution.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wrong again repugs, if you don’t want to drive on our highways walk in the ditch.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:21 pmAnd while we’re at it, lets repeal the 14th amendment since the gubbernment shouldn’t be telling us who we can or can not be prejudice too
yee-haw!
August 27th, 2009 at 6:23 pmBirthers, tenthers, what’s next. What non issue will they drum up to make sure government doesn’t work.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:25 pmThen I take it under “Tentherism”, that the Federal Government CAN’T BE GIVING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE BANKS!
August 27th, 2009 at 6:26 pmThen I take it under “Tentherism”, that the Federal Government CAN’T BE GIVING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE BANKS!
You would be correct.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThese “Tenthers” amaze me. Apparently they can’t get past the first sentence in the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:29 pm“tenther” – activists who believe that virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional
– - Ummm, no. They would be called anarchists.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:30 pmGeez, it must get awfully frustrating for the wingnuts to constantly have the wind of reality in their faces as they struggle to achieve their libertarian utopia (which this nation already tried once, under the Articles of Confederation. That experiment failed so miserably that the Constitutional (onvention was called in 1787.)
August 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pmthe tenth is an “amendment” just as many others are. It was not in the original constitution.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:32 pmralph the wonder llama says:
I reiterate my contention that any such libertarian utopia would necessarily end in the re-enactment of the Lord of the Flies
August 27th, 2009 at 6:46 pmIf we must stick to basics when interpreting the Constitution and its amendments, we will have to insist that the right to bear arms only allows muskets.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:49 pmThey see no irony in appealing to AN AMENDMENT to the Constitution as justfification for their position that, “if it’s not in the Constitution, then it can’t exist”.
They’re called “Amendments” for a reason, dummies.
I’m getting thoroughly fed up with screaming mouthbreather tantrum tosser idiots.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:49 pm***
tenthers?
this is a political roach motel
no right wing loon can resist
checking into.
:\
August 27th, 2009 at 6:50 pm“Tenthers”
Another nail in the coffin of the right wing.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:52 pm“Tenther” means “dolt” in Welsh.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:53 pmfcuking lunatics – all of them! This is getting ridiculous.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pmTenther!?!?! That’s a new one. “Birthers,” “Deathers” and now “Tenthers.” Can we just call them Idiots?!?!!
Or maybe “Dining Room Tablers” (a nod to Barney Frank telling that woman at a town hall meeting arguing with her is like arguing with a dining room table).
August 27th, 2009 at 6:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Okay, this is OT, unless the topic is right-wing lunacy:
Chris Broughton, the man who brought an assault rifle and a handgun to the Obama event in Arizona last week, attended a fiery anti-Obama sermon the day before the event, in which Pastor Steven Anderson said he was going to “pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell”, Anderson confirmed to TPMmuckraker today.
August 27th, 2009 at 6:58 pmAre you saying that the Bill of Rights were in the original Constitution?
Is that really the contention you’re suggesting?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pmA few months after America elected President Barack Obama, the fright-wig, excuse me, the right-wing of the Republican Party has been flipping out. First it was the “birthers,” then it was the “tea-baggers,” then it was the “deathers” and now it’s the “tenthers?” It is time for these hyper-ventilating clowns to turn off Rush and Glenn and calm down. I suppose that having a functioning democracy is a bit of a shock after eight long years of Bush-Republican-Corporate-Media-ight-wing dictatorship… I prefer to call all these screaming shouting protesters as “Rip-Van-Winklers,” because they were busy snoozing for eight years while Bush staged a fascist coup in December, 2000, started two wars of imperial aggression, jacked up the federal deficit and shredded our Constitution.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pmOutlaw284, that must be why it’s called the “tenth amendment”
Boy you sure are smart…..
Do you ever think before you post?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pmI have an amendment to consider: Ban repugs from U.S. soil
August 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pmYou wont be able to afford to drive on the highways after the private kleptocrats get control of the highways and set up toll boths every mile.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pmTentherism. Proving, once again, that you can Count on people’s God Given Right to act like Complete and Utter Idiots! What a collection of Maroons!
August 27th, 2009 at 7:02 pmIf the tenthers want to gain a 2/3 majority, they can amend the constitution to clarify the language. If the tenthers want to continue to complain about the ambiguity of the constitution, perhaps the Democrats can amend the constitution when they achieve a 2/3 majority, which will probably be in 2012.
Somehow I don’t think the tenthers are going to like the way the Democrats would change things though…
August 27th, 2009 at 7:03 pmYou just know the lobbyists [kleptopeegs] are behind the tenther farce.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pmAbsolutely..get these tenthers on National TV. Have them agrue for the dismantlement of Medicare, social security, and the interstate highway system.
Have them elucidate the constitution’s take on Bandwidth,Airports, and Electricity.
I am thinking that Obama is giving the Republicans all the “August Rope” they want…so they will be totally discredited when Health Care Reform actually comes up for a vote .
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/27/773117/-Obamas-August-Surprise…Updated-x2
August 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pmTenthers. Meaning they are operating on one tenth of their brain capacity?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:05 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Let’s see… Bill of Rights ratified by Congress December 15, 1791
Rhode Island becomes thirteenth state to ratify the Constitution:May 29, 1790.
You sure you don’t wanna rethink your contention there, Outhouse?
And maybe apologize to Fred?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pmOutlaw, it also says nothing about either ammunition or being able to use them.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:06 pmOutlaw284 says: the right to bear “arms”, like the ones that dangle on the side of a body.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pmOkay, so the intentions of the Founders are irrelevant, are they? Good. I’ll keep that in mind for future reference.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:07 pmIt’s only a matter of time before these morons are pushing their own Christian Ayatollah as their own legitimate presidential candidate, under the Constitution.
Then we all have to register our bloodlines going back into the 19th century for loyalty purposes to the nation, under the Constitution.
These fools need to amend themselves before someone tests their sanity in terms of serving their offices. Because a state like Texas is really going to hell in a hand basket under Perry’s rebellion.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pmGod you are stupid. Do you deny that we can pass an “amendment” that does?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pmArticle 8 of the Constitution (the Powers of Congress) includes: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…” So anything that crosses state lines is under the power of Congress. That includes health insurance companies, for example, unless they strictly confine their business within a single state, I suppose. Somebody might want to point the “tenthers” away from the Bill of Rights long enough to focus their attention directly on the Constitution itself.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:08 pm“pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell”
Imprecatory prayer is not in the bible. The bible says do not judge and dont be surprised if this prayer backfires, it didnt work for Falwell [heart attack] and its not working for Robertson [stomach cancer]
August 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pmYes, it is highly possible that they meant a coat of arms.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:09 pmAnd their party will soon represent one-tenth of the electorate?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:10 pmWhat type of arms were there when it was written?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pmOkay, folks, I’m heading out for a bit. Try to keep Outhouse from peeing on the furniture again.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:12 pmWell, Bush said the Constitution was just a goddam piece of paper, so what’s the problem with these folks?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:13 pm***
#18,
we have our first tenther.
here’s your tin foil hat and
a big glass of kool-aid.
:|
pop quiz, what’s wrong with this statement?
“your membership card is
coming in the mail.”
:\
good luck.
:)
August 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pmXisithrus says:
“pray for Barack Obama to die and go to hell”
Imprecatory prayer is not in the bible. The bible says do not judge and dont be surprised if this prayer backfires, it didnt work for Falwell [heart attack] and its not working for Robertson [stomach cancer]
I saw that passage in the Bible of Xenophobia. Or was that the Necronomicon?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pmI would say other government agencies are being killed also… where is the FAA on this: China owned aircraft mechanic shops here in the USA are illegally hiring undocumented to do aircraft mechanic work. Watch TV video investigation here
The FAA has very strict guide lines and rules requiring those performing work on aircraft to be certified which takes years of school.
I have contacted the FAA and they wrote back instructing me to contact my local FAA.
Where is the corporate media on this? This should be a national story of great interest. By not reporting it, they are hiding it… for corporate interest?
We are screwed.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pmHeh
August 27th, 2009 at 7:17 pmi think what the founders meant was that if the nation were exposed to gamma radiation from a proton bomb and we all grew extra appendages, we would have a constitutional right to wear short-sleeved shirts.
(and yes, I realize that in terms of nuclear physics, time travel and constitutional law, that doesn’t make sense; that doesn’t mean it won’t be picked up by the next group of nutbags to coin a zippy name for themselves (e.g., birthers, deathers, tenthers, teabaggers, etc.)
August 27th, 2009 at 7:19 pmDidn’t the Interstate Highway System come into being under the Republican Eisenhower? Wasn’t one of the reasons he justified the highway system was to “provide for the common defense”?
If I remember correctly, he was galled at the fact that it took him 19 days to get from Washington DC to San Francisco. In the event of an invasion of the United States, there is no way it should take that long for troops to move to the sectors needing defense.
Not to mention that it is covered under Article One, Section 8. I’m pretty sure ‘to regulate commerce… among the States’ would qualify as justification.
Whatever the faults of the interstates, such as ensuring the dominance of the car culture and exurban sprawl, not to mention pollution from autos, it certainly was Constitutional and it certainly didn’t positively affect the economy.
—–
As for the so-called “tenthers”, they seek a return to the piss poor way this country ran under the Articles of Confederation, a libertarian wet dream.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:20 pmOops, meant it certainly positively affected in previous post. :P
August 27th, 2009 at 7:21 pmThese morons are fuggin nutz…exactly how do we rid our country from these Unamerican scum?
Give em Texas and build a fence around it? Would sure work for me.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:21 pmAll of these types have a common problem. They think The Constitution and the US is some sort of carved-in-stone, dis is da vey it vas, dis is da vey it will be, for now and forever. Amen.
Wonder where they got the idea from?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pmI think they meant “the right to bare arms” and by that they were trying to outlaw bare legs. I guess we better have somebody locate all the dictionaries available back then and make sure this wasn’t just a spelling error. It would be unseemly for a militia to be traipsing around in mini skirts.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:23 pmEugeneDebs says:
I reiterate my contention that any such libertarian utopia would necessarily end in the re-enactment of the Lord of the Flies
Exactly, have you read the creed of the Libertarians, what a bunch of fcuking loons…
….it would be total anarchy…these people are scary crazy.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:24 pmThe first ten amendments to the Constitution, including the Tenth, the Second and particularly the First, are a part of the Bill of Rights, and we tamper with them at our short sighted peril.
This Libertarian misinterpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is deserving of more study. I propose that this nation designate a Libertarian tax free zone to accomodate the dreams of these people by way of generating concrete experimental data on how such a system might work.
I further propose that this designated Libertarian tax free zone encompass the State of Texas since it has so many in its population whose sympathies lie with such a scheme. After that legislation passes, we need only a date upon which it will become effective.
On that date, the Government of the United States would stop the collection of all federal taxes that would affect the people of Texas except tariffs on goods that are imported to the rest of the country from Texas.
At the same time, the Government of the United States would withdraw all services, protections, and indeed its very presence from within that benighted zone.
If we are generous, we will conduct the experiment for a finite term. If we are just, we will simply allow the zone to drift into the secessionist status that so many of its leaders have threatened.
Do you think that if we throw them out, they will fight to get back in?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:25 pmIt would be unseemly for a militia to be traipsing around in mini skirts.
Especially since most guys just don’t have the legs for it.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:25 pmOH GOOD GRIEF!
I have NEVER even heard of this tenther bull.
These people are nuts! Really! Just nutzoid!
August 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pmModerate Man says:
Didn’t the Interstate Highway System come into being under the Republican Eisenhower?
Shhhh! Ike doesn’t exist anymore to the GOP. The modern & future GOP is the house Reagan built…much to the dismay of what Reagan actually did.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:29 pmI have had conversations with hard core conservatives about what the role of the Government really should be. They think things like roads, safe food and drugs, public water and sanitation, occupational safety, most regulations and many other things should NOT be the role of Government. These people have a right wing fantasy that is somewhere a cross between Gizzily Adams and Red Dawn (you know Patrick Swayze). Living on the land, fighting the commies, and the feds. They ask what is gone wrong with this country, health care for everyone… sustainable energy…. long term survival, intellegent allocation of resources. They are completely shocked that they may have to come down out of the hills, figuratively, and act like responsible citizens. They are right about one thing, the constitution protects the right to stupidity, and they are feeling very uncomfortable about it.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:31 pmI started as an AP [airframe powerplant] mech back in 87 for Braniff airlines and worked at various places until about 2000.
Its true that the field is being inundated by unskilled people from contract agencies. I have flown tw or three times since leaving the industry.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:31 pmThe modern & future GOP is the house Reagan built
Yup. The one that is presently in worse shape than New Orleans. And for pretty much the same reasons.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:33 pmThe “tenthers” are using simplistic ideas about the Constitution and what it means to appeal to the less educated. You know the type Fox News-ers. These tenthers think they can rally voters with arguments that fly in the face of over 100 years of Supreme Court law. Fortunately, the “tenthers” are the same people as the teabaggers, the anti-healthcare, etc., who do not constitute a majority of the the voters. The average voter is much more rational than these fools. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next election because it appears the Republicans are going over the cliff head first.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:34 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Too true, Wiz. And yet they are right there taking advantage of every little thing they can because I just don’t see too many people heading for log cabins in the mountains.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pmThe interstate highway system was one of the biggest positive effects on economic development ever.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:36 pm#53 – Shayne says:
I think they meant “the right to bare arms” and by that they were trying to outlaw bare legs.
ROTFLMAO – good one Shayne – all you can do is laugh at this idiocy.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pmStill, I must take this as an admission that you are wrong.
Where’s my apology for your previous faux pas?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:41 pmThe tenthers dont seem to realize they are playing right into the hands of the people that have caused much of the problems. These lobbyists arent wanting a return to the old days, they arent conservative in the country sense, they want to create some kind of Futurama.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:42 pmYou are right Hoodathunk: the radical conservatives talk about getting Government out of their lives, but they line up to get their share, this is their hypocrisy. They even complain that stuff might get taken away if health care is made available to everyone. But they still have their right wing fantasy.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:42 pmOutlaw284 says:
In the same way it doesnt say HOW we can promote the general wellfare. Are you getting this simple concept yet?
August 27th, 2009 at 7:44 pmThats it, wiz. Just like all of the Republican types who are baying at the evil moon of the stimulus while they beg for more and brag about all this money they just sort of found.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI’d like to be a “Ninther” then, please.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:51 pmXisithrus says:
I started as an AP [airframe powerplant] mech back in 87 for Braniff airlines and worked at various places until about 2000.
Its true that the field is being inundated by unskilled people from contract agencies. I have flown two or three times since leaving the industry.
Then you are very aware of the strict rules supposedly governed by the FAA. My question is HOW is China allowed to get away with what they are doing in my link of #46, where is the FAA and the national media? Where does one go to complain if not the FAA?
This is right here in the USA and stealing our aircraft mechanic jobs – jobs acquired by years of school.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:54 pmThis just goes to show, that our education system is in worse shape then our health care system.
These are the same twits who think the earth is only 6000 years old, humans walked with dinosaurs and the sun orbits the earth.
I sometimes think that America is entering a second dark age, were we forgot everything we have ever learned.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:55 pmIn fact outlaw any amendment can be repealed.
You see, the founders left the constitution amendable for a very good reason.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:55 pmTHESE FOOLS MUST BE SMOKING! Are these tenthers the same Congressmen who voted NO against the stimulus but took stimulus money to help with infrastructure projects like building the very Federal highways,etc. they are complaining about?!!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:01 pmWhat do these tenthers – want – for us to ride around in horse drawn buggies?! Dirt roads for miles!? I declare dah stupit rules them!
August 27th, 2009 at 8:03 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
To amend the constitution 2/3 of the house and senate vote propose an amendment, the amendment is adopted after 3/4 of state legislatures approve.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:12 pmYou were rude and obnoxious and you called me a liar in post # 18. You said that since the 10th amendment was in the original bill of rights that it could not be amended.
You have since admitted that the constitution can be amended and that means the original “carved in stone” constitution and that amendments can be repealed.
There is a process and both have been done. Amendments 27 times, and then you act like it is impossible to do. It is not.
I expect an apology for calling me a liar and for you to admit that you were just flat wrong and that you jumped into the frey before you really knew what you were saying.
I will be waiting.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:13 pmOutlaw, what the hell is your point? We all know how amendments work, so what the hell are you trying to say?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:13 pmOutlaw,
The Republican Party won’t even have a 1/3 minority after 2012 unless they are very lucky. With every new piece of wingnuttery, the Republican Party makes it much more likely.
The Republican Party has 40 seats in the Senate currently. 1/3 would be 33 seats. This means that the Republicans only need to lose seven more seats, and the Democrats will have a 2/3 majority where they can change the constitution.
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means. I am wondering if you need a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the senate to change the constitution or is it just the Senate or just the House?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:16 pm“claims that landmark federal programs such as Medicare, Social Security, the VA health system and the G.I. Bill are violations of the 10th Amendment”
I’m pretty dang sure that bith Washington and Lincoln said that it was the Federal Gov’s job to provide aid to veterans maimed in combat for the rest of their lives.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pmRepublican President Eisenhower got the idea of the interstate highway system from the Autobahn in Germany, when he commanded US forces kicking NAZI ass during WW II. He was amazed how quickly they could move men and equipment from one part of Germany to another.
Does this mean that Repugs are NAZI sympathizers?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:23 pmI wonder if this is an attempt to raise a non-issue to disctract away from the work that needs to be done (like healthcare).
I also wonder if these folks have given any thought to the paractical effects their idea would have:
*) as badmoon pointed out, anarchy. Or would this necessitate a return to a pree-industrial revolution agrarian society (talk about a strict interpretation of the Constitution, it would return us to the world of the Constitution. But they forget the slogan was “No taxation without representation” and NOT “No Taxation period.”))
With no roads, how are we gonna get our raw materials together to one place in order to make things? How are we gonna get the rural crops to the city?
How are we gonna drive from our white-flight suburbs and get to work ?
The list is endless.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:24 pmThis is starting to remind me of when I lived in Atlanta, GA and it elected its first black mayor.
There was a small but vocal group of worried white folks who did everything they could to sever all ties to Atlanta.
Ya know what though ? Atlanta is still there and growing bigger and bigger.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:26 pmOutlaw:
Why are you worried about the second amendment?
Last week you confessed that you were a convicted felon and have served time in prison, that means you have lost the right the to bear arms.
Cheer up, you still have the right to bare arms.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:31 pmLevi-
Both the House and the Senate must approve an Amendment by a 2/3 vote OR a national convention to amend the Constitution can be called by the legislatures of at least 2/3 of the states. (34)
Any amendment (or even an entirely new Constitution, as some have argued that the CONVENTION could produce any document it wanted) must then be ratified by 3/4ths of the states (38)
August 27th, 2009 at 8:31 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Outlaw284, comon. Be a man or are you a mouse?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:32 pmOutlaw284 says:
Levi the Dungbeetle
To have an amendment to the constitution you have to have a 2/3 vote in the house, senate and 3/4 of the states.
Or 2/3 of the state legislatures may apply for a constitutional convention… as I said.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:33 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Outlaw284 says:
Fred
I was thinking of the Bill of rights when I read your post. Yes I was wrong in what I said to your first post. It was my mistake. sorry
Uhh, Outlaw?
The ‘Bill of Rights’ ARE the first ten amendments to the Constitution.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:35 pmOutlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
They have never used the 2/3 of the state legislatures may apply for a constitutional convention.
But it is in the Constitution…
August 27th, 2009 at 8:38 pmWhich is the point.
Article V conventions may be called at any time by an application of 2/3 of the state legislatures.
Outlaw should have spent more time reading in the prison library and less time picking up soap in the shower.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:38 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
And there have been many near conventions… including two since 1969…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendment_to_U.S._Constitution
August 27th, 2009 at 8:41 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
angels81 says:
This just goes to show, that our education system is in worse shape then our health care system.
These are the same twits who think the earth is only 6000 years old, humans walked with dinosaurs and the sun orbits the earth.
I think you are on to something there. It seems that the Republicans have institutionalized stupidity. This could be the Bush education policy of No Child Left Behind which failed. That policy was a secret Republican plan to make everyone as stupid as their political leaders. It seems to be a rousing success.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pmOutlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
I never said that it wasn’t. I said that they have never used it.
But you did say this:
Outlaw284 says:
Levi the Dungbeetle
To have an amendment to the constitution you have to have a 2/3 vote in the house, senate and 3/4 of the states.
Which ignores the Article V convention route… and since Levi was asking how to amend the Constitution I included ALL the methods I know of… you skipped one.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:44 pmOutlaw284 says:
Inquiring minds like to know…..
Why were you sent to prison?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:45 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I accept your apology outlaw. I know that was hard. Being a man is hard and I am seriously proud of you for it.
Cheers.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:50 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
They didn’t use it.
Is it a method to amend the Constitution or not?
Here’s Levi’s question:
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means. I am wondering if you need a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the senate to change the constitution or is it just the Senate or just the House?
Your answer was incomplete, was it not?
August 27th, 2009 at 8:53 pmHey Outlaw:
Do yourself a favor before you open your mouth and make a statement like that you should really go back and make sure it is right.
You might want to take some of your own advice? Just a thought…
August 27th, 2009 at 8:53 pmAgain Outlaw, here’s Levi’s question:
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means. I am wondering if you need a 2/3rds majority in both the House and the senate to change the constitution or is it just the Senate or just the House?
Here’s what you just said:
What I gave him was what they have used to get every amendment that we have. I never said that the other way wasn’t in there.
You do not need a 2/3 majority in both the house and the senate to amend the Constitution, sorry. You can also do it through the application of 2/3 of the State Legislatures. Which is what I said.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Okay… not really in destroying you any further on this point Outlaw… but since you can amend the Constitution upon the application of 2/3 of the State Legislatures for a Constitutional Convention you really don’t NEED a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate to do it, do you?
Which is what Levi was asking.
Your answer?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:00 pmFail.
So the Republican Party has only seven seats left to lose before they become a 1/3 minority in the Senate.
How many seats in the House does the Republican Party have left to lose before they become a 1/3 minority there as well?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:01 pmOne can only assume by “tenthers” they mean, on a scale of 1 – 10, with 1 being sane & intelligent, & 10 being idiot/morons — the “tenthers” fit the “10″ mark. Let these tenther idiots never again drive on a highway. What dolts.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pmHow many seats in the House does the Republican Party have left to lose before they become a 1/3 minority there as well?
Republicans have to lose at least 33 House seats, Levi.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The Federal Highway System was created during WWII to quickly move troops and equipment around the country in case of attack. I am pretty sure this falls under providing for the common defense.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:08 pmOutlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
You are stuck on stupid.
Hmm… your original comment?
Outlaw284 says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Fred
I never said they couldn’t amend the constitution but they still have to have 2/3 of the house and senate to do it
Your comment is wrong, outlaw. They don’t have to have 2/3 of the House and Senate. See above.
Fail 2x.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:10 pmI can see the Republicans dwindling to less than a 1/3 minority in the Senate by 2012 but I don’t think they could lose 33 seats in the house. Who knows; we have not seen a party disintegrate the way the Republicans are right now in my lifetime.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:18 pmbelaccifer lacca says:
Hey Outlaw:
Outlaw284 says:
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Fred
I never said they couldn’t amend the constitution but they still have to have 2/3 of the house and senate to do it
Someone I heard of once said this:
Do yourself a favor before you open your mouth and make a statement like that you should really go back and make sure it is right.
You might want to take that advice… it will also help you avoid embarrassing moments like this:
Outlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
You are stuck on stupid.
After you’ve given us this beauty…
Outlaw284 says:
Fred
I was thinking of the Bill of rights when I read your post. Yes I was wrong in what I said to your first post. It was my mistake. sorry
Psst. The ‘Bill of Rights’ refers to the first ten amendments!
August 27th, 2009 at 9:19 pmFred just got hisself a brand new troll. :-)
August 27th, 2009 at 9:26 pm**
#120,
a tenther troll.
:)
August 27th, 2009 at 9:29 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Did I say that the 2/3rds was the only way?
Hmm, you did say this:
Fred
I never said they couldn’t amend the constitution but they still have to have 2/3 of the house and senate to do it
What do you imagine ‘have to have’ to mean exactly?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:35 pmFred – You know there’s a lot of demanding care and feeding that goes along with those things. They’ll keep you up all night with their whining, and frequent trips outside to relieve themselves, and they’ll chew up all your Wife’s shoes…make sure you’re fully committed before you take one on full time.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Even if he were, that would still put him several notches above you, spOutlaw.
careful, or you’ll learn something from him.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:44 pmYeah, saw this coming. If they can’t get their way in the Federal government, they’re going to push “States Rights” like they did about 150 years ago.
Well boys and girls, get out your blue and grey coats, looks like we may have some more fighting to do.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:44 pmOutlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
You truly are stuck on stupid.
You’ll forgive me if I disagree…
And in fact, we have used Article V provisions to ratify one Amendment… the 21rst in 1933.
Fail 3x.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pmAlso… highways are covered under the interstate commerce clauses of the Constitution, Outlaw. The ‘tenthers’ are just about as knowledgeable and accurate as you are, Outlaw!
August 27th, 2009 at 9:50 pmpags2 says:
——————————————————————————–
angels81 says:
This just goes to show, that our education system is in worse shape then our health care system.
I think you are on to something there. It seems that the Republicans have institutionalized stupidity. This could be the Bush education policy of No Child Left Behind which failed. That policy was a secret Republican plan to make everyone as stupid as their political leaders. It seems to be a rousing success.
Greetings everyone. I just stopped reading at this point – because I’ve been thinking about this “dumbing down” of America. We have five huge problems that are threatening our democracy. Health insurance/care reform. Educational reform. Media reform. Campaign finance reform. Election reform. Each one needs to be confronted. Solving these problems will help restore the middle class and help all of us love our country again. IMHO.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:52 pmOutlaw284 says:
You DEFINE stupid. You are the epitome of stupid. STUPID is your native tongue. YOU talking about someone else being stupid is just hilarious. While you should be a virtual expert on stupid based on the experience you have gained living your life as, well, YOU. The fact that you are stupider than duckfeathers tends to discredit anything YOU have to say about someone else being stupid
August 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pmThis reminds me of a post I saw along time ago..I appoligise for the lenth but worth reading..This a typical repug
A Day in the Life of Joe Republican
A story floating around the internet…
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer’s medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers’ Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans.
The house didn’t have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn’t mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: “We don’t need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I’m a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.”
August 27th, 2009 at 9:55 pmUsing “tenther” philosophy, would we be able to insist on massive reductions in military spending and defense contractor entitlements?
Or is this stuff immune from “tentherism?”
The repiggies are always agog about these far-right pseudo-libertarian proposals up until the point that it starts to affect their own sacred cows.
Didn’t Michelle Bachmann just utter the phrase “The government needs to keep its hands off my body.”
Isn’t this the same Michelle Bachmann who wants government’s anti-abortion and anti-birth control hands all over a woman’s body?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:56 pmComing from a troll who recently carried on a conversation with a spam-bot, this comment not only pegged the needle on the irony meter, it caused it to explode.
Outlaw, were you arrested for armed robbery because you wrote the hold-up note on the back of your pay stub?
August 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The Tenthers are another group that needs to be watched, because they are either ill-informed or willfully lying. They refuse to recognize the entirety of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
They love to support the DoD because “the federal government has the responsibility to defend us.” But they, and many others on the right, refuse to acknowledge the responsibility “to provide for the…general welfare of the United States.” This alone is the justification for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and, yes, the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System. (The one named for a Republican WWII War Hero.)
As Dean Wormer said to Flounder, “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, Son.”
August 27th, 2009 at 10:02 pmI really love the way the righties mumble through the Constitution. For exmple, the Second Amendment reads:
–and they scream bloody murder any time someone tries to regulate that militia.
The Tenth reads:
The tenthers conveniently forget that last phrase.
The Amendment does not give any power at all to State Governments. It gives those powers not to the States, but to the States or the people.
And the people, of course, can turn around and ask the federal government to , oh, create a single payer health care system, no?
But the righties mumble through that last part, and start bellowing about State’s Rights.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pmRepugs don’t DO history. Outliar thinks he’s a legal expert because he’s done time in the slammer.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:13 pmpbeeg, it reminds me of the way they read their bibles making sure it says what they want it to say.
Same with bush’s pre-war intelligence. He read into it exactly what he wanted to hear.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:14 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Sistero – If you were just half as clever as you believe yourself to be, you’d have cured cancer already.
Instead, you’re just a snotty, wingnut dolt.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pmpbeeg says:
But the righties mumble through that last part, and start bellowing about State’s Rights.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Until they want an amendment banning gay marriage or abortion.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:17 pmNow, once again they have never used the Article V provisions to amend the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Article V provisions.
FAIL 4x.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:18 pmY’all have to remember that these people who grab onto particular pieces of the Constitution and the amendments to make their stupid illogical points are the same ones who pick and choose pieces of the Bible to justify all the rest of the garbage they spew.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:18 pmhey Cicero, nice dose of condescention but your post doesn’t make any sense.
Are you saying that you actually want to go back to the 1800’s because that’s how it sounds.
calling people a moron really reflects more on you than it does someone else when you type 3 or 4 paragraphs that don’t actually make a point or even really make any sense.
Want to try again and see if you can actually say something with your words.
we’re listening.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:18 pmI don’t know that I believe in the whole “dumbing down” thing. A certain percentage of our populace, and probably and country’s population, are ignorant or incapable of grasping nuanced concepts regardless of their education. What I believe has changed are the methods whereby the ignorant can coalesce into a giant festering boil of stupid. In the past, the ignorant could only communicate with those in their immediate vicinity, today they have a wide array of easily accessible stuff that passes for news and serves only to validate their poorly reasoned positions. The political discourse that was once confined to a few poorly lit redneck bars has now gone mainstream, and after the manner of all cowards, they gain courage when they can form packs.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:19 pmZooey says:
Until they want an amendment banning gay marriage or abortion.
____________
Or feel a need to trample all over states rights to demand a Federal law about birth certificates.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:19 pmAnd in fact, we have used Article V provisions to ratify one Amendment… the 21rst in 1933.
Where were those basic English lessons you suggested I attend, Outlaw? You might need those… I thought I was pretty clear.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:20 pmbelaccifer – unless you’ve got an ounce of meth on hand, as Outlaw clearly does, you’ll be here all night…
now as ever – there’s no arguing with stupid.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:22 pmI know,Tom.. I know.
Interestingly, The original Constitutional Convention was called to amend the Articles of Confederation and so one could also argue that we have used that PROCESS at least to amend a national document, if not the current Constitution.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Outlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
What part of ” the states have to ratify” all amendments do you not understand.
Again, incomplete and incorrect answer… 3/4 of the states have to ratify an amendment for it to be added.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pmAnd I’m not sure what question that statement is even meant to answer honestly…
August 27th, 2009 at 10:35 pmSome things have been said about Eisenhower and roads that weren’t quite right.
After graduation from West Point in 1915 Ike went from infantry to tanks. In 1919 Lieutenant Colonel Eisenhower accompanied a convoy across the country as an observer and reported on the difficulties of the 58-day trip.
In 1925, the American Association of State Highway Officials recommended to the Secretary of Agriculture a numbered system of highway identification that was approved by the Federal Government but administered by the States.
Eisenhower did see the advantages of the Autobahn after the end of WWII and in 1956, as President signed the Bill that began our Interstate system.
The first U.S. road to receive funding was the National Road, now part of US 40 / MD 144, when Jefferson was in office. Some pressure to finance road improvements came from businessmen in Baltimore who didn’t want their exports delayed because of muddy roads slowing down wagons delivering the goods from the West, the West being east of the Mississippi then.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:37 pmThe 10th amendment was written in 1791.
Before telephones.
Before automobiles.
Before television.
Before the internet.
Before citizens of a state moved across country for a better job or school.
We didn’t even have income tax until 1862.
Trying to manipulate the 10th amendment to 21st century political whims is like programming your computer with a bible.
Is their an application for that?
That is why we have constitutional scholars, that interprete our law without abusive self-interest.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:53 pmAs long as we’re talking about Article V, why not post what it says:
It seems to me that Conventions in three fourths of the states could ratify an Amendment making it “valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” That would mean that it is not always necessary that the states ratify every proposed Amendment.
BTW, the Bill of Rights were actually the third through twelfth amendments of the origianl twelve sent to the states for ratification. The first set a formula for how many representatives we would have in Congress which, if ratified, would have put our House of Representatives at around 6,000 members by now. The second of the twelve was eventually ratified to become the 27th Amendment.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:55 pmIt’s hard for me to figure out how the federal highway system wouldn’t qualify as “post roads”. The federal government does not build local roads, but only interstates and highways that connect urban centers. States are responsible for most of the roads that mail actually travels on. Mail couldn’t get to my post office without traveling on state and county roads.
These are like the people who think the federal income tax is unconstitutional despite the 16th amendment. Trying to argue legal logic with them is impossible since to keep their conspiracy theory going they deny the plain meaning of the Constitution and its amendments.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:04 pmThese are some crazy sobs.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:07 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
Interstate Highway System
While Interstate Highways usually receive substantial federal funding (90% federal and 10% state) and comply with federal standards, they are owned, built, and operated by the states or toll authorities. For example, the original Woodrow Wilson Bridge (part of Interstate 95/495), was maintained by the federal government; its new span is now jointly owned and maintained by the state of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
__________
It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE to argue w/ “Crazy”….
August 27th, 2009 at 11:24 pmStrange how this sensitivity to government over-reach was absent while George Bush trampled over one right after the other during his eight years in office.
Everything from incarceration without trial to illegal wire-tapping. Not a whimper from these hypocritical cry-babies.
What happened?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:24 pm“Birthers”, “Deathers”, “GOoOpers”, “Freepers”, “Teabaggers”, and now “tenthers”. Can we just agree to call them all “phuckers” in the interest of simplicity and efficiency?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:32 pmIt’s astonishing just how unserious republicans are.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:35 pmBirther. deather, teanagger, tenther…
They are really pullimg out the stops to find redmeat to throw
August 27th, 2009 at 11:42 pmAnybody that can read the health reform legislation and come away saying there is a end of life death panel [kill granny] clause in their should not ever be trusted again.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:47 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
The US Air Force is also not mentioned in the constitution. I demand that the Air Force be disbanded immediately.
Any idea how silly so much of this sounds?
August 27th, 2009 at 11:57 pmHow about this? To best defend the people of this country, it is necessary to have healthy people. Therefore, health care shall be provided to all.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:01 amFWIW
August 28th, 2009 at 12:01 amIt’s amazing that these people can both claim that they want to see all programs that aid legless war vets done away with and call themselves Christians.
When are they going to be honest that they are not Christians?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:01 am21drose, maybe you should read through the thread before you just drop your pants and show your a$$. It would have saved you the embarrassment.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:03 amprovide for the common defense,
That was a big part of building the highway system, national defense.
I suppose the tenthers are also going to say that military bases were forced on their respective state.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:03 amAnd just when is Michigan going to refuse federal funding for highways?
The tenth, I think, is a silly attempt, by politicians, the same ones that claimed kill granny, are now telling people that health reform is against the tenth?
What was it Bush tried to say: Fool me once shame on you..fool me twice shame on me fool me three times, Screw you.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:09 am21drose says:
Maybe you ought to read your history… When our fathers wrote the constitution, “promote the general welfare” meant keep us safe from foreign powers and influence. It didn’t mean everyone gets entitlements!
_____________
Actually, I think they meant to cover that w/ the “provide for the common defense” part, son.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:12 amSo say you.
But our troll friend Outhouse earlier made it clear that the intentions of our Founding fathers are irrelevant.
The words they wrote are all that matter. That was his take, anyway. I think he was arguing against this same kind of intent-dependent view of the 2nd Amendment at the time.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:15 amI would venture to guess that a significant number of the “tenthers” live in rural America and owe their access to electricity to the REA.
Goddamn federal guv’ment, jamming these poles and wires down our throat! We don’t need no stinkin lectricity, cept for Uncle Jeb who cooks the finest meth in that crock pot.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:16 amIm pretty sure it didnt mean subsidies to big business such as big oil or big insurance or cronyist pork barrel spending and pork for bridges to nowhere
August 28th, 2009 at 12:17 amFred, that’s assuming our new friend would have had the sense to understand all the information and make a sound choice about how to respond. His first posting does not lend much credibility to that assumption, I must say.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:17 am***
#173,
another tenther troll owned.
:)
August 28th, 2009 at 12:17 amWhere was the outrage when Stevens [R-AK] got money for that bridge? Where were the tenthers then??
August 28th, 2009 at 12:19 amTruer words were never spoken Ralph. I loved the takedown by The Sun Also Sets.
Trolls just don’t hang around much anymore.
ps. got my apology from outhouse.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:19 am.
Soon… will be the day when someone in Congress suggests putting the White House up for sale.
We already know that Capitol Hill has already been bought… NO?
.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:20 am#155 okie dokie,
August 28th, 2009 at 12:29 amSo that rules out Addington, Yoo, and Bybee… to name a few, NO?
I take welfare to mean well-being
And fear, thrown about by politicians who sold their power to monied interests, use fear, I think, to reclaim some of that lost power
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/
August 28th, 2009 at 12:30 amAnd fear, thrown about by politicians who sold their power to monied interests, use fear, I think, to reclaim some of that lost power *and does not promote the general welfare [well being] of the people
[[*I meant to write in post 183]]
August 28th, 2009 at 12:36 am.
Oh, I forgot…
… WHO NEEDS HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS, anyway?
Tenthers?
And besides…
… WARRANTLESS WIRETAPPING OF AMERICANS IS PATRIOTIC, yes?
Tenthers?
Let’s not forget…
… HUMANE TREATMENT IS OVER RATED.
Tenthers?
.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:36 amThe “tenthers” just echo the statements made by antebellum Democrats on the national scene, which was one of the things which led to the Civil War. The Old South Democrats wanted the Federal government to be responsible for essentially nothing beyond national defense and the Federal court system (and the latter only because they could use the Dred Scott decision to essentially impose control of slavery on the Northern states). Only the Confederate Democrats withdrawal from Congress allowed the newly hatched Republican Party to create the land grant colleges, support for transnational railroad, etc. When Nixon directed the Republican Party into the Southern Strategy he unwittingly also directed his party into the channel of stupid and ignorant. Thirty years later we see the result and it is not pretty.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:37 amOf all things, the Federal Highway system, put in place by Eisenhower, is the most responsible for turning America into a modernized economic powerhouse. The ability to transport people and goods across one of the physically larger nations led to an amazing degree of microeconomic models that couldn’t have existed otherwise.
If you look at most “undeveloped” nations, they have a few perfectly modern cities, but without any easy way of connecting them. Therefore the interior languishes in practically midieval conditions. If it weren’t for the FHS, the United States would be the same way to this day – a handful of cities on the East coast, a handful on the West coast, and a bunch of backwooods towns in between.
Instead, we have lots and lots of big cities in the Midwest, and an economy that reflects how many major cities we have to contribute to it. Sure, they’re still called “flyover states” by some people on the coasts, but imagine how underdeveloped they would be without the FHS.
There have been downsides too – our love affair with automobiles, our dependence on more oil than we could produce, and sprawl away from urban areas. But our Federal Highway System very much has made 20th Century America what it is.
You know what those tenthers should get rid of? Air. They should just all stop breathing because breathing is unconstitutional. See how that works out for them.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:40 am21drose says:
——————————————————————————–
#
#
weekendclimber says:
These “Tenthers” amaze me. Apparently they can’t get past the first sentence in the Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
Maybe you ought to read your history… When our fathers wrote the constitution, “promote the general welfare” meant keep us safe from foreign powers and influence. It didn’t mean everyone gets entitlements!
Maybe you
OOOhhh…ouch…As you can see when we speak about the educational system in our once great country, this is a perfect example of what’s wrong. We know this. How can we help?
August 28th, 2009 at 12:43 amXisithrus,
August 28th, 2009 at 12:44 amThe welfare of the Nation, it’s well-being, is the major factor to it’s capacity to function as a whole. The sicker the Nation, the more costly it becomes for everyone. The sick worker can not contribute to society as well as a healthy one. A healthier worker has an income that a capitalistic society(USA) depends upon for it’s daily commerce, whereas a sick worker may lack the necessary income to even support BASIC daily necessities(shelter/food/clothing), let alone the luxury of affording a dinner OUT & a movie…
… But I digress, sort of.
.
Q U E S T I O N:
Would it be proper to deduce that Tenthers hate GM/Ford/Chevrolet(read American Auto) because remember, without the Highway System, there wouldn’t have even been a Route 66 to drive that Mustang down…
… NO?
.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:51 amThe Constitution was written to grant broad powers in certain areas to the federal government. There are powers that are quite specific such as minting coins. There are broadly stated powers such as the Commerce clause which when it was written did not anticipate the tremendous growth of trade between the states and foreign powers. These powers are stated in broad language to govern the relationship between the federal, state and individual. The boundaries of jurisdiction in these areas is not sharply defined. The SCOTUS has numerous decisions on the jurisdiction granted to the federal government as well as limits of the powers. The “tenthers” would impose their ideological construct of these powers. However, the ideas these “tenthers” have about states rights was settled by the Civil War. All of these arguments made by the “tenthers” have been made to the SCOTUS and rejected. The idea that the “tenthers” can rehash these arguments would require the SCOTUS to overturn hundereds of court decisions. Not even the most conservative SCOTUS would open the door to wholesale destruction of law in this area. Quite simply, the “tenthers” are grasping for straws. I believe that these “tenthers” are just one of many groups trying to find a way to “get back their country” which, in essence, means a dominant white society. For myself, I would like to “get back my country” but my vision is sane, rational people that can talk and reasonably disagree on matters-not people motivated by greed, racism, xenophobia, and outright hostility to the poor and underprivileged. These people should be working in concert for the welfare of the country and its citizens and not trying to cripple the federal government so that corporate interests can loot the citizens of their wealth. These teabaggers, birthers and “tenthers” are given a public platform to spew their garbage and that is a pretty sad state of the political condition of this country. The founding fathers would be appalled by much of this uncivil discourse and behavior.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:54 amThe only thing they think makes us strong is weapons—the more destructive the better. Why they are so blind that they cannot see the value of transportation, communications, and health care being of high quality, smart design, and available to everyone without causing financial woe, is beyond me. Everyone isn’t going to head for the hills, or reenact Red Dawn, and get by.
One trick ponies don’t have a lot of options.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:59 amAn example of corporate media interlocked with corporate health insurane and Big Pharma:
from Americans United for Change
http://www.americansunitedforchange.org/page/s/CNNHealth
August 28th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Watch the ad cnn refuses to air
August 28th, 2009 at 1:13 amOutlaw284 says:
belaccifer lacca
You truly are stuck on stupid.
….and so are the ‘birthers’,'deathers’ and ‘tenthers’ and the rest of the “ers” this is getting so asi9.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:17 amI think ThinkProgress is misrepresenting Barton’s views in an attempt to make him look bad. If I may, I’d ike to restate his views in a more cogent, balanced manner.
“WAAAAAAHHH! Me no want pay taxes! WAAAAAAAAH!”
See? Now it’s crystal clear.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:22 amSo should the Louisiana Purchase go back to the French, who never occupied the area, or returned to the tribes?
I vote the Tribes.
What’s that? Nobody is taking about the illegality of the Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson’s massive expansion of powers?
hmmmm,…
August 28th, 2009 at 1:26 amThis right-wing “tenther” crap is all part of the same Republican privatization scheme that has been going on seemingly forever, but definitely reached new heights of depravity during the Bush/Cheney years. Their greed is insatiable. Their lies are relentless. And the damage their greed and lies have done to our country is enormous.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:29 amSorry, O.T.
The G(no)P is a mess.
p.s.
INTERVIEW-CIA probe must go to highest level-UN rights boss
27 Aug 2009 18:33:43 GMT
Source: Reuters
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LR218160.htm
* Investigation should establish responsibility at top level
* Navi Pillay urges countries to resettle Guantanamo inmates
* U.N. rights boss marks first year in office on Sept. 1
By Stephanie Nebehay
.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:31 amThur wunth wuth a Tenther named Thpenthur,
Who thought he wuth quite a good fenther,
But hith thenth wuth oblique,
and hith argumenth weak,
and he couldn’t make very much thenth hur.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:39 amralph, Fred,
Earlier in the thread you too took exception with Outhouse that the Tenth Amendment was NOT part of the “original” Constitution. I quote”" original because the Founders refused to sign a Federal Constitution that did NOT provide for the needs of The People. It wasn’t until the Ten “original” Amendments were ratified that the Federal Constitution we enjoy today, was born.
While Outhouse may be wrong on many facts, specifics, times and dates, one thing is clear: There were Ten Amendments ratified by 13 States when the 13 States signed the Constitution of the USA in 1791.
Now, these Tenthers’ interpretation leaves much to be desired.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:04 am21drose says:
Maybe you ought to read your history… When our fathers wrote the constitution, “promote the general welfare” meant keep us safe from foreign powers and influence.
Not so.
Bold added by me. Note how “common defense” is listed seperately from “general welfare?” They’re two different things.
Perhaps you should try actually reading the Constitution some time before you come in here and tell us what you think it means.
.
pags2 says:
The SCOTUS has numerous decisions on the jurisdiction granted to the federal government as well as limits of the powers.
Precisely. In the end, it doesn’t matter what one of these “-ers” says the Constitution means, or what your or I say what the Constitution means. All that matters is what the SCOTUS say the Constitution means. Because it says in the Constitution itself that they’re the only ones empowered to interpret it! And their record of rulings on such issues is long and quite clearly stated.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:27 amIn America, we “the people” *are* the government.
These “Tenther” fanatics are making a very weak argument based on nuanced semantics.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:59 amYou cannot HAVE a government, it’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Only republican despots allowed. You also will be required to pray to rush Limbaugh once a day or carry a picture of G.Gordon Liddy in your wallet. And if you cannot qualify with a fireare, you will be shot.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:48 amIt sounds like Clarence Thomas thinks that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided even though it was a 9-0 decision. I am surprised that this group does not also after the Commerce Clause as that is at the heart of so many Supreme Court decisions. More likely it is because nobody has told them to attack that yet. None of these people have a brain, only a mouth.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:53 amThe subsidiarity principle makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
The states governments are democratically legitimized, so you should trust them to do the job.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:57 amOK, time for Con. Law 101:
1. The Constitution delegates certain powers to the Federal Government.
2. The bulk of the powers delegated to Congress are found in Article I, Section 8.
3. The Preamble does not contain any grant of power whatsoever; it merely states the purposes for creating the new Constitution.
4. The Amendments are fully part of the Constitution, of equal status to all other parts of the original document.
5. The silly tenthers forget the “necessary and proper clause”–either that, or they’re Jeffersonians in their Constitutional interpretation, and approach which is most decidedly NOT the law of the land (Hamilton’s loose construction of the Constitution, as revealed in the debate over the 1st Bank of the United States and confirmed in McCullough v. Maryland, is the current legal standard for interpretation.
6. The necessary and proper clause, coupled with the power to regulate interstate commerce AND the bankruptcy clause (if Congress has the power to set a uniform rule of bankruptcy, then a plan which seeks to prevent bankruptcy would certainly fall within that grant of power).
7. The “common defense and general welfare” clause is part of the power to raise and collect taxes, not a separate grant of power.
BC
August 28th, 2009 at 8:40 amMany seem to have misunderstood that conversation. It was actually about whether the constitution was written in stone or whether it is amendable, period.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:21 amDallasNE says:
I am surprised that this group does not also after the Commerce Clause as that is at the heart of so many Supreme Court decisions.
You’d think. But it seems to me they haven’t even read the Constitution and don’t even know what a “Commerce Clause” is. Heck, I’d be surprised if they could read at all. Somebody told them the 10th Amendment means that we’re really a Confederacy so they believe what they heard.
.
Sven Ortmann says:
The subsidiarity principle makes sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity
The states governments are democratically legitimized, so you should trust them to do the job.
The federal government is also democratically legitimized.
I notice in your link there that the EU uses this principle. In no way does subsidiarity mean that the larger entity can or even should do nothing; merely that things should be delegated where possible.
It is not possible to delegate an interstate highway system to the states.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:38 am“the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters, among other things, are unconstitutional.” And Clarence Thomas would like to repeal that? If he can’t sit at a counter, what makes him think he could sit on a Supreme Court. The idiocy of these people never fails to amaze me. Have a Black President and all hell breaks loose. If he was so terrible, why did he beat McCain by such a wide margin? Me thinks Whitey is a little upset.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:58 amThe tenthers are reading the amendment without reference to the rest of the Constitution. You cannot decipher the 10th Amendment unless you read it in the context of the whole document, the debates on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only then can you understand what the purpose of the Amendment was understood. The Amendment is intended to act as a limitation on the federal government taking jurisdiction over matters that are not within the meaning of the powers delegated. It also is intended to preserve jurisdiction over all other matters to the states and the people.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:02 amAhh I’m really not sure why anyone is giving Barton any legitimacy here. The Wallbuilders is part of the Christian identity movement. They don’t think that non-Christians should be allowed into, or have a say in our government. They are the public face of the movement to make this country a theocracy. It seems to me that the mere fact that Barton and his kind even are treated as legitimate shows a lack of balls by liberals in this national debate. Anytime Barton says anything to the press, any liberal in the crowed should just ask, “do you think Muslim Americans should be allowed to vote?” Then let Barton make an ass of himself, and show the press what a bigoted joke the wallbuilders are.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:09 amI agree with most of what you say but I don’t think that exposing their plausible fallacy to the world is giving legitimacy to it.
If you have a racist in the neighborhood and you discuss the fact openly and condemn it are you giving legitimacy to racism?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:25 am21drose says:
I LOVE how stupid people like you are. Do you have any evidence other than your amazing mind reading powers which would be TRULY amazing considering you would be reading the minds of people long dead, or the fact this is what Rush TOLD you to think to back up your inane claim about what the founding fathers meant about promoting and in article 1 PROVIDING for the general wellfare? Do you morons REALLY think things become true because you SAY them? Do you realize our country would be a third world country if we took such idiocy seriously?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:53 amThe Federal Interstate Highway System is unconstitutional!
Yeah, let’s live life as it was in 1789 when we had only 13(?) states along the eastern seaboard with about 3 million people, the majority of which were farmers and African Americans only counted as 3/5 of a person.
That’s the way to move America forward into the 21st century and compete with Europe and Asia.
IDIOTS!
August 28th, 2009 at 12:31 pmFred says:
“If you have a racist in the neighborhood and you discuss the fact openly and condemn it are you giving legitimacy to racism?”
No, but if your racist neighbor said that black kids where destroying the community pool, and you printed that in the community paper without mentioning that it comes from the racist neighbor, then I think you do legitimize it to a degree.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:19 pmUmm, what roads do USPS trucks not use?
August 28th, 2009 at 3:20 pmBadmoodman says:
“tenther” – activists who believe that virtually everything the federal government does is unconstitutional
– Ummm, no. They would be called anarchists
_____
Being a conservative, I’m for preserving tradition whenever possible. They are lunaticfringists.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pmOutlaw284 says:
Olivia says:
If we must stick to basics when interpreting the Constitution and its amendments, we will have to insist that the right to bear arms only allows muskets.
Maybe you should read the amendment again. It doesn’t say anything about what type of arms
_____
This is the first draft of that which became the Second Amendment:
“The right of the people (PLURAL, as in “We the people”; it is not, “We the individual,” or, “I the people) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia (NOT “individual”) being the best security of a free country (NOT “individual”): but no person (INDIVIDUAL) religiously scrupulous of (AGAINST) bearing arms, shall be compelled (INVOLUNTARY) to render military service (NOT “self-defense”) in person.”
Second, there are two Militia Clauses in the body of the Constitution, Arts. I., s. 8, c. 15 and 16, the first of which stipulates that,
Congress shall have the Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to Execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
The second of the two clauses stipulates how Congress shall regulate the militia, which includes “organizing, arming, and disciplining”. And as Constitutional clauses are implemented by means of statutes, the Militia Act of 1792 stipulates as to kinds and forms of weapons authorized for Militia purposes.
The Militia Act of 1792 was enacted on May 8, 1792, which means it regulates the Militia of the Second Amendment, despite the far-right lunatic fringe claim that the Second protects FROM regulation.
August 28th, 2009 at 4:55 pmCan’t afford it.
U.S. National Debt: $11.4 Trillion
August 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pmkwsventures says:
Can’t afford it.
U.S. National Debt: $11.4 Trillion
Can’t afford t maintain the interstate highway system?
Grow up.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:47 pmpags2 says:
You cannot decipher the 10th Amendment unless you read it in the context of the whole document, the debates on the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. Only then can you understand what the purpose of the Amendment was understood.
I disagree completely.
So just what powers are delegated to the United States by the Constitution? Among many other things…
The Constitution says Congress gets to do it. The 10th Amendment says that if the Constitution didn’t say Congress gets to do it, then Congress doesn’t get to do it. But it does. So they do.
This is all pretty straightforward. While I appreciate your scholarship in the matter, I’m not going to buy into the neocon-favored meme that the meaning is unclear in any way. It is extremely clear and straightforward.
.
kwsventures says:
Can’t afford it.
U.S. National Debt: $11.4 Trillion
That’s a surprisingly fair angle of attack. If Obama was proposing enacting it now, I’d be having a tough time convincing anybody else to go along with it. Which is to say, I’d be for it because I dig on the massive GDP ROI of transportation projects, but I’d be in a very small minority.
Unfortunately for your argument, it was enacted in 1956.
Furthermore, the benefits to the economy have been proven for decades to far outweigh any costs that it incurs. Getting rid of it would tank the economy to a level that we would have no chance whatsoever of covering our already outstanding debt. I would be like quitting your job so you can save money on gas so you can pay your credit cards down.
What we really can’t afford would be to get rid of the IHS. I mean of all things to bring up, that’s been the backbone of the American economy for half a century. And you want to break it now?
August 28th, 2009 at 8:32 pmIt bore repeating – excellent!
August 28th, 2009 at 9:34 pmOk so I shouldn’t judge so harshly.
Some people do make it hard to believe they are Christians.
August 29th, 2009 at 1:51 amvery thanks for article!
August 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am