Sign in or 
Share this
stellamojo |
20. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 20 2008, 6:14 PM EDT
The states are beholding to the Feds in laws and regulations on the Interstate system, road that happen to be INSIDE each state. Seatbelt laws and drinking age laws are dictated by the Feds to the states because of the Interstate road system.
2
out of
4 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
DuncanONeil |
21. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 21 2008, 9:32 AM EDT
"The states are beholding to the Feds in laws and regulations on the Interstate system, road that happen to be INSIDE each state. Seatbelt laws and drinking age laws are dictated by the Feds to the states because of the Interstate road system."The beholding to the Feds has nothing to do with the interstate! The interstate was built by the Federal government but is the responsibility of the States just like any other road in the State. The beholding does not come directly from the road but the money, that is a different issue. The Feds will, and have, withheld money from States that did not do what the Feds wanted. Some of that money is highway funds but those are not specific to the Interstate. Another area that gets lots of money from the Feds is education. I don't hear you complaining about the Feds taking that power from the States? You mentioned laws. That also is a different issue, because it is a law. There are a lot of laws that impact States Rights but nobody seems to care. Those that don't care seem to think that the only Government that exists is the Federal. All you have to look at the results of New Orleans three years ago. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
stellamojo |
22. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 21 2008, 10:58 AM EDT
being held hostage for money... that's not a new way to manipulate states, or anyone else. Control is control no matter how it comes about. Any federal law that impacts states' rights is an intrusion by the federal government, whether people care about it or not. It is still control of the states by the federal government. I thought that was what we were talking about... States' rights.
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
DuncanONeil |
23. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 21 2008, 4:52 PM EDT
Well we are now anyway. I agree that mandates on the States from the Feds are not proper. But just look how many people want the Feds to do just that. Or how many want the Feds to care not a whit about the States and how they do business, just kick the States out of the way and take over (i.e. Katrina & NOLA).
2
out of
2 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
stellamojo |
24. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 21 2008, 11:41 PM EDT
"Well we are now anyway. I agree that mandates on the States from the Feds are not proper. But just look how many people want the Feds to do just that. Or how many want the Feds to care not a whit about the States and how they do business, just kick the States out of the way and take over (i.e. Katrina & NOLA)."You and I are in agreement here. But it's hard to convince people who do not know what it is to live in a Democracy that States have rights. I've actually had people ask me why I go to city council meetings, and asked me, "aren't those private?" I'm bowled over that people have lost the urge to practice Democracy. I think most folks are fine with contention on Oprah or talk shows, but when it comes to real life they'd rather stay home and away from "discussions." It's amazing to me to hear folks talk AT LENGTH about arguments they've heard on television, but will not go and start their own argument against what our city is doing to its communities. I swear, I'm at a loss. All I can think to do is raise my grandsons up right, knowing what it is to truly live in a Democracy and then hope for the best. As for the Feds mandating States, the idea of making an adult wear a seatbelt, to me, is unconstitutional, no matter what the Feds demand on Interstate highways. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
DuncanONeil |
25. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 22 2008, 8:23 AM EDT
"As for the Feds mandating States, the idea of making an adult wear a seatbelt, to me, is unconstitutional, no matter what the Feds demand on Interstate highways."Isn't it amazing that the seat belt is mandatory nationwide yet they do not seem to be able to do the same for helmets on motorcycles? One of the big Bicycle-a-thons in my area you can not participate in unless you wear a bicycle helmet. 2 out of 2 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
stellamojo |
26. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 22 2008, 11:45 AM EDT
"Isn't it amazing that the seat belt is mandatory nationwide yet they do not seem to be able to do the same for helmets on motorcycles? One of the big Bicycle-a-thons in my area you can not participate in unless you wear a bicycle helmet."But it is unconstitutional to make an adult wear anything, I would think. Of course, I know I get a lot of flack for this, but I think mandatory carseats for children is unconstitutional. It's like the carseat industry went to congress, plucked out the brains of our representatives, leaving nothing but air. I see nothing wrong in mandating corporations to provide safety implements, but think it's up to the individual to decide to use them, AND children are our property by law, it should be up to the parent to provide safety for their children. I feel "handled" by my government each time I'm forced to protect myself, and I didn't think that's how Americans should feel. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
DuncanONeil |
27. RE: Civil Flag
Apr 22 2008, 1:20 PM EDT
If the nanny state continues to get its way. Pretty soon you will not be able to transport your child in your car! We have seat belts to "protect" people in cars. We have air bags in an attempt to protect those that refuse to wear seat belts. We have car seats to protect kids in cars. But don't you dare put your kid in the front seat! Air bags have killed a couple of kids!
1
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
|
HAMJR |
28. RE: Civil Flag
Jan 14 2009, 1:14 PM EST
You made a statement that "our children are our property by law". Nothing could be farther from the truth. As a parent of a murdered child, I have encountered aspects of the so far 3 year series of trials, including: a plea from the defendant of incompetency to stand trial, to a motion 2 years into proceedings to fire attorney-when motion denied he beat up said attorney with a chair and now has a new one, the entering of a plea now of not guilty by reason of insanity, so far 3 years and 4 months have passed during this process. I mentioned all this not because it pertains directly to the "Gold Fringe" on our flag, but because during this process I have encountered things in the conduct of the court that seem to validate the opinions regarding "Admiralty Law" being at work here under the "color" of statutory law (Admiralty law is the only one of the 2 mentioned in the constitution-the seeming implication of the existence of any other type of law in constitution is of no consequence as assumptions are not in fact law). My reason for intense study into this matter came at a point when I was informed that I was not a party to the action of the court in any way other than as a witness. Not only did I have no rights as the Father of a 19 year old murder victim who was not only my son, but also still lived in my house and all of his needs were supplied by me. I was told that if I even made a noise I would be ejected from the court and would enter only as a witness. What I found was that according to statutes I was not a victim-worse yet neither was my son. He (his dead body) was only evidence of an equity law crime against the state of California. He became collateral for a loan to our state upon the filling of his "National Birth Registry" with the Us Dept of Commerce, for which I received a "Birth Certificate". After extensive discussion with a Judge friend, he could not dispute any of my findings.
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
tamijo |
29. RE: Civil Flag
Jan 14 2009, 2:26 PM EST
Hamjr, I am so sorry for your loss. there is no greater pain a parent can go through then to lose a child. Sadly enough many of the laws that are put in place to protect us protect the criminal more. It is not right that the criminal has more rights then the victim and their family. In time the pain of loss lessens but the pain of injustice .....
Do you find this valuable?
|
|
DuncanONeil |
30. RE: Civil Flag
Jan 14 2009, 11:51 PM EST
You need to be a bit more explanatory of your analysis.This analysis appears to proceed from conclusion to hypothesis. Do you find this valuable? |
|
HAMJR |
31. RE: Civil Flag
Jan 15 2009, 12:18 PM EST
My posting yesterday was not a complaint about the criminal having more rights, but rather a notice that the state had the only rights that prevailed in the court. Though the defendant was and still is allowed an amount of latitude that seems entirely inconceivable, throughout the proceedings it has become unmistakably obvious that things inside the courtroom are not as they appear. During Roosevelt's terms the states gave up the rights of their citizens to even claim ownership on themselves by pledging "Full Faith & Credit" of their citizenry to the Federal government for federal monetary aid in the form of loans & many Public improvement projects. Between the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment & this pledge from the states our productive efforts became securities for international loans, this accomplishment was and could only be achieved if the state were to consider their citizenry as property. In the court case there has been only slight mention of my deceased son even being deprived of his most fundamental right-that of LIFE. Instead what has been presented can in every way be paralleled exactly to that of an owner of property, having been illegally deprived of his property by another individual seeking revenge for said action-providing an example for others-& eliminating the possibility of said person again committing such an action. This if effective will put the murderer off the streets, but the purpose has been one of the state with no consideration for the family or the constitutional law. It has been proven to me beyond a doubt that the state fully considers itself in possession of all of its citizens. A state exists through its citizens not them through it, the federal government constitutionally has a very limited few functions and only for the performance on these functions is there even a federal government. In and of itself there is no federal government strictly speaking only a union of states comprised by CITIZENS
0
out of
1 found this valuable.
Do you?
|
