Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty

I think it’s great. When I voted for Obama I believed what he said,,and now I believe he is trying to wipe out white middleclass America to be equal with the poor. From listening to Obama I don’t think he is proud to be an American. He is trying to make America like Europe.

What evidence do you have that he’s specifically targeting whites?

He is taking away the $4000.00 dollar college tax deduction, that most middleclass whites use to help send their kids to college. But DID YOU SEE WHAT HE GAVE TO THE ALL BLACK COLLEGES through the healthcare bill. And he signed a Presidental order on all that money to all black colleges. While middleclass whites again get hit.

Dudette, did you actually *read* any of the bills that have gone through? Did you even think that middleclass whites are the least taxed than they have been in decades, with all these deductions and credits? Did you read that the federal government has effectively reduced overatures on student loans by taking away subsidies to private loan companies and putting it into federal grants?

As to this article, its all posturing. Minnesota can say bye-bye to federal funds. Enjoy trying to pay for all your federally funded wasteful programs by taxing your own state out the wazzoo!

Go ahead and sucede. Welcome to the wonderful world of international politics, where you’ll need a passport to visit the next state over, and visas to move out of state.

The HOPE and Lifetime Earning Credit amounts were INCREASED, helping all families with children in college. The Affordable Health care Act contains no such provision giving money to AA colleges because that would be illegal. You are very confused.

The president donated his Nobel Peace Prize money to several organizations, among them were organizations that provide scholarships for Native Americans and the United Negro College Fund. This had nothing to do with any taxpayer money.

The only executive order the president signed in regards to the health care bill was an order to ensure that the insurance companies covered children with pre-existing conditions.

Whoever you’ve been listening to, you need to get away from them as fast as you can because they are not telling you the truth. A better way to find out what is in the ACA is to visit the White House web site where it is all laid out in black and white.

There is a whole lot of misinformation being spread around about President Obama and his policies, so the best way to find out what they are intended to do is to use the Google Search function and look it up for yourself. That’s what I do because I don’t trust the talking heads on teevee, many of whom, when pressed, will readily admit that they don’t know what’s in a piece of legislation.

Dick Armey was called to testify in Congress as an expert on HCR by some members in the Republican Party. Once there, under questioning by Rep. van Hollen, he admitted that he hadn’t read the bill, and also said that he didn’t need to know what was in the bill to know he didn’t like it. This is the man behind FreedomWorks who was organizing groups to go to Washington and protest against HCR. No one should have been following him anywhere. He was doing it for the money, but he didn’t bother telling that to the people he sent to town halls and tea party rallies.

Please read the US constitution. Specifically see article VI (not to be confused with the sixth amendment) second paragraph. This republican proposal is blatantly unconstitutional and probably violates the XIV amendment as well.

Article VI, paragraph two reads: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

I’m sorry sir but check the facts..Read the healthcare bill what it gives to “only black colleges”, and read about the CLOSED DOOR PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING GIVING THE MONEY TO “ONLY” BLACK COLLEGES IN OCTOBER. and the IRS says it is ending the 4000.00 tax credit for college tuition. Americans can read sir, maybe you and Congress can’t read or comprehend, but American citizens know what’s going on, that is why we are mad! Just google it!

@ Claudia, Please cite your source that money was taken away from white students. I doubt you can.

Look at the Healthcare Bill, it’s in the bill, the amount of money going to “only” black colleges. And as far as Dick Armey, I’m not into all of that, I am a parent who is going to lose the $4000.00 tax deduction for 2010 that we have been counting on for two years now. I don’t know who you are, but you are lying.

Ms. Schultz, just because it’s online doesn’t make it true. Reread (or read for the first time) majii’s post from above as many good and verifiable points are made. Ignorance is the symptom of your misinformation.

Here is the extent of the Federal government’s enumerated Constitutional powers:
Article VI: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room and seems to make the proposed amendment moot.

Claudia, the money goes to historically black colleges (which must admit people of all races) and community colleges. The grants are not “blacks only.”

Claudia is an obvious plant on the board people, come on, have we not all learned yet that anything that mentions Dems or scary Obama will absolutely bring out someone “claiming” that they had supported either or with full force only to see what evil, socialist, backdoor minions that they are. Since Claudia obviously knows that big bad black Obama is trying to destroy White America (maybe she wants her country back too! just code for bring the white faces back) perhaps she can show us exactly with citations where she is gathering her information. You know, those things the rest of the world calls FACTS. It’s like we are in 2nd grade again, come on kids, show your work!

Aaaaand…..

Bye bye Claudia.

Yeah — “Claudia” keeps saying “it’s in the bill” but you’ll notice she never says WHERE in the bill, citing sections or paragraphs. Guess these teaboogers assume that everyone else is as credulous as they are, willing to believe anything if “someone said” it.

This amendment would be struck down as clearly unconstitutional. States don’t get to “opt-out” of federal laws they don’t like. We even fought a war over that. Way to make Minnesota look like more of a laughingstock than Texas.

I don’t think you guys appreciate all the hard work the Senate Republicans are putting out to come out with great ideas that’ll really help solve the important problems faced by the vast majority of Minnesotans.

Now you know who really cares.

It’s striking how often one here’s the following kind of unhinged, unthinking paranoia among the teabaggers and increasingly Republicans in general: “…now I believe he is trying to wipe out white middleclass America to be equal with the poor.”

Dailykos.com has had its ear to the political winds and noticed this too. They finally conducted a poll of Republicans to gauge the actual level of insanity. You can see the results here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/2/2/832988/-The-2010-Comprehensive-Daily-Kos-Research-2000-Poll-of-Self-Identified-Republicans

A few highlights:

Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16

Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?
Yes 24
No 43
Not Sure 33

Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people? [I wonder if the yeses and not sures have ever heard of projection...]
Yes 31
No 36
Not Sure 33

Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?
Yes 23
No 58
Not Sure 19

Should openly gay men and women be allowed to teach in public schools?
Yes 8
No 73
Not Sure 19

Should public school students be taught that the book of Genesis in the Bible explains how God created the world?
Yes 77
No 15
Not Sure 8

A valid conclusion: Religious zealotry, ignorance, prejudice and paranoia are hallmarks of a sizable portion of the self-identified Republican base.

Oh go ahead, loser Republicans, just take your marbles and go home. That’s your answer to everything isn’t it? If Republicans can’t get the majority of Minnesotans and Americans to go along with their scheme to make this country into a corporatocracy, just try to become “sovereign”, which is code for “secede”. It’s either the mantras of “NO” or “let’s start over” on the part of the Republicans, at every level of government, when something is on the table that does some good for the people of this country. While you are at it, tell Minnesotans that the Republican Party wants to do away with their Social Security payments, Medicare, Medicaid, and public pensions. At least be honest about your intent, and see how far you get.

Who in the heck was getting a $400K deduction for college? Even if somebody did, they can’t be described as middle class (they would be making well over $100K per year). Is there no limit to the fantasy and self delusion people will do to protect their irrational beliefs? I guess such people that are electing Republican nut cases.

how ironic. The Republicans cite the Constitution for their sovereignty claim while ignoring the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. And the Republicans in the 5th CD want to secede from the union. I wonder if they chanted “USA! USA!” after they passed that resolution? And those idiots think they are being patriotic Americans.

Doesn’t seem to leave much wiggle room and seems to make the proposed amendment moot.

Not quite. Article VI doesn’t stand on its own.

Reread Article VI. “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”. You might ask “which laws?” So did everyone else, 220-odd years ago. Which led us to the Tenth Amendment, which enumerated the powers that the Federal, State and Local governments have.

A long series of SCOTUS decisions by statist courts led to less emphasis on the Tenth Amendment and more on the Commerce Clause with, we conservatives believe, really lousy results. It’s high time the states and the Fed gave the Tenth Amendment back the status it deserves.

(I’m counting down ’til some bobblehead responds “oh, so you support slavery”, no doubt feeling like they’re being really clever).

Mildly eating popcorn while watching as the Minnesota Republican party drives itself into irrelevancy.

Mitch seems to me that we could under the 10th also get rid of child labor laws, the Food and Drug Administration will syop inspecting, the military will be under the governors control and a whole host of evil federal practices will end. Whoopeee! Why are libertarian Republicans such fantasy fools?

On my last trip out to Oakland Cemetery on a beautiful sunny Sunday, I stopped by the grave of Alexander Ramsey to pay my respects.

I’d like to report that while it was very peaceful and quiet, with no signs of a zombie rising to wreak horrible vengeance on today’s Republican Party. However, it may well be worth keeping a reporter on the scene.

Great. Next the insurrectionist Republicans will be trying to get Minnesota to secede from the Union.

Way to go Rebs.

Mitch, the Constitution does not explicitly allow the President to negotiate the purchase of territory from a foreign power. Does that mean most of Minnesota is still part of France?

Mitch was so focused on Article VI that he overlooked Article I (especially Section 8).

As always, the Rushpubliscums don’t know a damn thing about that Constitution they all swear they love so much.That figures, though; the only Bible they “know” are the verses supporting whatever it is they hate.

[...] the newest wave of nuttiness coming from the secession-minded sovereignty [...]

IMHO the founders set the “states” up to play their role vs. the populace much like the Senate works to act as a brake upon the House. The change is inevitable. The question is how quickly the “behind the curve” can be displaced. Not if, but when.

This wrong-headed bill co-authored by my state senator David Hann further opens the door for his defeat in November. The painfully worrisome aspect of this proposed law and similar actions is that, like the infected humans in the movie “Invasion of the Body Snatches,” Mike Parry, Bill Ingebrigtsen, Steve Drazkowski, Bruce Anderson and Tom Emmer are blank-eyed serious.

“Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty”

MN got .77 cents back out of every dollar sent to the federal government. While it might seem like a win for MN to pull out that arrangement, who’s going to support the other Republican states of North Dakota ($2.03), Mississippi ($1.84), Alaska ($1.82), West Virginia ($1.74), Montana ($1.64), Alabama ($1.61), South Dakota ($1.59), Arkansas ($1.53)?

Wow the Republicans are so ticked off that they didnt get to finish the job of destroying this country when Mccain lost, so they figure they will just go ahead and finish the job themselves without a Republican president.

Claudia was good but the dude who claimed to have voted for Obama was so much better. Hes so original. That hasnt been said before. *rolls eyes*

Mitch I bet you were the guy who told Wesley Snipes that he didnt have to legally pay federal tax.

Indeed Gheez. As a nation, we suffered 618,000 casualties in the last civil war. I say last because it seems apparent to me that that is exactly where we are headed again. Perhaps allowing states to leave the union isn’t such a bad idea.

Don’t worry about the slavery comments Mitch, if it was not for REPUBLICAN president Abraham Lincoln, slavery could still be around in this country. aaaah, all the little kids in this awesome country who act as though some horrendous deed has been done to them, demanding that everything change to fit their special interests, regardless of how it affects any and everyone else within these borders.
now class, lets go back to remedial politics.
the conservative agenda is first and foremost freedom.
…..here is a pause for the uneducated debunkers…..
you are free to succeed as much as you can under your own power, within the confines of the law. YAY! or you can be as under the radar as you want, within the confines of the law. all the other things….health care, abortion, gay rights, are what is called perennial issues. they come and go, and believe me, if america decides it has made a mistake, it will right itself again. its a constant recalibration.
the liberal agenda is equality.
so we are already free, but now everyone gets to be on the same level as everyone else, except for a few elite, regardless of how hard they worked, how much they saved, how ingenious their plans are. they are more or less stunted in growth by this thing called equality. not so bad for the poor, the lazy, the squeaky wheel.
you can only push people so far before they push back.
demanding tolerance is like your boss at your shit job telling you to smile and tolerate the customer who is raging at you and spitting in your face. just tolerate it.
what’s the phrase? the customer is always right
i dont want to fund public healthcare, i dont care if social security gets minimized drastically so that the only people receiving it are the truly disabled. if the liberal party has so much confidence in their ideology, they should first prove it to their own members before inflicting unwilling victims. now now, you kids who are gonna whine and yell because you think i am just another evil conservative, screw that. both conservatives and liberals are acting equally retarded these days, oh and how much time do these unemployed americans have to be at protests and rallies?
i ascribe to neither political side, but i can tell you, i would be a lot less happy if my freedom was exchanged for government engineered equality. before you kids go all off the deep end and crystalize your ideas because you think that one side is more accepting of your life than the other, keep in mind, adding gasoline to the fire(like i just did) is gonna have explosive results.
if you want to see more hate and intolerance in your day to day life, go tell someone they are absolutely wrong without any tangible proof in your hands.

Oh, those silly Republican politicians are at it again. They are to laugh at, aren’t they? Too bad they can’t read and understand the US Constitution, but if they could they most likely wouldn’t be the reactionary idiots they are, representing all the teabaggers and rubes in the good, homogenous, God-fearing districts of our state. Armed and dangerous maybe, though not enough smarts between them all to foist this lunacy on our state.

[...] have introduced an amendment to the state Constitution that would require the legislature to “approve” federal laws before they would take [...]

Great, apparently the virus that’s made Michelle Bachmann batshit crazy is catching. Either that, or some South Carolina legislators are pretending to be from Minnesota.

Seriously, can we just pick a state to secede, put a fence around it and rename it “Dumbfuckistan”? Inside, the teabaggers can enjoy all the Biblically-based fun they want (marrying blood relatives, lynching anyone who looks gay, spitting on poor people, etc) and the rest of us can get on with our lives.

Fraggly/Gheez: One username per email/IP address, please, per our comment policy. I’ve deleted your comment as “Gheez.”

[...] Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty — Senate Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make Minnesota the first state to require a two-thirds majority vote in the legislature to approve federal laws affecting the state. Hmm. The last time I checked, the GOP was all about strict Constitutionalism. Which this most decidedly ain’t. Federalism is a settled issue, conservatives. We even had a little war about that 150 years ago, remember? You lost. The Constitution won. [...]

As for Minnesota getting less back from the federal government than what the state is sending to Washington, DC, some of the blame is due to King Pawlessly’s constant vetoing of this or that that would have qualified for significant federal money.

fraggly, i tend to ignore comments such as yours that are poorly written

Claudia is right, the healthcare reform act gives money to colleges that are predominantly unwhite.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/?&dbname=cp110&sid=cp110l1O3i&refer=&r_n=hr317.110&item=&sel=TOC_113480&

As for the Republican proposed amendment to affirm sovereignty, based on the blood curdling screams of the left, it must be a great idea.

That link is for HR 2669, the College Cost Reduction and Access Act, which was signed by the President on September 27, 2007. Meaning it was signed into law by George W. Bush. Meaning it’s not part of healthcare reform at all. Meaning Jimmy is a bald-faced liar.

I skimmed through Jimmy’s link – and did not see any reference to the healthcare bill that just passed. The link concerned HR 2669 COLLEGE COST REDUCTION AND ACCESS ACT of 2007 with funds disbursed in 2008 and 2009 to designated institutions of higher learning with the goal of strengthening their programs, and yes, these institutions are geared primarily towards minorities. This law is already history.

I don’t much care for the racist undertones underlying some of the comments in this online discussion which frankly is lacking serious merit – just like this proposed constitutional amendment which does not solve any of the real-world issues that affect each of us both as Minnesotans and as Americans.

For an eye-opening look at the current dysfunctional state of our politics, go to

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/04/red-state-ripoff.html

This link cites the original source article at thefourthbranch.com with its in-depth discussion.

Not a liar, just mistaken. As an exercise for the reader, someone please post a link to the text of the bill. Not an easy task for this simple-minded tea teabagger.

Jimmy if you are mistaken then admit you posted something as fact that is WRONG, don’t all of a sudden try to get us to do the work of trying to support your “lie” or mistake. Teabagger or not support your own views or keep silent… don’t pretend to know something and try to tell others what to think.

Health Care Reform Bill Summary: A Look At What’s in the Bill
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000846-503544.html

PDF of the Senate Bill
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Senate_health_care_bill.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

PDF of the House Reconcillation
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/House_reconciliation_package_031810.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Jimmy… happy now… read it and note there are no provisions like you and the troll Claudia insisted.

one thing you all neeed to know about Jimmy – he’s cat-stabbing crazy.
And facts or truth mean very little to him.

Until you’ve witnessed the Federalization first hand, it might not register. It would seem local decisions would be left up to local government. For instance, a cell phone tower was proposed to be installed in our neighborhood. Did local, county, or state law matter? No. Federal law said its going in and you better like it. Is it safe? The “World Health Organization” says it is, so you better like it. If you continue to take Federal money via China, and succumb to the laws that are passed along with it, be prepared to lose every last right.

It would be believable if Republicans weren’t so dead-set on opposing states’ rights and individual liberties. They are no different than the Dems, just different special interests. This appears to be a political stop-gap to offset their minority status and get them to the next election without ceding even more power to the over-reaching dems.

I formally apologize for saying I was mistaken when in fact I was not. As further evidence that our lawmakers are morons their numbering system is clearly designed to mislead and obfuscate.

H.R. 4872 Section 2103 refers to 371(b)(1)(A) (20 U.S.C. 1067q(b)(1)(A)) and extends its term through 2019, thereby granting further subsidy to unwhites, just as I and Claudia have claimed.

H.R. 4872 – Health Care
and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4872enr.txt.pdf

20 U.S.C. § 1067q
http://www.loislaw.com/advsrny/doclink.htp?dockey=21783602@USCODE&alias=USCODE&cite=20+U.S.C.+%A7+1067q

Jimmy, the only moron that is misleading and obfuscating is you. Referring to people as “unwhites”?! And a racist to boot.

Shame on you. Advocating funding for higher education without reference to race is explicitly anti-racist. Extending funding to minority dominated institutions is by definition racist and therefore despicable.

Jimmy you are proving yourself completely and utterly irrelevant. Thank the Deity that you and yours are going the way of the Dodo and for the same reasons. Exactly what is an “unwhite” when through DNA testing there is actually no difference discernible between the “races”? Kind of lonely out there in Flat Earth land isn’t it?

You should pass on your DNA expertise to your lawmakers:

Quoting “Investment in historically Black colleges and
universities and other minority-serving institutions”:

Hispanic
Tribal
Alaska Native
Native Hawaiian
Predominantly Black
Asian American
Native American Pacific Islander
Native American

Jimmy, how does this dedicated funding compare to funding for other institutions that presumably are dominated by whites? Can you show us that we as a society no longer have structural economic and educational barriers to those who happen to be “unwhite” – especially to those who are worthy and hard-working?

Finally, don’t forget to cite your sources as well as ensure that these sources are credible.

I ’spose you count those of mixed ancestries among the “unwhites.” I ’spose you aren’t aware that whites will become a minority soon enough here in these States … Keep in mind also that “unwhites” also pay taxes as well.

Jimmy, I could argue that absent the federal role in our society, racial issues would be far more of a problem if left up to the individual states.

I think affirmative action is blatantly racist. You might think I’m racist for believing that. So here we have an impasse.

Republicans talk big about sticking strictly to the Constitution, but they do not walk the walk.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Article VI

This means that federal law trumps state law, when they are in conflict.

“The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…”
Article III, Section 1

This means that federal courts are the authority for cases involving federal law.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;…
Article III, Section 2

Individual states have no authority to reject federal law. They have the right to challenge federal laws in federal courts, but they have no authority to deny those laws – not under the Constitution.

This is just another case of republicans attacking the Constitution while painting themselves as it’s defenders.

It is ironic, or maybe just sad, that the party that was once the party of Lincoln is now trying to bring back the Confederacy.

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”

This means federal law trumps state law only when the federal law is made in accordance with the rules set forth in the Constitution. But 99% of federal law is in violation of the Constitution. The enumerated powers are succinct and small in number.

So the treasonous actions by federal powers (of both parties, but one much more than the other) should be condemned once and for all.

Go right ahead, Jimmy. Arrest the treasonous for us, do something about it.

You sound like an expert – do you practice law? Obviously you know more than 200 years and generations of judges and lawyers. You’re an authority.

With a claim like “99% of federal law is in violation of the Constitution” you must know what you’re talking about. We should all listen to you. The world must be just like you say it is.

Well you’re right about that, but there’s no need to listen to me. Instead of reading the Constitution try comprehending what it says. FDR defecated on the Constitution by threatening to stack the court and we’ve been paying the heavy price ever since.

My compliments Jimmy. While your ideas carry the sweaty sheen of a crackpot you have improved your English to the point that it is understandable and properly phrased. It makes it much easier for me to stand in awe of the wrong-headed views you have expressed.

Do the men advocating seccesion really understand what this would mean?
We would lose all federal money pretaing too education
all federal money for roads, highways,hospitals,parks,all social security, and med care for the retired.
we would need a passport to cross lines, move or visit anyone out of our borders.
military contracts would be stopped,and we would need border guards at all entrys into the area.
Tourists that may have been visiting, would need the same and think, it’s not worth it. To get to canada for fishing, they could always use Wisconson or North Dakota.
I do not believe the people who back this bill, have thought this through completly.

Those conflicting feelings of confusion and wonder in your brain are what it feels like to learn. Kudos. Many of us don’t want any federal money. We can build our own parks, highways, hospitals, etc. All we ask of the feds is to protect us from foreign aggression.

The first state or states that both secede and assign complete liberty to all its citizens will enjoy dramatic economic prosperity. That’s the gift of capitalism.

@Amusinc: Thanks, but in order to fully enjoy your compliment, could you point to my improperly phrased English. (And typos don’t count!)

Poor “Jimmy”
Doesn’t know that every child that has been vaccinated,for Polio,has a vaccine developed from the cells of a BLACK Women!!These cells are called, He-la cells, used in the development of many vaccines and chemo.
So “jimmy”if you were ever vaccinated as a child,you owe you immunity to a BLACK Women. Named, Henrietta Lacks.
Even a knuckle dragging neanderthal,dunderheaded Republican should understand that.
“Jimmy” is such a childish name. I’d change it to a more ADULT form of addressing myself.
“also too” I’d ask my parents if they want to give up their SOCIAL SECURITY,OR MEDICARE.

I’ll dismiss you now as the child you are!!!
END OF SUBJECT

GSB, if you think a black woman is somehow less human than anyone else, then you are a RACIST. It’s people like you that endorsed capturing Africans and bringing them to slavery.

And many adults use the name Jimmy. The second most brain dead US president was named Jimmy; counting only American US presidents and he wins first prize.

[...] the people of Mexico continue spilling into the sovereign state of Arizona, necessitating the passage of crazy new laws and the formation of volunteer [...]

it is too bad some people just can’t stand rule of law when it isn’t their preferred policy.

ignore Federal Laws unless state-level Republicans agree with them?

separate from the United States?

pretty un-American in my view. people who wish to live in political or theocratic dictatorships have any number of countries they may enjoy more than this secular republic constrained by a Constitution

The Constitution created a federal government for one reason: preventing and waging war. All that other crap they do is unconstitutional.

Further, the 2nd amendment doesn’t afford gun rights so citizens can go hunting. It’s so they can defend themselves against an out of control government.

Have you read the Constitution, Jimmy? It starts out like this (note the parts about justice and welfare):

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.”

What do you think welfare meant to the authors of the Constitution? A clue is provided further down: “…provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”.

It says welfare of the states, not welfare of the people. The difference is dramatic. The Constitution provides a framework that protects the group of States from aggression, both internal and external. I.e. war.

Read Article 1 Section 8, the powers of Congress. No, it doesn’t mention food stamps. It’s ALL about war, preventing and waging. No social program BS.

Unbelievable. Most of this is constitutional on its face d/t the 14th and 15th amendments. These clearly established federal supremacy with the STATES giving congress the authority to implement laws protecting the civil rights of individuals.

I am not a constitutional lawyer but I can definitely see how loony this proposal is and it does reflect badly on our state.

The clause “general Welfare of the United States” refers to the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens.

>>>> efers to the concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens

It absolutely does not. It says of the “United States”. When the authors meant people they used the word “People” and when they meant the States they used the word “States”.

There is a difference between the collective “United States” – i.e. the people and the individual “States.”

I double-checked the actual context of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. It says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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.

It is clear to me the Founding Fathers intended the collective rather than the individual states, having learned the harsh lessons from the failed Articles of Confederation that were in effect earlier.

United States means States not people. If they meant people they would have written People. Pretty sure they knew the meaning of the word State, and of the word People. And State is not a collective term; it means the soveriegnty and viability of the State government.

Taking a look again at the Preamble above, I noted “People of the United States”; I didn’t see anything about the states themselves.

Besides, Minnesota owes its existence to an act of Congress granting the territory statehood on May 11, 1858.

Lane, usually your posts have a shade of reason to them. That last one though makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the current discussion. What does Minnesota statehood have to do with the General Welfare Clause?

Statehood is a grant of political power and independence to the people of a geographical area, an action that is consistent with the General Welfare Clause in the sense that it allows the people in that area to decide what works best for them in that area. This grant of authority does not include the right to secede from the Union nor does it grant exemptions to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, New States: “New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.”

Congressional consent mentioned above is but one constraint on state sovereignty.

Federalism as practiced here in the United States can be fascinating with its simultaneous bottom-up as well as top-down political processes making for a very dynamic nation. This is perhaps our greatest strength. Unfortunately, it is also very expensive with over 10,000 units of government each with its own set of laws, rules, regulations, ordinances …

[...] of government, our own Minnesota brings a little bit of the crazy Republicans push for Minnesota sovereignty Senate Republicans introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday that would make Minnesota the [...]