Quote:

---

boundries set by a federal agency, not a corrupt state one

---

Yeah. There would be no chance of coming across a corrupt federal agency.

Quote:

---

Documentation was on a variety of TV stations and can be found by googling for videos of long lines of voters who stood in line for many hours.

---

There have always been areas with long lines, and unless you can show they only existed in lower income areas, then you don't have a case.

Quote:

---

And as I've said before, there wasn't mass mail-outs of ballots (to everyone between 2 and 89?). Signatures on those ballots were verified with signatures on file. Many states sent out applications first to registered voters.

---

If I can show otherwise, will you agree to condemn it?

Clete ,you clearly don't get what federalism means . That being said Congress has the authority to make rules that fall within their constitutional boundaries (art 2 sec 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.. ). Congress could use that authority to set some basic rules for the states to operate under . As an example . Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution. If Congress wanted an extended election they could write it into the law .They could restrict the use of mail in ballots .
The Constitution mandates a census and reapportionment . It leaves the states to decide how that gets done.

NY State has been corrupt since the days of the Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel . They were dueling over local NY politics not national politics . And of course Tammany Hall machine politics in the 19th century was infamous .

Quote:

---

Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution.

---

Agree completely.

All states are corrupt. It unsurprisingly seems to goes along with the concept of being managed by human beings. Just a matter of degree. True here. True in Australia. True everywhere. That's why they bear watching. What we really lack in that respect is an unbiased, honest, and diligent news media.

Anthony Blinken Quid's pick for Sec State met privately with Hunter Biden twice in 2015 . Did they not discuss Burisma and Hunter's dealings in China ,and Russia and the possible conflicts of interests that created for Quid and JFKerry ? Or is Blinken's appointment the pay back for his silence?

You wingers are in good conspiracy form today, and as usual lacking evidence to support such theories. I get you guys don't trust the system, I have my own doubts, but we disagree on the facts or degree of the accuracy of the facts, and that's a shame. Granted this is a stressful time for everybody given the economy, covid, elections and the usual political antics and spin, and the general words not matching the actions BS that started centuries ago when the founders wrote about all men being equal, but it only applied to a few.

Two and half centuries later we still ain't got it right. So what we're really arguing about is our own failures as a nation. That's not saying much for us, or the rest of the world, but until Scotty beams me up like I been begging for decades now, looks like we're stuck in our own crap.

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers. Fingers crossed on the next batch of drivers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Clete ,you clearly don't get what federalism means . That being said Congress has the authority to make rules that fall within their constitutional boundaries (art 2 sec 4 The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.. ). Congress could use that authority to set some basic rules for the states to operate under . As an example . Congress set the election day. In my view early voting and accepting ballots after the day set by Congress violates the constitution. If Congress wanted an extended election they could write it into the law .They could restrict the use of mail in ballots .
The Constitution mandates a census and reapportionment . It leaves the states to decide how that gets done.

NY State has been corrupt since the days of the Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr duel . They were dueling over local NY politics not national politics . And of course Tammany Hall machine politics in the 19th century was infamous .

---

Oh I know what federalism means and have had the opportunity to observe a different implementation of it which appears to work in a fairer way

Tal ,looking to hitch a ride on the big mother wheel ?

“All men are created equal” in the declaration of independence was not talking about individual equality. That is a utopian concept that can never be achieved . What was really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self government as other peoples, and could declare independence, and create new governments and assume their "equal station” among other nations.

After the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that phrase another way. It became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim . With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is the striving for equality that has always defined our constitutional creed.....'in order to form a more perfect union' ..... not to form a perfect one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Tal ,looking to hitch a ride on the big mother wheel ?

“All men are created equal” in the declaration of independence was not talking about individual equality. That is a utopian concept that can never be achieved . What was really meant was that the American colonists, as a people, had the same rights of self government as other peoples, and could declare independence, and create new governments and assume their "equal station” among other nations.

After the Revolution succeeded, Americans began reading that phrase another way. It became a statement of individual equality that everyone and every member of a deprived group could claim . With each passing generation, our notion of who that statement covers has expanded. It is the striving for equality that has always defined our constitutional creed.....'in order to form a more perfect union' ..... not to form a perfect one.

---

I think it means we come into this world with nothing and we leave the same way, this is the only equality. We have no ineniable rights, only the rights we confer upon ourselves and we have no right to impose these upon others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers. Fingers crossed on the next batch of drivers.

---

yes and cross your toes too and your legs because you are about to get screwed

I think it means all people are of equal worth before God. It's the great danger of atheism. If humans were not created, then they could not have been created equal. If that is so, then I can claim that my life is of more worth than yours. And if we have no inalienable rights, then our rights can be given or taken away by the government, and we would not be able to mount a moral protest about it.

Quote:

---

Two and half centuries later we still ain't got it right.

---

I think we are closer than you think.

Quote:

---

At least we took the keys away from this dufus and his sycophant butt kissers.

---

We've just traded one dufus for a super dufus, and put in place a larger group of sycophant butt kissers which will, sadly, include most of the media.

Quote:

---

We have no ineniable rights,

---

Wow very European of you . God does grant us rights . Certainly life and liberty and the founders argue for property (later changed to pursuit of happiness. ) No they are not endowed by the state and the state has no right to take them away . The state may have the power . But not the right .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Wow very European of you . God does grant us rights . Certainly life and liberty and the founders argue for property (later changed to pursuit of happiness. ) No they are not endowed by the state and the state has no right to take them away . The state may have the power . But not the right .

---

Yes, I am a European, an Australian of Irish decent, and I live in a place where we don't have to insist we have rights, since magna carta limited the powers of monarchs and governments

The Magna Carta was a nice start . Still is is a royal carter of rights granted by a king. What a king gives a king can take away. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by any human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Magna Carta was a nice start . Still is is a royal carter of rights granted by a king. What a king gives a king can take away. Rights granted by God cannot be taken away by any human.

---

Sure they can, have and will be taken away again. Part of man's imperfection...or devious intent for his own purpose?

Quote:

---

Sure they can, have and will be taken away again. Part of man's imperfection...or devious intent for his own purpose?

---

That is certainly true. I think the point, however, is that they cannot be rightly and morally taken away.

It may not be right or moral, but done all the time, and the point really is rights are taken away. The debate is does it serve the individual, or collective? The old argument of the needs of the few before the needs of the many. Where is the line drawn?

The Constitution, and in particular the Bill of Rights, are there largely to guarantee individual liberties and to protect both the individual and the states from an oppressive, overly large fed govt.

It can also be said that the Constitution also limits the rights of states to oppress/suppress the rights of individuals which is more an historic fact than the federal government doing so. Indeed it would seem the federal government must in fact be large enough to protect all the people regardless of the states rights.

E Pluribus Unum..."out of many ONE".

Quote:

---

It can also be said that the Constitution also limits the rights of states to oppress/suppress the rights of individuals which is more an historic fact than the federal government doing so. Indeed it would seem the federal government must in fact be large enough to protect all the people regardless of the states rights.

---

The fed govt. needs to be in line with the Constitution.

How is it not?

I'll give you one example of the many I can site just in the unconstitutional Federal Government over reach and expansion due to the court's interpretation of the Commerce Clause(Art 1 Sec 8 .....“to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” ) .

In its original meaning, the clause functioned primarily as a constraint upon state interference in interstate commerce. The original meaning “To regulate” is to “make regular,” that is, to facilitate the free flow of goods, but not, except in cases of danger, to prohibit the flow of any good. The framers were looking to keep states from practicing protectionism inside the country . The sole purpose was to prevent trade wars between states . It was that practice in particular that killed the Articles of Confederation that governed the country before the constitution .

That was the way the courts interpreted the clause for 150 years until United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) . I've mentioned Filburn before . He was growing wheat to feed his own livestock .But Congress had put limits on wheat production in an attempt to manipulate the price . Filburn argued that he was not selling his wheat so it did not come under the law . Heck ;he wasn't even trying to sell it within the state let alone interstate . But SCOTUS decided :Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect."

So in other words even if his wheat is not to be sold the government can prevent him from growing it because if he had not grown it ;he would've had to purchase it ;and that impacted the price in some bizarre way .That was twisted logic at best and a complete misread of the meaning of the clause .

There have been several court cases misinterpreting the government powers granted in this clause ;almost all the cases resulted in the Federal Government expanding it's powers and the states and individuals losing power .

So when a law was proposed that forced people to purchase healthcare insurance ;Dianne FrankenFeinstein was asked what power does the Federal Government have to do this .Her reply was “Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That’s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.”
This restriction on the states has been turned into a grant of broad unlimited Congressional authority.

Another example would be federal funding of public education. This comes as a supposed "blessing" from the feds, but as is always the case, the money is bound up tightly with federal regulations that end up altering the operation of the school. The process of documentation is so extreme that I knew principals who wanted to just refuse the money so as not to have to become so engaged in a mountain of barely understandable paperwork. The feds have no Constitutional authority to fund state operated educational systems.

Another area is federal ownership of land. The feds presently own 27% of our country, amounting to 615 million acres. That is 615 million acres taken out of production, or with limited production due to the usually egregious regulations. For a government that is 30 tril in debt, it's time to start selling some of that land back to private interests.

You make a good case Tomder, but context of the time and a deeper dive into the issue would help...

WICKARD v. FILBURN | FindLaw

Wickard v. Filburn (1942) – U.S. Conlawpedia (gsu.edu)

They're long reads but save some typing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Another example would be federal funding of public education. This comes as a supposed "blessing" from the feds, but as is always the case, the money is bound up tightly with federal regulations that end up altering the operation of the school. The process of documentation is so extreme that I knew principals who wanted to just refuse the money so as not to have to become so engaged in a mountain of barely understandable paperwork. The feds have no Constitutional authority to fund state operated educational systems.

Another area is federal ownership of land. The feds presently own 27% of our country, amounting to 615 million acres. That is 615 million acres taken out of production, or with limited production due to the usually egregious regulations. For a government that is 30 tril in debt, it's time to start selling some of that land back to private interests.

---

You have made the case several times that funding is not needed so why take the money and subject yourself to onerous conditions if you feel it's unconstitutional? I'm confused as to your point of school funding.

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

Quote:

---

You have made the case several times that funding is not needed so why take the money and subject yourself to onerous conditions if you feel it's unconstitutional? I'm confused as to your point of school funding.

---

It was not my choice. As a principal, you frequently do what you are told.

Quote:

---

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

---

That's kind of not the point.

Quote:

---

As to private lands did they take it from anybody but the natives?

---

No each piece of land was either won in wars ;purchased ,or obtained by treaty with France, Spain, Mexico ,England .

But yes that is another example of Federal overreach . It is the Federal Government that has largely kept many tribes in poverty .

All development projects on Indian land must be reviewed and authorized by the government, a process that is notoriously slow and burdensome.

Federal inheritance laws; some dating back to the last century required many Indian lands to be passed in equal shares to multiple heirs. After several generations, these lands have become so fractionated that there are often hundreds of owners per parcel of land . Managing these ownership issues is nearly impossible, so much of the land remains idle.

Federal policies regarding coal destroys one of the biggest economic opportunities in Indian territory . Regulations make it hard for the tribe to capitalize on their natural resources. Why shouldn't the nations be in the coal export business to places like Asia that import coal ?

Royalties of many assets on Indian lands are controlled and managed by Bureau of Indian Affairs . That includes lease negotiations .Frankly ;the government sucks at it .
Unlocking the Wealth of Indian Nations: Overcoming Obstacles to Tribal Energy Development (perc.org)

Even this settlement severely undervalued the assets
Obama Admin Strikes $3.4B Deal in Indian Trust Lawsuit - NYTimes.com

We are talking assets in the $ trillions ;not low $ billions . As long as tribes are denied the right to control their own resources, they will remain locked in poverty and dependence.

In my five years working for an indian school system, I observed the largely negative effects of a safety net gone extreme. In their efforts to make sure no one failed, they robbed most of the people of any desire to succeed. For most of the young people, the world was no larger than the borders of the reservation. There was no need to plan for success in life since food, clothing, housing, and med care were all guaranteed. It was as though the government told them, "Don't worry about life. We are going to take care of you." Marriage had become obsolete. The kids spent their time drinking, having sex and babies out of wedlock, watching television, playing sports, or sniffing paint. Our graduation rate was very poor. This was primarily because the government, by making failure unlikely, had made success simply another choice among many.

Hey, that's the same thing you said about black people. I think I'll go with Tom's more nuanced examples of tribes cutting through the regulatory red tape and thriving while raising the level of expertise in areas that benefit them most. The HEARTH ACT as an example.

Hmm you didn't mention that the Choctaw were moving in a good direction.

Federal Register :: HEARTH Act Approval of Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Regulations

Given the history better late than never? Not like they haven't been kicked in the butt subjugated and oppressed by the white man. Yeah I'm going there.

lol the Hearth act of 2012 . Nice try but it bypasses my central point.
Yes it streamlines some regulatory burden .But not ones that would make a real difference. The act authorizes tribes to execute agricultural and business leases of tribal trust lands for residential, public, religious, educational, recreational or more importantly, alternative and renewable energy purposes without the approval of the U.S. Secretary of the Interior.
So nothing about the mineral resources I mentioned is addressed . In fact it imposes even greater obstacles to effective energy development in Indian Country. You could expect no less from the emperor who promised to bankrupt certain energy industries . Tribal lands are estimated to have 10% of the nation’s traditional energy resources. But they are shut out from exploiting them.

There is a whole other discussion about sovereignty and being compelled to adopt Federal regulatory restraint .

Quote:

---

Hmm you didn't mention that the Choctaw were moving in a good direction.

---

My time was back in the early 90's. Things have, perhaps, changed some. The casinos have brought in a bunch of money for sure. But if I'm going to look for info on the Choctaws, I sure won't go to you. You don't know squat about them. I spent five years with them, and you spent five minutes looking up a link. Yeah.

The stumbling block of mineral rights on tribal lands are in the deed holders who can and will nix any agreement for whatever reasons. For example 10 owners of a particular land can be stopped by one from profiting by a lease agreement which from my own experience may not amount to a bonanza by any means. It's as subject to market influences and condition as any capitalist venture.

Conversely those 10 owners could exploit their own resources for their own self interest without big energy as the middle man with the right expertise for a greater long term profit. Many tribes have gone this route and expanded their horizons with options that serve their own needs.

Choctaws want to do fracking . I suspect that would be more valuable to them than casinos and selling tax free tobacco products .


McGirt v. Oklahoma decision Justice Gorsuch wrote ... “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding ‘all their land, East of the Mississippi river,’ the U.S. government agreed by treaty that ‘[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.’”

The Indian tribes in Oklahoma want to do fracking .So what prevents them from doing so ? The state of Oklahoma through the governor was granted special regulatory authority over the tribal lands before the ink dried on Gorsuch's decision .EPA grants Stitt request for state oversight on tribal lands (apnews.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Choctaws want to do fracking . I suspect that would be more valuable to them than casinos and selling tax free tobacco products .

---

Totally can agree.

Quote:

---

McGirt v. Oklahoma decision Justice Gorsuch wrote ... “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new lands in the West would be secure forever. In exchange for ceding ‘all their land, East of the Mississippi river,’ the U.S. government agreed by treaty that ‘[t]he Creek country west of the Mississippi shall be solemnly guarantied to the Creek Indians.’”

The Indian tribes in Oklahoma want to do fracking .So what prevents them from doing so ? The state of Oklahoma through the governor was granted special regulatory authority over the tribal lands before the ink dried on Gorsuch's decision .EPA grants Stitt request for state oversight on tribal lands (apnews.com)

---

Ain't that illegal state power grabbing?

Quote:

---

Ain't that illegal state power grabbing?

---

Partly . Could not happen if the EPA did not green light it .

Correct and my guess is they will wait for a new EPA chief. (No pun intended).

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

---

Who will benefit?

The Indian tribes obviously . Right now they are permitted to make money on casinos ,tax free tobacco ,solar and wind and selling trinkets to tourist gawkers . Follow the discussion . It is about the unconstitutional overreaching power of the Federal government and this is a clear example of it ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Follow the discussion .

---

Was just musing on how the government and big corporations will yet again cheat the Native Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You think a Quid EPA will approve fracking on native lands ?

---

The chances are pretty good it's Federal lands that have a slim chance of bring fracked on or leased for drilling for that matter.

it is not Federal lands . The government just treats it as such . The fact is that 573 sovereign Native American nations have formal nation to nation relationships with the US government .Sovereignty means self governance . The tribes ceded millions of acres of land for the guarantee of self governance on the lands they reside .And it is independent rule that is at the heart of almost every issue concerning native Americans . Yes Quid and JFKerry will most likely adopted the emperor's ban on energy exploration on Federal lands . But it has been established many times the the legal status of the tribal lands is autonomous rule .