Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Because it only took Viking-Sensei three years (and the approaching end of Errant Story) to come up with a better name for "General Discussions"
Post Reply
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by mindstalk »

People can be both pissed off at what the government has or hasn't been doing, and still be more liberal than the government. Visible action so far on health care: none. Recession action: confusing stuff with banks and toxic assets and bailouts and high salaries. I don't know the history of the New Deal, but this far along in FDR's administration the CCC might have been forming... The stock market's been bouncing up and down but people are still losing their jobs and homes and health insurance. But all this translates into a government that's *not doing enough*, not doing too much.
User avatar
Sareth
RPG All-Star
Posts: 2604
Joined: August 23rd, 2007, 8:54 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Sareth »

That depends on how you view it. Many of the more libertarian minded types believe that governmental interference is what created the crisis in the first place, and thus a "the government is not doing enough" attitude is roughly equivalent to shooting the patient to cure his gunshot wound.

I'm not saying I'm one of those, I'm no economist. But I will say, having worked for the government for over ten years, I have a rather jaded view of its ability to do *anything* right.

*shrug*
Image
Image
User avatar
mindstalk
Typo-Seeking Missile
Posts: 916
Joined: November 9th, 2007, 10:05 am
Contact:

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by mindstalk »

I was mostly pointing out how people might be supporting of liberal/progressive action right now while not approving highly of Obama/Congress despite those being Democratic. The politicians might not be progressive enough.

I mean, it's not hypothetical. I supported Obama, and was hopeful -- still am, somewhat. But I follow Krugman, and Obama's crisis policies seem lame and half-hearted, fearful of standard practice because of the "nationalization" phobia. I haven't heard of health care moves, and his own plan didn't have the key element of mandated coverage. He's been making moves to defend Bush policies on the detainees. He keeps talking to homophobic preachers, and we haven't heard of action to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell (which Congress has to do, but still.) Plus of course he supports the death penalty and doesn't support gay marriage rights. The Democrat I really supported was Gravel, but he didn't get anywhere.

As for losing the neutrals, and supposedly 5% of his supporters -- 5% is within a couple of margins of error, quite possibly essentially stable. Who managed to be neutral after that election campaign, I don't know, but they might have had a predisposition to go against him -- and there's been lots of wingnut rhetoric about tax hikes and nationalization and such. Shifts might reflect politics, not action. Or the 'neutrals' paying attention, finally, after not having voted in the first place.
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Boss Out of Town »

mindstalk wrote:As for losing the neutrals, and supposedly 5% of his supporters -- 5% is within a couple of margins of error, quite possibly essentially stable. Who managed to be neutral after that election campaign, I don't know, but they might have had a predisposition to go against him -- and there's been lots of wingnut rhetoric about tax hikes and nationalization and such. Shifts might reflect politics, not action. Or the 'neutrals' paying attention, finally, after not having voted in the first place.
Mentally flipping through the polls I've seen recently, I continue to be puzzled about where that "losing the neutrals" meme originates. Aside from a few outliers and blips due to dramatic events, the polls have been remarkably consistent since last October:

In general . . .
64% to 66% overall approval for Obama, spikes to about 74%.
27% to 29% disapproval for Obama, very few spikes.

Breaking it down . . .
--80% to 90% of Democrats approve of Obama.
--60% to 70% of Independents approve of Obama, about 20% disapprove.
--25% to 30% of Republicans approve of Obama, 65% disapprove.

Obama gets consistent support from liberal/progressives in spite of lagging on torture, corruption, the wars, and cozying up to the banks. He still gets approval from a substantial number of Republicans in spite of that party's ongoing campaign to purge itself of all but its most strident conservative base.

Like I said, this are really, really good numbers for a president in these polarizing circumstances. As far as I can tell, the only substantial change in public opinion over the last six months has been the steady decline in approval for Republicans in congress, drifting down towards 10%. Democrats in congress have flipping around a bit, but a 30% approval rating is still pretty good. Usually, the congress's approval ratings are comparable to those of used car salesmen and slightly above those of pimps and drug dealers.
History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of kings’ bastards but cannot tell us the origin of wheat. This is the way of human folly. --- Henry Fabre
User avatar
Boss Out of Town
Team Captain
Posts: 1051
Joined: August 20th, 2007, 8:49 pm
Location: Near where the Children of the Corn go to school

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Boss Out of Town »

Governor Perry of Texas and Ex-Congressman Tom Delay have both stood up for Texas's right to secede from the Union, and now someone else chimes in . . .

Georgia Senate threatens dismantling of USA
7:02 am April 16, 2009, by Jay Bookman

It wasn’t quite the firing on Fort Sumter that launched the Civil War. But on April 1, your Georgia Senate did threaten by a vote of 43-1 to secede from and even disband the United States.

In fact, Senate Resolution 632 did a lot more than merely threaten to end this country. It stated that under the Constitution, the only crimes the federal government could prosecute were treason, piracy and slavery.

“Therefore, all acts of Congress which assume to create, define or punish [other] crimes … are altogether void, and of no force,” the Georgia Senate declared.

In other words, in the infinite, almost unanimous wisdom of the Georgia Senate, Michael Vick is being imprisoned illegally, Bernie Madoff should serve no time for stealing $60 billion and the Unabomber must go free. In fact, the federal penitentiary in Atlanta should be emptied of its inmates.

But wait, there’s more.

The resolution goes on to endorse the theory that states have the right to abridge constitutional freedoms of religion, press and speech. According to the resolution, it is up to the states to decide “how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged.”

The resolution even endorses “nullification,” the legal concept that states have the power to “nullify” or ignore federal laws that they believe exceed the powers granted under the Constitution. That concept has a particularly nasty legacy. It helped precipitate the Civil War, and in the 1950s and early ’60s it was cited by Southern states claiming the right to ignore Supreme Court rulings ordering the end of segregation.

Finally, the resolution states that if Congress, the president or federal courts take any action that exceeds their constitutional powers, the Constitution is rendered null and void and the United States of America is officially disbanded. As an example, the resolution specifically states that if the federal government enacts “prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition,” the country is disbanded.

In other words, if Congress votes to restore the ban on sale of assault rifles, the United States is deemed to no longer exist.

This, your Georgia state Senate voted 43-1 to endorse.
Apparently most of the senators never read the resolution. One of the senate leaders snuck it into an omnibus bill.
History celebrates the battlefields whereon we meet our death, but scorns to speak of the plowed fields whereby we thrive; it knows the names of kings’ bastards but cannot tell us the origin of wheat. This is the way of human folly. --- Henry Fabre
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Itterind »

Sareth wrote:I realize most of you will probably find this to be a horrificly dumb idea, but as symbolic gestures I have got to admire the sheer nerve of this one.

Congress has on it's agenda for this session HR.45. (a.k.a "Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.") This bill would, if passed, require ALL gun owners to licensed by the Federal Government in order to own fire arms. It also includes provisions that would make it a criminal act (punishable with up to ten years in prison) for having both firearm and ammunition on any property that MIGHT have anyone under 18 come onto the property at any time. Yes, even if the gun is locked in a safe in the attic with a trigger lock and the ammo is in a lock box in a shed out back.

Idaho's legislature, after reviewing the bill (available on the U.S. Congress website, where I read it) replied with the following: http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/legisl ... HJM003.pdf

To summarize, Idaho stated that this law clearly violates the 2nd Ammendment, and the principle of an armed populace as a final check and balance against an out of control government. Further, Idaho says, a similar law in Washington D.C. was struck down just last year by the Supreme Court, so Congress knows this is a clear violation. As such, Idaho is hereby ordering Congress to CEASE AND DESIST all efforts to violate the Constitution and the rights of gun owners.

That's right, Idaho just issued Congress a Cease and Desist order.

Does this actually accomplish anything realistically speaking? No. I expect most of Congress won't even notice, and most of the rest won't care. Is it enforcable? Not at all. But does it do anything? YES! It puts Congress on notice that Idaho is sick and tired of Congress jackassery, and that if Congress keeps it up, Idaho WILL tell them where they can stuff it. Should the bill pass (and I expect it will) expect Idaho to immediately contest it in court, and Congress will have no chance to say they didn't expect it.

Shoot, I wonder if anyone in the Idaho Legislature is familiar with the concept of Nullification?

That's a bit... dictatorial for your nation. It's normal outside and works better (though cracks are starting to appear), but I don't think it's remotely possible to truly eradicate guns from the US so it's a much better strategy to weaponize law-abiding citizens.
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Itterind »

Sareth wrote:I have started doing a little research. It turns out a large number of states are doing this. I've read seven similar bills from places like New Hampshire, Montana, Oklahoma... And I've seen indications that as many as 30 are in the process. That's... a lot.

Hell, the New Hampshire version is scary, as it not only says "Cease and Desist" but then goes further. It states that any future laws which New Hampshire interprets as exceeding the Constitution shall be null and void within New Hampshire, pursuant to Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution. Further, it intends to start looking at laws already on the books, and nullifying any of them that exceed the authority granted by the Constitution. If Congress persists in violating the Cease and Desist and continues to exceed it's mandate, then, as the Constitution is a contract creating the Federal Government as an agent of the individual states, New Hampshire reserves the right to send agents to the various states to discuss disolving the Federal Government and convening a new Constitutional Convention which any state may chose to join or not join.

In short, New Hampshire is raising the specter of Secession.
Wow. That's awesome hardball. Not sure what I think about it, but I would have to go with supporting it. The whole point of disagreeing with each other within a nation is basing it on the constitution. True democracy may not be good by nature, but it darn well has to have actual majority support (be it 51% or 67%) to change the basic laws (unlike Venezuela, Iran, Egypt, Russia, Indonesia, etc.).
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Itterind »

Boss Out of Town wrote:Okay, I'll take a few minutes out to provide a little alternative input.

There is no prospect of any gun control legislation coming up in the congress at any time in the foreseeable future, just as there has been no such prospect over the past decade. There is no serious factional support in the congress for such legislation, and powerful factional resistance to it. The current Democratic leadership has even ruled out any renewal of the Brady Bill. They don't want to waste time on issues that are going nowhere and might disrupt the more critical debates that will occupy the congress for the next few years.

Both liberal and conservative congress-people, like the state legislatures you mention, routinely put forward bills and resolutions they know are going nowhere, as statements of principle, as bargaining chips, or as political grand-standing.

There are a lot of lives that could be saved if we could reduce the number of cheap and deadly weapons in circulation, but no legislation comprehensive enough to have a serious effect, rather than a token effect, has been up for a vote in congress in the last quarter-century.

The possibility may come up again in a decade or so. I'll revive the thread when that happens and we can chew on the details a bit.

Legislative statements to "rein in" the Federal government are pure grand-standing. I would wager that only a handful of the people who voted for them are true libertarians, and the rest averted their eyes and heard nothing over the last few years while the executive branch was spying on the people, ignoring laws it didn't like, and giving itself the power to arrest and disappear American citizens whenever the whim struck--note that the memos rationalizing these powers were published today.

I'll believe there is a secessionist movement when some number of the right-wing blowhards appearing on the news programs every night actually put their money and their livelihoods on the line to organize so much as a street protest against the Federal tyranny. While a few working class conservatives are willing to at least pick up a sign, I'm thinking there isn't one in a hundred of the the blowhard elite who has the courage to take even that much of a risk.

The last time hard-core, right wing extremist movements tried to break up the country, in the 1850s, it did not end well. The moderates, liberals, and sane conservatives (examples of each: Lincoln, Frank Blair, and Ulysses S. Grant) got together and stomped them down, dirty, and hard. They can do it again if they have to.
The crazy conservatives were only a few big victories away from giving the cowardly northern Democrats and their Southern counterparts enough steam to break down morale. I'd hardly call the Civil War a stomp until late game.

Also, you seem to take for granted that deaths would fall. Normally I'd agree, but this the US we're talking about so I won't. Armed robbery would rise for one, perhaps deaths would fall overall, but data in the US is inconclusive. Some of the worst and best areas are respectively those who don't and do allow guns. This can never work without a nation-wide ban due to porous state borders and armed citizens reduce crime... check Vermont for one of many. And any such operation would have to overcome a gargantuan domestic supply and would take very long to dwindle down, not to mention it's in your Constitution!!!!!!!!!
Guns are simply tools to kill with. Maybe the US should work on reducing guns in the long run, but in the short run I'd try to streamline and make the process more fair and focus on responsible ownership... so rather than require a liscense I'd say it'd be better if some compulsory ethics and training courses were held.
For a nation that believes in the right to kill trespassers on the spot guns should be ok.
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Itterind »

I guess I don't know quite how it works, but if people are this angry about the law there must be some saner way of reducing deaths.

In Norway our police don't have guns, but it's easy to get a rifle or a pistol if u go to a shooting range.
Canada doesn't have as much violence either.

Japan very little, and they ban guns.

But for a nation that loves freedom and guns so much, I think the problem is people. Guns are just effective tools of killing less prone to accidents than knives if handled correctly.

I mean... Loss of Life?

Jeeze, just secure your outdoor pools. You'll save many times the people.

Freakonomics has a good section on pros and cons of gun control and what works. It's very ambivalent and methodic in its analysis and mentions good and bad (though it gets down to the scientific of pointing out how few accidents there are and how it either puts a gun in a law-abiding citizens hands or a criminal, and I don't remember whether it's best to have neither but better to have both), but notes that methods attempted in the US in particular have all failed so far or not met with any significant success. The US needs to look at other guntoting nations to figure itself out. Because no guns is not going to happen because it is not wanted nor will it save lives but likely COST lives until many years have passed.

Those 'scrap-salvage' plans and all that, they always target law-abiding citizens.

Truth be told though, guns do escalate conflicts sometimes unecessarily but (which is why well-organized and culturally adapted ban nations have by far the lowest) they reduce robberies if there's a sufficient ammount.
Itterind
Mage/Priest War Veteran
Posts: 502
Joined: November 13th, 2007, 3:47 pm

Re: Idaho issues Cease and Desist order... against Congress

Post by Itterind »

Boss Out of Town wrote:Okay, I'll take a few minutes out to provide a little alternative input.

There is no prospect of any gun control legislation coming up in the congress at any time in the foreseeable future, just as there has been no such prospect over the past decade. There is no serious factional support in the congress for such legislation, and powerful factional resistance to it. The current Democratic leadership has even ruled out any renewal of the Brady Bill. They don't want to waste time on issues that are going nowhere and might disrupt the more critical debates that will occupy the congress for the next few years.

Both liberal and conservative congress-people, like the state legislatures you mention, routinely put forward bills and resolutions they know are going nowhere, as statements of principle, as bargaining chips, or as political grand-standing.

There are a lot of lives that could be saved if we could reduce the number of cheap and deadly weapons in circulation, but no legislation comprehensive enough to have a serious effect, rather than a token effect, has been up for a vote in congress in the last quarter-century.

The possibility may come up again in a decade or so. I'll revive the thread when that happens and we can chew on the details a bit.

Legislative statements to "rein in" the Federal government are pure grand-standing. I would wager that only a handful of the people who voted for them are true libertarians, and the rest averted their eyes and heard nothing over the last few years while the executive branch was spying on the people, ignoring laws it didn't like, and giving itself the power to arrest and disappear American citizens whenever the whim struck--note that the memos rationalizing these powers were published today.

I'll believe there is a secessionist movement when some number of the right-wing blowhards appearing on the news programs every night actually put their money and their livelihoods on the line to organize so much as a street protest against the Federal tyranny. While a few working class conservatives are willing to at least pick up a sign, I'm thinking there isn't one in a hundred of the the blowhard elite who has the courage to take even that much of a risk.

The last time hard-core, right wing extremist movements tried to break up the country, in the 1850s, it did not end well. The moderates, liberals, and sane conservatives (examples of each: Lincoln, Frank Blair, and Ulysses S. Grant) got together and stomped them down, dirty, and hard. They can do it again if they have to.

And btw., you're awfully harsh on the people trying to ABIDE by the constitution. I'd say the insane liberal freaks who want to go against your most treasured laws are the crazies. Or perhaps you think they should just be ignored and frowned upon quietly according to the constitution and will of the people when you agree with it and vice verca.
Post Reply