en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/737828 Comments by VicFedorov http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48809735 "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This is clearly to protect religion from government, and not government from religion. Because religion is good, helping to explain what is hard to understand, and government is morally ambiguos. The free excercise of religion certainly can include prayers in school, provided they are not mandatory, or ordered. The Supreme Court should be ashamed of itself for messing up this simple law; judicial reform should spring from some of these clear errors by the court. Judicial reform can consist of more judges hearing a case: (1,3 7, or 9, judges are far too inhibited by the status quo. The more judges judging together, I believe, the more accurate a ruling) (Judges get burned out quick and go on automatic; shorten their terms) (There is nothing incredible about judging, most people are capable of hearing a case, making a judgement; open up the profession to the less exalted and more humble; stop exalting judges as incredible people capable of making a decision and exerting law---many people can do this, and should, together, for short terms, like jurists. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:43:29 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48809735 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48806807 I have to ascribe the lack of specific known trade pacts between states, which would bolster each states economy and production, to the swaddling of states by our federal government and republican design, and the relinquishing of state control to local officials in incorporated towns. The federal government structurally fails to care for the unique individual needs of each state, and local officials fail to see the general goals and interests of the whole state. Allowing the federal government to manufacture money, inhibits sustainable economies, and hinders state economic development. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 20:11:46 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48806807 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48799295 Having different health care reform legislation in each state, not only allows the more direct input of the people, but is a wonderful genus of competition, increasing the seriousness of our states and nation. Having a different program for each state will make time a experience be the judge, and let us view a wide sample of results to apply. Examined with the eventual data of this opportunity, the course will be sown whereby the guidelines of wisdom and the nature of people and states are more seen; solutions come from within, not without. Today, when a state complains about its problems, (overdevelopment, high taxes, corruption) they do not turn to other states for help with a solution. Likewise, when a state does something right, other states don't learn from it. Mandating different solutions from different states, will teach the states to look to each other for guidance and help. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:01:36 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48799295 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48798642 It is this thinking, that reduces the care a state could naturally give itself, and that reduces economic competition, which makes the government and media less able to see the states as natural care-takers of their needs. Some states might develop health care programs that attract rich people to move there; others, health care programs that attract poor people to move there; we don’t know, we would have to see it play out. But the point is to encourage states to develop their own character, characteristics and identity, because the further that is honed and worked out, the better a state can take care of itself--because it has identify it can focus on, and character that can be applied Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:56:23 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48798642 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48798009 What law allows congress to create health care? This is a fine test for the tenth amendment. It would be great if each state came up with their own heath care legislation. The national media could scrutinize and the public could learn about each one. We would see implemented 50 different plans. Time and experience would scrutinize all of them. We would learn from experience. The reason why this natural ingenuity isn’t happening is two-fold. Both the federal government and the incorporation of towns by state constitutions with local officials have weakened the state government; and the federal government is devised to discourage bad impetus by states, as opposed to encouraging good impetus. This is so if you derive the nature of federal authority as initially incepted to, 1) keep the states from warring each other over disputed (Indian) territory, 2) Provide a large navy, and conscript a general army to protect us effectively from France, Spain, England and Indians and 3) Eliminate the duties and tariff states might impose on each other that would hinder trade. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:50:55 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/21/health-care-nullification-things-have-just-gotten-underway/#IDComment48798009 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796890 I construe, perhaps mistakenly, the prohibition on treaty, to include trade pacts. I construe the ban on Bills of Credit, which seem necessary should there be direct trade between states, as inhibiting such natural economic concourse. I see the prohibition of imposts as perhaps impeding the natural competition and character and sustainability that could arise should trade pacts involve the passage of goods through certain states. And that these guidelines are controlled by congress, rather than the participants, direct us away from participants solving problems, and towards federal homogeneity. In general, the attacks on sovereignty herein, while preventing cruelty, or folly, by the states, have the spirit and effect, we may discern, of making states think less about their economic character and aligning such care with other states, and having established, a general economic nature that is neither truly competitive or wise or sustainable. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:40:28 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796890 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796619 But if you can grant me one remark to your last rebuttal: I derive the federal government’s discourage of state trading pacts and true economic competition from Article 1, section 10. “ No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.” Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:37:54 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796619 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796521 Cutting off funding for wars is the constitutional check limiting foreign policy congress fears to excercise. Look, Michael, I am sorry to go off topic, and I firmly believe we’d be better off as 50 countries than one nation, that our federal government was meant to hold us together in perilous nascent times, but now holds us back, and the tenth amendment is intended to help this vision. (I firmly believe health care reform is better handled by the states and the people, and that we are missing the opportunity to see 50 resolutions regarding health implemented, which would allow then to observe which ones work and how.) In no way do I mean to detract from your endeavor of freeing us from federal tyranny; I am just more concerned with establishing free assemblies that free us from the tyranny of local officials. Both of us cite the tenth amendment. Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:37:11 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48796521 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48067010 Whether free assembly is a natural form for community, which I think it is, or wisely legislated; the point is it came about in ancient Italy when Hannibal was coming from one direction and the Romans from another; a town had to decide which army to support, and choosing the loser would certainly make life worse---the patriarchy that ran the town had to call free assemblies to make the decision because the stakes were too high, they simply could not take responsibility for the decision, or, too many people objected to the side the patriarchy chose, compellingly so. So free assemblies were called to attempt to make these decisions easier, out of necessity in war time. This story shows that history is often ruled by irony. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:22:37 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48067010 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066966 A referendum is not all present; deciding things with ayes and nays among themselves, that is what free assembly is; that people don’t know that; nor the right to petition the government to redress grievance is the right to bring up an issue in court; or that congress is only required to meet one day a year, or how the 9th amendment streamlines a form for the retention of rights (ask me about the logical tautology of the ninth amendment---a right that is retained by the people will not be denied or disparaged, and one that is denied or disparaged signifies it is not retained); all this indicates, as James Madison said, that knowledge is power; and there is no further proof of this than the lack of this good knowledge has led to a lack of good power: Our knowledge is limited is to keep us from powerful knowledge. Free Assembly can come about in ironic ways. Here is one simplified story. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:21:37 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066966 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066824 Look at health care, say communities took care of their doctors, and doctors took care of their communities, it’s that simple, coupled with promotions and opportunities of excercise, as well as expanding the knowledge of healing to more people. Look at illegal immigration, the spirit of towns and states handling this, makes towns and states more effective in handling this than the federal government. The regulation of interstate commerce by congress is specific---but dealing with the economy per se different. Say NJ grows tomatoes, and PA makes cars, and there were a yearly swap--that trading pact would not be allowed by the constitution, and that holds back the economy. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:18:41 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066824 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066790 The federal government should not want or be allowed to have a say in as many concerns as possible. The federal government should want to be less, should want solutions to LA coming out of LA, solutions to California coming out of California. Solutions to problems areas have must come from within, not without. We see this in our inability to create a government in Iraq. And we saw this in the failed Eastern Bloc countries of Europe. The problem with turning to the federal government to solve problems stems from Essay 8 in The Federalist Papers. Hamilton there says the main reason for a federal government is to keep the states from warring each other over disputed territories, which would occur, as in Europe, even more with the Indian territories, and thus our prosperity and polity would not be able to grow. (The second reason for a federal government was to have a large navy to protect us from European powers.) This is a very outdated cause for a federal government, and has given us a federal government with a big stick, but little else; the attitude of authority, rather than one of solution. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:17:59 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066790 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066510 22)The federal government is limited to the constitution anyway. 23) Google Vic Fedorov Youtube, for a 30 minute interview of me on the subject. 24) An issue for the NJ ethics committee is that if local officials can not consider this issue because they have a personal and financial interest in the issue, per ethics law in NJ, must not the state government be more accessible in this regard to compensate? And, do state officials have a personal interest of their prestige and perceived degree of competency in this issue? The ignorance of this citation exposes a flawed form of government. All power is inherently in the people (Article 2a in NJ) exists because state officials only administrate within the form of state government and are not empowered to change their form, even as it is exposed as flawed, by its violation of the tenth amendment and infringement of free assembly by its state constitution. To respond to your points specifically: The people of LA may deal with local issues, and if the state has a different view on the issue, that would have to play out in court and politically, demonstrating the state v people tension of the tenth amendment. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:12:50 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066510 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066458 17) That protecting localities from being ruled by the few is a legitimate concern of law-makers. 18) This is a civil rights issue. State Constitutions incorporating towns with local officials violate the bill of rights, analogous to state Jim Crow laws violating minority rights. 19) In some states like Kentucky, and NY, particular local decisions must be approved by the state, or be made by the state. In many other states, local officials make those decisions, and sometimes there are merely guidelines. 20) Cited so, the tenth amendment makes the United States Constitution a great document. 21) Insofar as the public is kept from this relevant knowledge, our press is not free. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:12:02 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066458 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066415 13) Representative government makes sense at a state or federal level where representatives are needed to discuss issues common to various regions; but retard local polities where all can and should make decisions together. 14) The constitution and law is and is meant to be an accessible document, not hard to understand. Our debate should stem from the wording of the primary document, and not subsequent interpretations. If the federal government is limited to powers the constitution gave it, then everything else, from the right to build something, to education, is reserved for the state or the people. 15) The tension, that tests the propriety and wisdom of a state making a decision for a locality versus the propriety and wisdom of free assemblies making decisions is meant to be; and expresses a natural tension between a local area and a larger state. 16) State constitutions incorporating towns with local officials violate the 14th amendment’s guarantee of the privilege to be ruled by the state or the people in free assembly, and the immunity to being ruled locally by nobles, or warlords, or communist parties, (or churches, or the KKK, or that weird guy everyone likes.) Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:11:13 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066415 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066369 Here are some additional items of education, if I am wrong please educate me. 7) In European constitutions, Free Assembly is protected but there is no tenth amendment reserving powers to the state or the people. There are still local officials making decisions infringing upon the existence and form of free assembly; but this does not seem to bother people, for whatever reason. 8) Local officials enact powers not given to the federal government, yet they are not the state or the people 9) Up to 1900 free assemblies made community decisions in many towns in NJ. 10) In some New England towns now, quorums of 236 are required for a community decision to be made. With ten signatures, a measure may be put up for vote. 11) This has effectively protected some areas of NJ from the blight of destruction of forests and farms. 12) The basic principal of John Locke was that we left the state of nature so as to live better. This is consistent with ensuring localities discuss and make decisions together with ayes and nays of those present. This is a natural form of local government. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:10:19 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066369 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066310 Can you respond to any of the following? 1)This is the first time you have seen this citation of the tenth amendment? 2)If my citation is true then there is something grossly wrong. 3)This gross wrong I cite is not only particularly the locus of community decision-making; but generally, in the law and rational of the tenth amendment not being apprehended by judiciary and lawyers, state and federal governments, media and people. 4) That Free Assembly is a form of community decision-making where all present make a decision with ayes and nays. 5) That local officials infringe upon free assembly as a form of local decision-making in violation of the first amendment? 6) That if no one else has apprehended this, you may not be able to. Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:09:09 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48066310 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48017617 Just read the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Local officials are neither state nor people. Think about it: we left the state of nature to communicate with each other about how our society should be iat a local level. When we give up that natural right to a few local officials we violate a great human right, which deserves its inclusion in our bill of rights here. The tenth amendment completely limits the excercise of powers to the state or the people, and sets up a tensions between localities being ruled by the state, or by the people in free assembly. I think it is fairly simple. Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:04:52 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48017617 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48010321 They do no do anything per se, but report what others do----another distinguishing factor. They claim to be about truth, as no other profession does; and yet dualism, the meaning of free assembly, a focus away from power, is all quite obviously beyond their purview. Take on the press, the press which controlls so much in its self-reverberations, in its choosing what is important---in its incessant public display--and you will see the compass of the constitution restored---because the press is not free at all---were it free, it would behave much differently, even respond to these charges. Sat, 19 Dec 2009 21:00:08 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48010321 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48010279 Look how the the tenth amendment precludes mayors and local officials from community decision-making, since they are neither state nor people; and our founders intended for free assemblies to be where communities makes decisions with ayes and nays. This is important, but the media knows nothing of it, nor will cover the enforcement of this civil right. The dominance of the press passes over congress for the president, in its simplicity. The soul of the press restricts what can come out of congress. If you want to take on the problems of this nation, take on the issues of the media and press; make them as much an issue as gays, muslims, minorities, law enforcement, hippies, catholics, the military. They hide behind themselves, whereas any controversial group is forced out into the open, and knows the issues they must address. Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:59:43 +0000 http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/12/17/who-makes-foreign-policy/#IDComment48010279