|Yeah, that about sums it up.|
|Re: Common sense too rare for it to work. -- DullArmor||Post Reply||Top of thread||Forum|
Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
Personally, I'm of the belief that the only limit on liberty is the unjustifiable use of it to harm others. If you piss me off I can't justifiably punch you in the nose, but if you swing on me I have the liberty to stop you from harming me. 'Same goes for you. 'Same goes for everyone.
I don't think the government has the legitimate power to prohibit a person from imbibing anything s/he wants, up to and including deliberately inducing one's own death. However, how one behaves regarding the safety/rights of others while under said influence is activity for legitimate regulation.
The states aren't 'entitled' to federal money. Accepting grants is a Faustian bargain, acceding to the possibility of extortion. When the feds say "If you do this, we'll give you that." and a state agrees, it has willingly entered into an agreement that has stipulations and conditions, and there is nothing unconstitutional about the feds withholding funds if the state defaults. There is no constitutional obligation for the national government to subsidize the states. The practice is facially flawed in that making such bargains gives the fedgov powers not delegated to it by the Constitution, but those powers were not accrued by force -- they were handed to the national government voluntarily. If you call the tune you owe the piper, and the 10th Amendment's protection of state sovereignty becomes moot.
The contradictory application of this mechanism is pure politics, but the states can't whine because they acceded to it.
And so on.
Modified by TEEBONE at Thu, Nov 19, 2020, 11:42:44
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||Where am I? Original Top of thread||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|