10th Ammendment movement in Wy? (2014, school, income)

[Ct_bow]

Easy now, Ct_bow. I just don't offend that easily. And you aren't ridiculing my vote, just calling it a "fluke". I get all that! My original response was short, brief, and polite.

As a voter in Wyoming, please don't call my opportunity to voice my choice and opinion regarding government a "fluke". Thank you.

I was simply disagreeing with your assumption that democrats who voted for Obama in WY did it on a fluke. Disagreements arise all the time on this board. I certainly hope threads aren't only welcome to those who agree with OP'ers.

Oh please ddb_wy, I never said your vote was a fluke or democrat voters in WY were a fluke. If I did then go back and find it, so lets stick with the facts and not twist things around. I originaly said "the election was somewhat of a fluke" and then clarified it by explaining the circumstances leading up to it had an effect on the results. I also said gauging public sentiment regarding my orignal topic (the 10th Ammendment) by the election results may not be accurate because of the surounding cicumstances. Especialy since McCaine was slightly ahead beofre the crises hit. Past election results might be a better representation of public sentiment regarding the 10th Ammendment movement.

And I have no voter's remorse nor do I think this is off-topic. The discussion regarding states' rights led to the discussion of what the public sentiment is in WY - and when CptnRn gave us info about election results, you said they were a fluke. I simply joined the conversation, as did other posters.

Then after several posts and a clarification or two you still couldnt grasp my comments. So you kept taking the converstaion back to what you perceived as a comment about your vote and democrats in Wy. So IMO its clear your defensive about your vote. It's not about you (the voter's remorse comment was a jab). And if all this isnt off topic then please explain how WY votes for Obama reflect public sentiment regarding the 10th Ammendment. Because federal intrusion into states rights has been going on long before Obama came along.

Sorry I got your dander up, Ct_bow. Let the Succession discussion continue without any dissenting viewpoints. . . . .

LOL Trust me, my dander isnt up,. There would be no mistaking if it was. Dissenting viewpoints are great, I love a good debate. But once again you feel the need to tiwst the facts (a typical tactic of liberals when they start losing a debate, are you a liberal?) I specificaly said in the OP that this wasnt about seccesion and asked not to take the conversation there.

This is not a thread for seccesion so please lets not take it there. I'm curious as to the sentiment in Wyoming (among the people and the state legislature) regarding Wyoming soverignty. How fed up is Wyoming with the federal government?

If you still cant understand all this then start another thread and we can debate your vote, Obama and democrats in Wy.

[Ct_bow]

Originally Posted by Happy in Wyoming

Unless the federal government collapses as the Soviet Union did, secession, or a full assertion that Wyoming is a sovereign nation, seem unlikely. But what should cause grave concern to those who believe that states are nothing more than administrative subdivisions is the fact that secession is even being mentioned. This would have been inconceivable five years ago. But people are angry. So are their representatives. Since the latter days of the Bush administration, and continuing into the Obama administration, it's been clear that there are two classes in this country. One class is composed of favored corporations that can count on limitless aid from the federal government. The other class is composed of those who are paying for it. A large number of citizens are well aware that they have been betrayed by both parties.


Twenty years ago, few thought to see the demise of the Soviet Union. But a year later it was gone. It could happen here.

Unfortunatly Happy that is one of two possibilitys I see happening. We either disolve into 50 seperate little countires much like the European continent or we turn into a police state.

The Soviet Union basicly went bankrupt and it simply dissolved. The central govt in Moscow lost it's ability to exert it's control over the states and they simply 'went away' without firing a shot. On paper the United States is insolvent, we just havent gone bankrupt yet. When that happens it is very possible we simply dissolve also. Because the central govt in Washington DC will loose its abilty to exert it's power over the states. It's either that or the federal govt recalls all the troops from around the world and declares martial law in a nation of chaos. Thats assuming the military cooperate's with the ruling 'civilian' authority. It's possible the military removes the sitting government and they become the authority, it happens all the time in thrid world countries. Scary stuff.

IMO the only way to avert those possibility's is if we go back to to the Constituion. We need to put the federal govt back in it's place with limited powers stated in the Constitution. And then the states need to reclaim their powers. Then we will be the nation we once were.

[SkunkApe]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

There is no legal basis for claiming that all of the federal land and mineral rights in Wyoming ever belonged to the people who immigrated to the state. Native American Indians might be able to make a case for possession and ownership. But those Wyomingites who homesteaded in the state were given patents on specific pieces of land by the US Government. The land that no one wanted to homestead, remained in the possession of the government. So I don't see how the people who live here now can possibly make a legitimate claim on land they never owned.

The United States bought most of the Wyoming territory in the Lousiana Purchase in 1803. It later acquired the remainder in the Texas Annexation 1845 and the Oregon Territory in 1846. Wyoming was so sparsely populated it did not even become a US Territory until 1868, well after the American Civil War (1861-1865). The state really did not even begin to attract many settlers until the United States built the Union-Pacific Railroad across it in 1868. By 1870 the US Census listed the population of the entire state as only 9,118, roughly 1 person per 11 square miles of land. The United States Government manned the Wyoming forts from around 1849, defending the territory and defeating the indians in the indian wars. Throughout history, that has been the measure used in determining ownership of a frontier, "who established forts and colonies and tamed the land".

So I have a hard time seeing how anyone could refute the United States ownership of Wyoming. The remaining states have a huge investment in Wyoming through years of federal aid, not to mention that the rest of the country needs the natural resources in Wyoming and legally they belong to the Federal Government. There no conceivable way that they will ever give that up. Or any reason that they should.

Since this thread is about the tenth amendment, what portion of the United States constitution gives the federal government the authority to own land?

[Ct_bow]

Originally Posted by SkunkApe

Since this thread is about the tenth amendment, what portion of the United States constitution gives the federal government the authority to own land?

Nowhere. The 10th Amm says that the federal govt only has the authority the constitution specificly allows it to have, all other power's are retained by the states. That means the federal govt cant say 'where does it say we cant own land'. Its very clear. I think there are only 17 things listed in the constituion where the fed govt has power.

In cases like the Louisiana Purchase and the purchase of Alaska from Russia, I guess the fed govt owned the land. But since they were not states at the time the 10th Amm didnt apply in those territory's. But when they became a state with specific borders, a governing authority (execuitive, legislative and judicial branches) and with sentaors and representatives in congress, they became a soverign state under the 10th Amm. All the land and resources should also belong to the state because the constitution does not specificly say the federal govt can own land or resources within a state. And since it doesnt say they can, by implication the land and reseources belong to that state.

[BennyPhoenix]

Originally Posted by SkunkApe

Since this thread is about the tenth amendment, what portion of the United States constitution gives the federal government the authority to own land?

The commerce clause and the general welfare clause give the fed the power to do anything.
Those clauses were inserted and made purposely vague.

[Ct_bow]

"Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."


First off the word regulate means 'to keep regular'. Oxford Dictionary defines regulate as "to control or maintain the rate or speed of a machine or process". Examples are you can regulate your clock by keeping it on time. You can regulate the flow of water from your faucet by opening/closing the vlave. The federal govt was to make sure states didnt put tariffs on goods or services from another state. For example Georgia couldnt put a tariff on Florida oranges, Nevada couldnt put a tariff on coal from Wyoming. It was the duty of congress to remove all barriers that restricted or limted the trade of goods or services between the states. Congress is to keep the flow of goods moving and to settle trade disputes between states. That's what 'regulate' means.

Second point, what is commerce? Commerce is not goods or services. It is a transaction of goods or services. Under the constitution congress cannot legislate the manufacture of goods or services, only the transaction of them and only when they cross state lines.

Put it all together and you get an infringement by the federal govt upon the 10th Amm rights of the soveriegn states to manufacture, buy and sell what they want and to who they want.

[BennyPhoenix]

The clauses should not exist. They were put there so the fed could control us.
Those 2 clauses have been the ruination of the US.
There is a great book titled "Hologram of Liberty". Read it and you will see how the writers of the Constitution manipulated words to give the fed ultimate control over everything.

[Happy in Wyoming]

Originally Posted by BennyPhoenix

The clauses should not exist. They were put there so the fed could control us.
Those 2 clauses have been the ruination of the US.
There is a great book titled "Hologram of Liberty". Read it and you will see how the writers of the Constitution manipulated words to give the fed ultimate control over everything.

Mr. Party has written an excellent book again. In fact, his works are an essential for the man or woman who values freedom. But, in addition to the aforementioned work, we need to go back to the source, The Anti-Federalist Papers. Few know that they even exist. Few academics even mention them. Patrick Henry was one of the authors. We never seem to hear about him after the Revolution, but he didn't disappear in a puff of smoke. He and the others have provided us with the intellectual fuel we need so desperately at this time.

Amazon.com: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics) (9780451528841): Ralph Ketcham: Books

[BennyPhoenix]

Thanks for that link. I was not aware of that book.

[Ct_bow]

Originally Posted by bennyphoenix

thanks for that link. I was not aware of that book.

+1