Oklahoma to declare sovereignty?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by XnavxeMiyyep, May 8, 2009.

  1. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #1
  2. benthewraith macrumors 68040

    benthewraith

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Location:
    Miami, FL
    #2
    As I understand, all this bill would do is assert the State's 10th Amendment rights.

    A lot of states have done this recently and occasionally in the past.
     
  3. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #3
    I laugh at their comments at about the auto loans. If GM and Chrysler went into Chap. 11 back in November, it would have been Chap. 7 for them. Our economy was in a free fall, an the hit of GM and Chrysler going under would have killed the economy further. Bush needed to give them loans so they can have time to prepare and negotiate with the UAW and bondholders. I am sure people will then say, " Well they should have been preparing earlier." GM and Chrysler were not in the state they were in until the market collapsed and credit froze. They didn't have much time to prepare for Chap. 11 and would have collapsed if they didn't have the gov't backing them now.
     
  4. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #4
    Interesting that they are doing this now, and not anytime in the past, oh eight years or so when the federal government was overstepping it's bounds.

    I wonder what changed...
     
  5. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #5
    I'd almost think that it is nervous politicians.

    Because corrupt thieving bastards keep their constituents happy ... somebody acting like a clean cut politician who wants to get rid of some of the corrupt influences in government makes people really nervous.
     
  6. gibbz macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    #6
    As an Oklahoma, I must say that our state government is embarrassingly idiotic. Instead of working on pressing issues like the fact we rank near the bottom in many categories, including education, obesity, and other important things --- they have done the following recently:

    1.) Richard Dawkins came to my school, The University of Oklahoma, to take part in a weeklong forum on the ideas of Darwin. Mind you, he wasn't discussing some of his more controversial religious ideas, just simply the topic of evolutionary science. Our illustrious government decide we would pass a resolution to ban him from campus for suppressing fair discussion. Really? Isn't that what discussions at Universities are all about? Luckily, it was voted down.

    2.) The state government decided they would try and be the first to ban any stem cell research, this after Obama lifted the federal ban. Their inane argument was that this was a matter of sanctity of life. Really? Never mind the fact the stem cells in question would derive from what would otherwise be discarded embryos from in vitro treatments. Why do they have no issue with in vitro then? Luckily, this was vetoed and shot down.

    3.) This latest story on sovereignty.

    I am so frustrated in this state and have lived here my entire life. This backwards thinking is the exact thing that has held us back from development as a state. Ridiculous I say!!
     
  7. Old Muley macrumors 6502a

    Old Muley

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Titletown USA
    #7
    Ban Dawkins because he supresses fair discussion? Oh my what strange, strange days we live in. It's people like Richard Dawkins (and Steven Novella, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer and James Randi) that bring rationality to this nutty world we live in.
     
  8. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #8
    Could you elaborate a bit on this? The article said that they were (planning on) declaring sovereignty because of 10th Amendment issues, among others, but not that they were just exerting their 10th Amendment rights.
     
  9. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #9
    Pure speculation, chapter 11 restructuring was brought up as an option for GM from the get go (it was bypassed because government wanted to get involved for political reasons), Chrysler would have most likely went Chpt 7, but they deserved to, we most likely can't support 3 major car corps right now anyways (as we will probably soon find out).

    Don't blame their failures on the credit freeze, they had this coming for a long time, they build lower quality cars for more money because unions and bad management decisions. They can't compete, plain and simple.

    Anything left open in the constitution is delegated to the states. The federal government has now and in the past tried to reel in the power of the states into a central government, the very thing the constitution was written to prevent.

    The federal government uses a few clauses like the interstate commerce clause as a blank check to impose laws on every state, an action that was never intended.
     
  10. XnavxeMiyyep thread starter macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #10
    Right, I understand what the argument is; I was/am unclear on what the actual implications of "sovereignty" in this case would be.
     
  11. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #11
    I say let them declare it. Then they can give back all the money the federal government has given them. They can join Texas. Then there can be a giant wall built around both states ( at the expense of said states ) so we don't have to listen to their dribble.
     
  12. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #12
    There are no implications, it is a reminder to the federal government that their powers are limited by the constitution and that they are overstepping their bounds. No actual laws will change.

    You must not understand how the constitution works if you think this is a bad thing. America was built on the principle that the federal government would be limited and that states could do a better job at regulating their own states. Thats why we do not answer to a king.
     
  13. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #13
    How come certain parties fully support things like federal level drug bans then?
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    Like Oklahoma for example.

    And where was oklahoma when they built the federal interstate system ?? They have some nice interstates there.
     
  15. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #15
    The same reason that the federal government oversteps their bounds on a ton of other issues, they find a loophole (usually interstate commerce clause) and exploit it.

    I am not for the war on drugs, it obviously hasn't worked. Maybe if we tried it on a local level each state could decide what is best for them (ie. I think California wanted to tax weed recently which is a-okay by me).

    If we allow states to operate on a local level we will find programs that are great, and ones that are terrible, each state can see which ones are best and try to implement them, the way we do it now its all or nothing.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    Noone is, though if they had failed in November that would have meant even more jobs would have been lost then.

    The thing is even over here in Europe only the Netherlands (and I believe Switzerland) have legalised some drugs, even though most countries here are the size of US states.
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    So IOW, this is just feel-good legislation that has no purpose other than to pander to the conservative base?

    I thought conservatives were against wasting taxpayer dollars for stunts like this? Or is that only when the other side does it?
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    Actually its more of a pre-preemptive strike on the federal government so that they think twice about overstepping their bounds (even though they are about knee deep right now anyways). I am not saying this is going to have any teeth, but it is a good reminder to the people that the federal government is supposed to be limited in their power.

    Its not wasted money if it sends a message to the fed government, IMO. California was told recently if they didn't take back a proposed wage cut for health workers their billions in recovery money would be taken away, we have to ask ourselves does California know where the money is best spent or does the federal government in washington DC?
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    Idk, from the publics perspective it looks more like a teenage girl having a temper tantrum than anything else.

    Why can't they find a better medium for actually voicing their concerns rather than PR stunts that backfire? Is it really that hard to find a talk show to go onto and clearly make your case to the American people rather than play drama queen?

    This is why people are so fed up with the GOP, they dont bother making their case clear they just stick to some buzz words that dont even fit the situation and try to rile up the base. Guess what? You need to have the other 80% of the country interested in you to make an impact, and crap like this just leads to the GOP falling even further from any significance. We are tired of this sensationalist crap.
     
  20. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #20
    Well it really isn't in the interest of any state (or party) to be ruled heavily by a central government, thats what made America different and great IMO (it allows the people to have more power over their lives). I don't know that the GOP is the best spokesperson for states declaring their sovereignty since they increased the federal governments reach into our private lives and power over the states more than any other administration I can remember (I am fairly young though so I am sure I could be surprised).

    The Republican party is lost, no doubt in my mind, and not at all surprising after the ride the Bush era took them on. The only reason I registered republican was Ron Paul, someone who follows the constitution whether its easy or hard. I ended up voting independent because I didn't think either of the main parties represented my beliefs.

    btw anyone who hasn't read "the revolution: a manifesto" by Ron Paul, I suggest it. It goes over the issues of state vs federal government plus a lot of other issues and is fairly bi-partisan.
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    IOW, it's just feel-good legislation; wasting the taxpayers money to make some kind of amorphous statement that won't do a damn thing.
     
  22. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #22
    I am not blaming their failures on the credit freeze, but I am blaming the credit freeze for bringing GM( as I don't know the details of Chrysler's restructuring to when they started and how their progress went) into the states they are in now. GM started their restructuring back in 2005. By 2007 they had cut over $9 billion in costs. By 2008, they had successfully renegotiated their UAW contracts to where in 2010 or so they could start actually being profitable. The credit freeze ruined all that and brought GM down to where they are now.
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    I would like to see their projections on profitability, I imagine they used a certain % growth which would be unattainable long term anyways.

    I really don't think its fair to companies that are staying afloat to pump this much money into their competitors. Ford seems to be weathering the harsh storm and are still giving consumers some great deals.

    In my opinion we should have allowed chrysler to liquidate if no one was willing to buy it out, and allowed GM to enter a bankruptcy restructuring (possibly some government assistance to make it a quick process). I really do not like the government playing favorites and picking winners in the economy, even when the waters get choppy.
     
  24. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #24
    Buh bye. When a tornado hits and wipes out a few towns, don't ask the feds for a dime in disaster relief aid.
     
  25. designgeek macrumors 65816

    designgeek

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Location:
    "Town"
    #25
    Let them go, let Texas go too. As a scorpio I sometimes find myself acting like the federal government, making sure everything works and influencing the lives of those around me. Sometimes they become unappreciative of my efforts and then my horoscope will say something like "let others steer the boat today, they need to see just what will happen when their ideas come to fruition." I see it as a vacation and they see it as a realization of their woes.

    Of course the federal government doesn't get to treat them like crap when they want to come back like I do, but I think the rest of the country would do that anyway.
     

Share This Page