Well, you know us right wing wackos are anti-immigrant.

And anti-woman, and anti black, and anti poor, and anti elderly, and anti education, and anti.... Actually it would be much easier to just say we only like rich old white men.

I read somewhere on the interwebs:

Santorum pulls out. For the first time in his life.

OK in all seriousness -- I'm glad he's out. Let's cut the BS and let Barry and Mittens go at it. The problem I have with Santorum (and really most "social conservative") have is not the position. It's their argument.

If one takes a very literal view of the 10th Amendment (and why wouldn't we, given our views on the other 9), things can get real interesting. The text reads:

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.

See, I'm a small government guy. But that's small Government with a big G. As in the Federal Government. States? I look at the 10th. I don't believe in the "incorporation doctrine" of the bill of rights. So, my constitutional litmus test against State power works something like this:

Has [whatever power a state is wanting to impose] been delegated by the US Constitution to the Federal Government, or has it been prohibited by the state to exercise?

If the answer to both is no, then state power must flow. And, while I don't necessarily agree in the wisdom in exercising certain state-retained powers, I think those powers remain. To wit:

The power to control the press, if not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, certainly the Federal government has not been granted that power -- actually, it's been prohibited the feds. So if the Ohio Legislature wanted to kill off all the newspapers in Ohio...They can, constitutionally. Again, I don't like the wisdom in it.

I can make the same for overturning Roe, allowing states to ban contraception (which was the beginning of the end for Santorum - but see, he invoked Natural law and God, and not the Constitution).

The problem social conservatives have - they make the wrong arguments to defend their positions. And are, justly or not, cast as Theocrats, thus, unelectable.

Darkstar wrote:I read somewhere on the interwebs:

Santorum pulls out. For the first time in his life.

OK in all seriousness -- I'm glad he's out. Let's cut the BS and let Barry and Mittens go at it. The problem I have with Santorum (and really most "social conservative") have is not the position. It's their argument.

If one takes a very literal view of the 10th Amendment (and why wouldn't we, given our views on the other 9), things can get real interesting. The text reads:

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.

See, I'm a small government guy. But that's small Government with a big G. As in the Federal Government. States? I look at the 10th. I don't believe in the "incorporation doctrine" of the bill of rights. So, my constitutional litmus test against State power works something like this:

Has [whatever power a state is wanting to impose] been delegated by the US Constitution to the Federal Government, or has it been prohibited by the state to exercise?

If the answer to both is no, then state power must flow. And, while I don't necessarily agree in the wisdom in exercising certain state-retained powers, I think those powers remain. To wit:

The power to control the press, if not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, certainly the Federal government has not been granted that power -- actually, it's been prohibited the feds. So if the Ohio Legislature wanted to kill off all the newspapers in Ohio...They can, constitutionally. Again, I don't like the wisdom in it.

I can make the same for overturning Roe, allowing states to ban contraception (which was the beginning of the end for Santorum - but see, he invoked Natural law and God, and not the Constitution).

The problem social conservatives have - they make the wrong arguments to defend their positions. And are, justly or not, cast as Theocrats, thus, unelectable.

Unfortunately perhaps, being electable is a worthy goal.

There are lots of dumb f*cks in Congress who continually get elected and re-elected because they chose to move to a state or district not of their original home, they knew they could win in, with the party machine mechanism.

Hillary Clinton in New York, Barack Obama in Illinois, and even Jay Rockfeller in West Virginia come to mind.

Hillary Clinton in New York

Being a New Yorker, that one REALLY pissed me off.

Darkstar wrote:I read somewhere on the interwebs:

Santorum pulls out. For the first time in his life.

OK in all seriousness -- I'm glad he's out. Let's cut the BS and let Barry and Mittens go at it. The problem I have with Santorum (and really most "social conservative") have is not the position. It's their argument.

If one takes a very literal view of the 10th Amendment (and why wouldn't we, given our views on the other 9), things can get real interesting. The text reads:

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.

See, I'm a small government guy. But that's small Government with a big G. As in the Federal Government. States? I look at the 10th. I don't believe in the "incorporation doctrine" of the bill of rights. So, my constitutional litmus test against State power works something like this:

Has [whatever power a state is wanting to impose] been delegated by the US Constitution to the Federal Government, or has it been prohibited by the state to exercise?

If the answer to both is no, then state power must flow. And, while I don't necessarily agree in the wisdom in exercising certain state-retained powers, I think those powers remain. To wit:

The power to control the press, if not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, certainly the Federal government has not been granted that power -- actually, it's been prohibited the feds. So if the Ohio Legislature wanted to kill off all the newspapers in Ohio...They can, constitutionally. Again, I don't like the wisdom in it.

I can make the same for overturning Roe, allowing states to ban contraception (which was the beginning of the end for Santorum - but see, he invoked Natural law and God, and not the Constitution).

The problem social conservatives have - they make the wrong arguments to defend their positions. And are, justly or not, cast as Theocrats, thus, unelectable.

I think the constitution is a great document. And our system is one of the best ones in a world full of very imperfect systems. But I wouldn't say our system, nor the constitution, are perfect. Now, trying to make any changes in the polarized society we live in would be a bad thing, so I want to keep what we've got.

But, being a person who has to move around to different parts of the country from time to time, I'll say this. I LIKE uniformity between states in certain things. The constitution was written in a time when people did not move around that much. I never really feel much like I'm a citizen of any particular state, and I bear very little allegiance to any particular state of the union. But I DO feel that I am a citizen of the United States, and I do bear great allegiance to the United States.

Therefore I find some of the aspects of the constitution described by Darkstar a bit out of whack with modern reality.

If I were king we'd have things like a national driver's license that was standard across state lines, and equally valid in all states. States could administer and collect funds, etc. but the standards would be somewhat uniform across the board. It's a PITA to move around and re-register everything, re-title everything, and so on. With the mobility we now have it's an antiquated system. I would much prefer federal standards for anything that makes sense. There's a lot of areas where we should not re-create the wheel every time we cross state lines. Plus, if laws were radically different from state to state then you'd see a LOT of people crossing state lines to take advantage of certain laws in different parts of the country. I don't see this as a good thing in a lot of situations, but it can get complex depending on what you're talking about.

The reality is, both sides of the political spectrum usually want federal control over the things that benefit their particular POV, and state control when that benefits their POV. I like Ron Paul because, even though I disagree with some of his ideas, he is ideologically consistent and that to me is the best starting point for any approach to politics. Neither Mitt nor Barry share this quality in any remote sense.

Just my opinion, based on my experience as a citizen.

Plus, if laws were radically different from state to state then you'd see a LOT of people crossing state lines to take advantage of certain laws in different parts of the country.

I've made it a point to carve Florida as my legal base for a couple of jobs where I traveled nationally most weeks.

Florida has no state income tax.

South Carolina has a 7% state income tax.


By comparison, California takes about 10%. That's a big chunk of difference.

Tribe Fan in SC/Cali wrote:Plus, if laws were radically different from state to state then you'd see a LOT of people crossing state lines to take advantage of certain laws in different parts of the country.

I've made it a point to carve Florida as my legal base for a couple of jobs where I traveled nationally most weeks.

Florida has no state income tax.

South Carolina has a 7% state income tax.


By comparison, California takes about 10%. That's a big chunk of difference.

Back in 2008 I tried to change my state of residence from Montana to Wyoming, or any state with no income tax. I was working a lot, had a house in Montana I was trying to sell. It was really difficult to make a legit change to Wyoming mainly because there was a housing crunch in northern Wyoming at that time, and there were literally zero cheap places to rent. Just getting a PO Box wouldn't have stood up under scrutiny, I had to have a physical address there and absolutely nothing was available.

Anyhow, I didn't succeed in the 3 month time frame I had to do it in (March to May), and I had to give up after June 1st. It cost me dearly, and I'm still paying the state of Montana even though I barely lived there in 2008, and I've barely lived there since. Montana doesn't have a sales tax but they have a pretty hefty state income tax, so it's more favorable if you live there. I got hammered hard by the state income tax with zero benefit of not having a sales tax, screwed both ways.

Now I'm bouncing around a bit again. I'm moving from Colorado to Taos N.M. next month. In Colorado they hit you with both income and large sales taxes. I want to buy a place in Arizona sometime while real estate prices are cheap there. I might end in in Nevada sometime in the next few years as well for awhile, but maybe not.

I'm really thinking about having a proxy residence in a place like Nevada with favorable tax laws. Shit, if I could just pay one uniform tax to one entity I'd be ecstatic, no matter if the rate was higher or lower. In the meantime I'll try to see if I can be a proxy Nevada resident while I bounce around, even though I would never really want to live there.

Then you talk about changing the driver's license, changing vehicle titles and registrations, changing voter registration... I'd go for a national driver's license, voter registration, vehicle taxes in a second. Make it uniform and have the states administer it and collect the proceeds for themselves. In the digital age where laws are in reality pretty much the same across the nation and state lines don't really mean jack squat, this would make much sense. State's rights on these things are meaningless other than creating confusion, un-needed complications and chaos.

What, no sales tax in NH?? I'm there!

Sounds great till you drive on their crappy roads.

MtFan wrote:

Tribe Fan in SC/Cali wrote:Plus, if laws were radically different from state to state then you'd see a LOT of people crossing state lines to take advantage of certain laws in different parts of the country.



I'm really thinking about having a proxy residence in a place like Nevada with favorable tax laws.

I know you hate Nevada mining. Personally, I'd live anywhere in North or central Nevada in a heart beat. I've had great times with fine people in Reno, Tonopah, Austin, Eureka, Elko and Ely. And Winnemucca.

Especially Winnemucca.

I hate any thought of living in southern Nevada.

HB--travelling from VT to NH for shopping to take advantage of the tax break is an old, old custom. Besides, the roads here aren't anything to crow about either.

With gas prices where they are, I'm not sure it's such a great deal anymore though.

Mt Fan

Interesting POV you have regarding homogeneity of laws and such across state lines. I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine - I wondered allowed if the framers didn't allow the states some autonomy in the hopes of attracting citizens. More citizens == more Representatives.

Darkstar wrote:Mt Fan

Interesting POV you have regarding homogeneity of laws and such across state lines. I was just having a conversation with a friend of mine - I wondered allowed if the framers didn't allow the states some autonomy in the hopes of attracting citizens. More citizens == more Representatives.

Darn Darkstar, if I had known in advance you were so cerebral I might have found different haunts for us for our day and evening in San Francisco.

Interesting that today's populous states of Ohio, Florida, Texas, Illinois and California did not exist when Our Constitution was under discussion.

VT'er wrote:HB--travelling from VT to NH for shopping to take advantage of the tax break is an old, old custom. Besides, the roads here aren't anything to crow about either.

With gas prices where they are, I'm not sure it's such a great deal anymore though.

My only problem with driving in Vermont has been the theme from Newhart runs continuously through my head with every curve on every two lane road.

That song is only temporarily broken with an Autumn stop for Vermont cheese, apples and wine.....and a sunny venue to consume and gaze upon the foliage.


Every trip I've had to Vermont, I've topped off with a jaunt up Mt. Washington in Northern New Hampshire, and a find of some lobster in Maine.

Now I'm bouncing around a bit again. I'm moving from Colorado to Taos N.M. next month. In Colorado they hit you with both income and large sales taxes. I want to buy a place in Arizona sometime while real estate prices are cheap there. I might end in in Nevada sometime in the next few years as well for awhile, but maybe not.

Taos, New Mexico?

I think I read once that former Cleveland Indian Steve Carlton lives in quiet around there somewhere.

My brother in law and sister in law are moving to the Santa Fe area sometime soon.