(05-19-2017 04:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 03:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Local jurisdictions can decide for themselves when their respective state grants them said powers.

Local states can decide for themselves when their respective federal government grants them said powers.

Oh, whoops!

- State vs munipality: totalitarian
- Fed vs state: anarchist

Except that's not what the Constitution says.

Quote:Amendment X
https://www.constituteproject.org/consti...erica_1992

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.

(05-19-2017 04:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 03:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Local jurisdictions can decide for themselves when their respective state grants them said powers.

Local states can decide for themselves when their respective federal government grants them said powers.

Oh, whoops!

- State vs munipality: totalitarian
- Fed vs state: anarchist

Except that's not what the Constitution says.

Quote:Amendment X
https://www.constituteproject.org/consti...erica_1992

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.

It's like watching someone shooting fish in a barrel, they can't miss. He/she tees it up high every time he/she opens her mouth.

(05-19-2017 04:55 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 03:51 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Local jurisdictions can decide for themselves when their respective state grants them said powers.

Local states can decide for themselves when their respective federal government grants them said powers.

Oh, whoops!

- State vs munipality: totalitarian
- Fed vs state: anarchist

Except that's not what the Constitution says.

Quote:Amendment X
https://www.constituteproject.org/consti...erica_1992

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.

It's like watching someone shooting fish in a barrel, they can't miss. He/she tees it up high every time he/she opens her mouth.

You have to kind of feel sorry for her though. Whoever she paid for her education totally ripped her off. I hate to see anybody be the victim of fraud, even if they deserve it.

(05-19-2017 04:41 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 03:00 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  Never said Oregon supported the measure.

Thread title dishonestly suggests otherwise.

Nope, not at all. You obviously lack reading skills as it is perfectly clear to anyone with any level of intelligence. And to continue this charade, you are the one being dishonest.

(05-19-2017 04:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Except that's not what the Constitution says.

Hiding behind the constitution again?? Just because it's in the constitution, does not prove it is the correct philosophy.

The constitution was just the end result of the negotiation the founding fathers were able to bargain with the 13 original states, to get them to sign up for a federal government. Nothing special about that.


I think it's well past time that we invalidate that deal, and make a new, better one!

(05-19-2017 05:28 PM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  it is perfectly clear to anyone with any level of intelligence.

That you dishonestly tried to portray a local election, where only perhaps a few ten's of thousands of voters voted on a local matter, as a statewide election?

Because that's what you did, with your dishonest thread title.

(05-20-2017 11:35 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-19-2017 04:46 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Except that's not what the Constitution says.

Hiding behind the constitution again?? Just because it's in the constitution, does not prove it is the correct philosophy.

The constitution was just the end result of the negotiation the founding fathers were able to bargain with the 13 original states, to get them to sign up for a federal government. Nothing special about that.


I think it's well past time that we invalidate that deal, and make a new, better one!

There's no "hiding" behind the Constitution. The Constitution is the framework that supports our entire federal government.

And you are free to invalidate the deal. You just need the votes of two-thirds of the House and Senate or you need two thirds of the states to call a Constitutional convention. So get started.

Those who think that the government has all the solutions to environmental issues need to take a nice warm dip in the Aral Sea.

Bakken nat gas currently only flows southeastern, as does the oil. Pembina Pipelines has a ethane line going to Alberta, but that's the only hydrocarbon flowing that way. Theoretically, the directions can be reversed, but that doesn't make demand sense.

Alberta has immense amounts of shale gas and oil not just tar sand oil, but BC tribes and environmentalists are fighting any pipeline construction to its coast. The Montney shale field of Alberta and northern BChas almost half the gas of Qatar but drilling there had almost stopped because the prices were much below NA nat gas prices. Alberta shale is best developed for markets on the west coast and Far East. Most of Vancouver-Seattle-Portland have similar antidevelopment politics. Coos Bay is one the closest port town that doesn't have to liberal politics to an extreme.

Pembina Pipeline saw a political opportunity and the people in Coos Bay agreed.

(05-20-2017 02:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The Constitution is the framework that supports our entire federal government.

You agree that it's nothing special -- just a bargain struck to get the 13 original states to come under a single federal government. The small states didn't want to be powerless, and the big states didn't want to be excessively stripped of power -- hence the terrible bicameral legislative branch we have now.

So since you agree, then you'll have to actually defend the philosophy used in the constitution on its own merits, not simply hide behind "the constitution says it, so I'll just pretend that it's automatically right".

(05-21-2017 10:44 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  You agree that it's nothing special

No I don't, so quoting the rest of your bloviated BS is useless.

(05-21-2017 04:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No I don't

Why are you ignoring history??

(05-21-2017 04:14 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-21-2017 04:09 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  No I don't

Why are you ignoring history??

I'm not the one ignoring history.

The one ignoring history is the one who thinks the very document that created our entire system of government and continues to have daily effects on our lives is "nothing special". The only one ignoring history in this discussion is you.

(05-21-2017 04:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The only one ignoring history in this discussion is you.

Then why won't you acknowledge the truth that the constitution was a negotiation to balance the competing interests between 13 states, and therefore is anything but infallible?