![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning.
Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored. The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return control to a more federal central system? Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and Lousiana debacles. How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation order when the local and state didn't even bother? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
john smith wrote: Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning. Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored. The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return control to a more federal central system? Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and Lousiana debacles. How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation order when the local and state didn't even bother? Regardless of any opinions of the role of federal and state governments, the fact is that the Constitution specifically prohibits federal meddling in ANYTHING that isn't specifically stated in the Constitution. It doesn't take much studying to determine that most of what the federal government does is not constitutional. There is a mechanism to amend the Constitution to permit additional federal authority, and that is the mechanism that should be used--and not the courts--if the population wants to grant the federal government greater authority. The scary part about disasters like Katrina are the large populations looking to the government, especially the federal government, to bail them out. Decades ago, folks turned to their communities and local governments for help, they toughed it out, and survived. In today's world, responsible behavior is punished and irresponsible behavior is rewarded with "free" hand-outs by the federal government. I don't know much about the politicians in Louisiana, but I am having a difficult time understanding why tens of thousands of folks would be offered "refuge" at a location inside a city that is mostly below sea level and surrounded by major bodies of water. Why weren't folks put on buses and evacuated outside of the city to higher ground BEFORE the storm? It seems to me that the governor, mayor, and other state and local politicians bear the brunt of the blame for the resulting human debacle in New Orleans. JKG |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message ... In article , john smith wrote: Interesting comments by the talking heads this morning. Under the Renquist court, states rights were favored. The question today is, will the new Supreme Court justices return control to a more federal central system? Aren't home rule and states rights the reasons for the New Orleans and Lousiana debacles. How could the federal government have enforced the madatory evacuation order when the local and state didn't even bother? Regardless of any opinions of the role of federal and state governments, the fact is that the Constitution specifically prohibits federal meddling in ANYTHING that isn't specifically stated in the Constitution. It doesn't take much studying to determine that most of what the federal government does is not constitutional. There is a mechanism to amend the Constitution to permit additional federal authority, and that is the mechanism that should be used--and not the courts--if the population wants to grant the federal government greater authority. The scary part about disasters like Katrina are the large populations looking to the government, especially the federal government, to bail them out. Decades ago, folks turned to their communities and local governments for help, they toughed it out, and survived. In today's world, responsible behavior is punished and irresponsible behavior is rewarded with "free" hand-outs by the federal government. I don't know much about the politicians in Louisiana, but I am having a difficult time understanding why tens of thousands of folks would be offered "refuge" at a location inside a city that is mostly below sea level and surrounded by major bodies of water. Why weren't folks put on buses and evacuated outside of the city to higher ground BEFORE the storm? Because the mayor did not act except to park the busses on low ground where they soon became submarines. It seems to me that the governor, mayor, and other state and local politicians bear the brunt of the blame for the resulting human debacle in New Orleans. JKG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fall Photo Shoots | Arnold Sten | Piloting | 7 | October 8th 04 04:29 PM |
Windsocks ,. Great fall special $ 15 for 1 or $ 25 for 2 | GASSITT | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | October 6th 04 05:12 AM |
Tomcats gone by fall of 2006 | Mike Weeks | Naval Aviation | 48 | June 22nd 04 02:32 PM |
NE fall foliage report | Cub Driver | Piloting | 0 | October 19th 03 12:25 PM |
Fall Colors Flights! | Jack Cunniff | Piloting | 2 | October 15th 03 10:06 PM |