Letter: Time to stop funding ridiculous spending

Published:

The first 10 amendments were passed to protect the states from the federal government. Virginia especially was fearful of "mob-ocracy" of the federal government and drafted the Bill of Rights for the states to ratify. With the Bill of Rights as intended in mind, the states are free to establish laws allowing "Merry Christmas," Ten Commandments, etc. The feds cannot create nor endorse a religion but they cannot stop the states from doing so either. And you may not like it, but states can prohibit "arms." Feds can't, but states can.

States are free to define marriage as only a man and a woman, which California did, but feds intervened unconstitutionally. What the feds are now doing to circumvent the Bill of Rights is to "incorporate" Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and claim that trumps the Bill of Rights. This may not be the words they use, but the same nevertheless.

States have absolutely no representation in Congress. What senator advocates his state's interest? Senators are elected by popular vote (since 1913) and it is popular to give more and more people OPM (other people's money). States are wedded to getting some of the money back from the feds that the states must collect and give to the feds.

With 21 states refusing to set up health care exchanges, what are the feds going to do? The feds cannot ever administer health care to 309 million people. What happens if more and more states refuse to administer Obamacare's mandate for states to set up exchanges? What would happen if the House would do its Constitutional duty and stop funding some of this ridiculous spending?

William Schmidt, Ravenna

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.