the feds suing the states....WTF???? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 07-26-2006, 06:44 PM

Maybe it's just me, but didn't we have all kinds of debates and conventions to make sure the central government didn't become 'all-powerful'???

Feds sues Missouri state officials over AT&T suit

Quote:

The U.S. government, citing national security concerns, on Tuesday sued Missouri officials for demanding that AT&T Inc. disclose whether it gave customer data to the government's spying program.

Missouri Public Service Commissioners Robert Clayton and Steve Gaw, state utility regulators, had served subpoenas to AT&T Missouri and its affiliates in June amid speculation over their involvement with the National Security Agency.

The government's civil suit, submitted by the U.S. Department of Justice to a district court in Missouri, said the state officials' attempts to obtain the information from AT&T and its affiliates were invalid.

"This court should therefore enter a declaratory judgment that the State Defendants do not have the authority to seek confidential and sensitive federal government information and thus cannot enforce the subpoenas they have served on the telecommunications carriers," the suit said.

The federal government has also sued the New Jersey Attorney General who also subpoenaed AT&T over the issue.

An AT&T spokesman declined to comment. In May, it said it has an obligation to assist law enforcement and other government agencies, but could not comment specifically on national security issues.

USA Today reported in May that AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. gave the NSA access to their call data so it could secretly analyze calling patterns to detect terrorist plots.

Is THIS the latest attack on states rights? to sue them in to insolvency?

feelgood · 07-26-2006, 08:10 PM

Isn't the state in a way, attacking the fed's right to protect the national security in the first place?

We did have debates to ensure that the federal government doesn't become all powerful but we've also had a debate to ensure that the state government doesn't enroach the rights of the federal government. It's a matter of drawing the line somewhere and this is one of them. Personally, I think this is a federal matter and that the state shouldn't have stick their nose in it. National security is a federal matter and why is the state government getting involved in the first place?

dksuddeth · 07-27-2006, 01:01 AM

The major problem is that the government, central or state, has no rights. They have enumerated powers, the states supposing to have more than the central. If the central/federal government is violating the constitution then I would think that the states have every authority, under the power of the people, to intervene.

pan6467 · 07-27-2006, 08:55 AM

This harkens back to when Celeste in '84 said he refused Reagan's order to raise the drinking age from 19 to 21. Louisianna's governor at the time did also.

Reagan's reply?

Reagan decided to cut ALL funding into Ohio, no highway funds, no education funds (including subsidized loans), nothing but welfare and SS (because people's lives depended upon them ...or Reagan didn't want to upset too many voters in an election year).

Anyway, Celeste told everyone how Reagan was blackmailing the state and the outcry wasn't there at all. So there went our state's right to govern itself on age to drink and the feds gained that much more power.

I have a feeling Missouri will see a similar blackmail and fate before this goes to trial.

dksuddeth · 07-27-2006, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pan

This harkens back to when Celeste in '84 said he refused Reagan's order to raise the drinking age from 19 to 21. Louisianna's governor at the time did also.

Reagan's reply?

Reagan decided to cut ALL funding into Ohio, no highway funds, no education funds (including subsidized loans), nothing but welfare and SS (because people's lives depended upon them ...or Reagan didn't want to upset too many voters in an election year).

Anyway, Celeste told everyone how Reagan was blackmailing the state and the outcry wasn't there at all. So there went our state's right to govern itself on age to drink and the feds gained that much more power.

I have a feeling Missouri will see a similar blackmail and fate before this goes to trial.

while that may be 'blackmail', your state STILL had a choice. It would have hurt, but it was still a choice.

pan6467 · 07-27-2006, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

while that may be 'blackmail', your state STILL had a choice. It would have hurt, but it was still a choice.

Not really much of a choice, as long as your state is heavily dependant on Fed money, the Fed can and will make your state bow to their wishes. If withholding the funding doesn't work, there are other ways to make the state acquiesce power to the Fed.

people need to be informed, pay attention and fight back for their rights. Hopefully, Missouri can, but I have a feeling when the Fed tightens the screws you will never hear of this again.

dksuddeth · 07-27-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Not really much of a choice, as long as your state is heavily dependant on Fed money, the Fed can and will make your state bow to their wishes. If withholding the funding doesn't work, there are other ways to make the state acquiesce power to the Fed.

If the state(s) do not want to be dependant on federal money, then that state legislature needs to change its budget.

RAGEAngel9 · 07-29-2006, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If the state(s) do not want to be dependant on federal money, then that state legislature needs to change its budget.

If the Fed suddenly gonna tax Missouri (or it's residents) less?
No?
Sounds like blackmail to me.
How about extortion? The x makes it sound sexy.

pan6467 · 07-30-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

If the state(s) do not want to be dependant on federal money, then that state legislature needs to change its budget.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAGEAngel9

If the Fed suddenly gonna tax Missouri (or it's residents) less?
No?
Sounds like blackmail to me.
How about extortion? The x makes it sound sexy.

Exactly.... the Fed is still going to tax the citizens of Missouri the same just as they did in Ohio...... they just refused to put the money back into the state.

If a state's citizens are taxed federally, they have as much right as any other state to use that money.... and for the Fed to withhold that money because they cannot legally change a law that state's citizens voted for or because they do not like the way that state is run..... is wrong and a way of manipulating their power.

07-26-2006, 08:10 PM	#2 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	Isn't the state in a way, attacking the fed's right to protect the national security in the first place? We did have debates to ensure that the federal government doesn't become all powerful but we've also had a debate to ensure that the state government doesn't enroach the rights of the federal government. It's a matter of drawing the line somewhere and this is one of them. Personally, I think this is a federal matter and that the state shouldn't have stick their nose in it. National security is a federal matter and why is the state government getting involved in the first place? __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

07-27-2006, 01:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	The major problem is that the government, central or state, has no rights. They have enumerated powers, the states supposing to have more than the central. If the central/federal government is violating the constitution then I would think that the states have every authority, under the power of the people, to intervene. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-27-2006, 08:55 AM	#4 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	This harkens back to when Celeste in '84 said he refused Reagan's order to raise the drinking age from 19 to 21. Louisianna's governor at the time did also. Reagan's reply? Reagan decided to cut ALL funding into Ohio, no highway funds, no education funds (including subsidized loans), nothing but welfare and SS (because people's lives depended upon them ...or Reagan didn't want to upset too many voters in an election year). Anyway, Celeste told everyone how Reagan was blackmailing the state and the outcry wasn't there at all. So there went our state's right to govern itself on age to drink and the feds gained that much more power. I have a feeling Missouri will see a similar blackmail and fate before this goes to trial. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by Bill O'Rights; 07-27-2006 at 10:04 AM..