Agent_Iron
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2004
- Messages
- 39
Legislators that want Liberty...that is novel! I think it is awsome, and I wish them well! Maybe I will reside there one day. I love the land of eternal wind.
Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi.Why in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???
Good question, ReadyWhy in the heck is Montana not the LP "Free State Project" ???
Oh, man! Priceless!I wonder if Rice and Koopman also like to joust with windmills?
The problem is making sure the income tax goes away when the sales tax comes in. Many people are afraid that we will just end up with both.I come from a state where we have a sales tax, but no income tax. This makes the best of tourist coming into the state, but takes a little burden off of the residents with no income tax. Why couldn't Montana do something like that?
Correct, as well as "better" drug laws.* Funny thing about us freedom loving folk, we think freedom extends to issues that we don't participate in, not just our "sacred cows" like guns. I was a voting member of the FSP, and my choices were all west of the Mississippi, with Wyoming being my first choice. The idea has not died however, see this site. I'm still looking at Wyoming as relocation site.Its my understanding that the first place votes were almost evenly split between Wyoming and New Hampshire, with those west of the Mississippi going for Wyoming, and those east going for New Hampshire. It just happened that there were more people east of the Mississippi. Wyoming was probably winning over Montana because of the lack of personal income tax, and the smaller population.
"Better to die a free man on one's feet, than live on one's knees as a slave" eh? No argument from me.Resistance is never futile.
What a great idea. So the Federal Govt cannot go back on its word, or break the contract.
To make you angry, it would appear.What's the, "Uhh, yeah." serve? What possible purpose could this phrase have?
The problem is the change is one-sided. A single party can't unilaterally alter a two party contract, and that's what happens when the Federal Government "re-interprets" the Constitution. You can, of course, make the claim that Federal supremacy provided the implicit right of the Federal Government to make unilateral changes, but the wording of the Constitution makes that claim a real stretch.I'm obviously naive- the logical rebuttal to the claim of contract would be that Montana signed on to a Democratic process, a Republic which changes.
Well that's just defeatism. Sure there's the way things are and then there's the way things ought to be, but they need not always be different. If the Federal Government wasn't in the habit of breaking its promises/responsibilities/compacts/etc. we wouldn't be having this conversation.From another perspective- we broke a whole lot of treaties with ndns- why not now with this Montana view of the contract?
NEW SECTION. Section 2. Legislative declaration of authority. The legislature declares that the authority for [sections 1 through 7 6] is the following:...