That bill did far more than that. No bill in Congress is ever that simple. There were all kinds of federal reporting requirements that were included in that amendment.
EXCLUSIVE — Scott Walker to Iowa to Speak at Freedom Summit
- Thread starter jjdoyle
- Start date
That bill did far more than that. No bill in Congress is ever that simple. There were all kinds of federal reporting requirements that were included in that amendment.
Rand needs to listen to his father more on following the Constitution. Here's another one...
Bill H.R. 803: An act to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to strengthen the United States workforce development system through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education programs in the United States, and to promote individual and national economic growth, and for other purposes.
Vote Date: June 25, 2014 -- Vote: AYE
H.R. 803 would consolidate workforce training programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, reauthorize adult-education programs, and reauthorize other workforce-related programs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Senate passed H.R. 803 on June 25, 2014 by a vote of 95 to 3 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no constitutional authorization for federal workforce-training programs. This is not to say that workforce training is a bad thing, but such programs are best handled by the private sector, which would surely provide more and better jobs if the federal government were to siphon less money out of the economy for programs to improve the economy.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00214
Bill H.R. 803: An act to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to strengthen the United States workforce development system through innovation in, and alignment and improvement of, employment, training, and education programs in the United States, and to promote individual and national economic growth, and for other purposes.
Vote Date: June 25, 2014 -- Vote: AYE
H.R. 803 would consolidate workforce training programs under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, reauthorize adult-education programs, and reauthorize other workforce-related programs under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Senate passed H.R. 803 on June 25, 2014 by a vote of 95 to 3 (Roll Call 214). We have assigned pluses to the nays because there is no constitutional authorization for federal workforce-training programs. This is not to say that workforce training is a bad thing, but such programs are best handled by the private sector, which would surely provide more and better jobs if the federal government were to siphon less money out of the economy for programs to improve the economy.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00214
The amendment said that the federal government will not impose their will upon the states on labeling. Where was there "federal reporting" as you wrote for this amendment?
Do you have the full text for that amendment? I just remember that that amendment wasn't as simple as saying that the federal government won't impose their will on the states on labeling. Bernie Sanders isn't exactly a huge supporter of states' rights.
Rand also approves of unconstitutional "Free Trade" agreements...
H.R. 3080: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date: October 12, 2011 -- Vote: AYE
On a single day - October 12, 2011 - both the House and Senate approved three separate trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These measures are three more in a series of "free-trade agreements" intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements via a step-by-step process. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. So is the developing continental government now known as the European Union, which is an outgrowth of a free-trade arrangement once called the Common Market. In fact, the Common Market-EU trajectory to regional governance served as a model for the formation of NAFTA. The South Korea agreement, to quote Congressional Quarterly, is "considered the most economically important trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement." For this reason, the "Freedom Index" editors selected this vote over the other two (Colombia and Panama) for inclusion in this index. The Senate passed H.R. 3080 on October 12, 2011 by a vote of 83 to 15 (Roll Call 161). We have assigned pluses to the nays because agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3080
H.R. 3080: United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
Vote Date: October 12, 2011 -- Vote: AYE
On a single day - October 12, 2011 - both the House and Senate approved three separate trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. These measures are three more in a series of "free-trade agreements" intended to transfer the power to regulate trade (and eventually other powers too) to super-national arrangements via a step-by-step process. NAFTA is a prime example of such an arrangement. So is the developing continental government now known as the European Union, which is an outgrowth of a free-trade arrangement once called the Common Market. In fact, the Common Market-EU trajectory to regional governance served as a model for the formation of NAFTA. The South Korea agreement, to quote Congressional Quarterly, is "considered the most economically important trade deal since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement." For this reason, the "Freedom Index" editors selected this vote over the other two (Colombia and Panama) for inclusion in this index. The Senate passed H.R. 3080 on October 12, 2011 by a vote of 83 to 15 (Roll Call 161). We have assigned pluses to the nays because agreements such as this one are intended to transfer trade (and other) powers to super-national arrangements, despite the fact that under the Constitution only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations."
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3080
Well even a broken clock named Bernie can be right twice a day. Even Ron at one time formed an alliance with him to create a document that the neocons hated. I included the URL above but here it is again. Click on the links next to "Amendment Number" at the following site...
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00135
Last edited:
I don't really see what your point is. Scott Walker would be just as likely to support those free trade agreements. Do you also realize that Rand has the highest rating in the Senate on JBS's scorecard at 93%? That's only 3% lower than Ron's lifetime rating of 96%.
Well the point is I still don't know who's best. Rand has some concerns as I posted above, but noones perfect. Rand seemed to have more unconstitutional votes recently, as his Freedom Index reduced from 94 to 92. We don't know yet if Walker supports so-called free trade agreements. i would like to know Walker's position on the UN. Has Rand, like Ron did previously, pushed forward a Get US Out of the UN bill each year? The National Review had a hit-piece out on Walker, but any criticism out of that neocon rag I take as a positive for the person they're criticizing. I agree that the MSNBC article you posted above on Walker & bombing ISIS & ground troops is a major concern. I'm sharing that with my JBS friends who told me Walker is the best of the bunch for their take; maybe they'll reconsider Rand.
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
Rand is the only candidate who has spoke out against the UN.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...s-He-d-Be-quot-Happy-quot-to-Dissolve-the-U-N
I think a couple of those votes were probably due to him running for President. I think he can't be seen as someone who just votes against everything since he's going to run for President. Otherwise, commercials would be run against him saying "Rand Paul doesn't believe in child care." We need a libertarian/Constitutionalist in the U.S Senate who doesn't have any higher political aspirations.
Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
If you are worried about neoconservativism, then you have no reason to even think about Walker. He is worse than McCain.
Your fathers company is simply poorly run.
A lot of the biggest companies in the States were founded and run by people who weren't graduates.
Dr.3D
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 30,314
Yeah, look at Bill Gates.
Ok, let me get this straight to you guys, I don't want your opinions. I just want facts. Provide proof to Walker being neoconservative. PLEASE, please no offense, but less of your own words, and more direct links to what the man said and how he voted. I don't have much time to read your opinions.
AuH20
Account Restricted. Admin to review account standing
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2009
- Messages
- 28,739
Benjamin Franklin didn't even make it to 'high school.' I'm not going to admonish someone for not being to endure the linear, boxed approach that typifies most universities.
Last edited:
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
William Tell
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 12,146
Good points, we are still in the process of learning about Walker. Hopefully these threads will help?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?467802-Scott-Walker-Informational-Thread
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?469438-Scott-Walker-On-The-Record
If you know anything else about him please comment in those threads.
Similar threads
