Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[candycorn]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Can you please explain what this post is supposed to mean ?

Your human rights were not being violated by the State of California. I'm not sure where the ambiguity is.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Just what are our Human Rights beyond what the Declaration of Independance calls out ?

 

[candycorn]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

You are two for two.

If you can't do better than this, please don't respond.

You would be wise to heed your own advice.

 

[candycorn]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Just what are our Human Rights beyond what the Declaration of Independance calls out ?

The DOI is not the framework for the government.

One such right is that you can love whom you wish and, if you wish, marry that person and experience the benefits of the union and that the union will be recognized by the State as legitimate.

Some prefer that your rights can be put up to popular vote and you can be stripped of it depending on your jurisdiction. Some others would, I'm sure, prefer that we can throw you in jail for it or deny you housing, etc...

Given the zillion people living out there in Cali and more coming every day, I do not think whatever drove you to leaving was a breach of human rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you be more likely to trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

So please answer the question. Who gets to decide for us both? You? Or me? Or leave it to each society to decide for itself?

 

[WelfareQueen]

And that, obviously, is in no way, shape, or form is the case today. Nor was it the case yesterday nor will it be tomorrow.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

But who gets to decide what the human rights will be? Will you allow me to have the power to decide that? I sure would not consent to let a lot of people here decide that because they are highly selective in what they consider human rights and what are not.

At least within your own state you can push for whatever human rights you believe are appropriate without forcing your personal opinion about that onto everybody else. (We are speaking of the generic 'you' here of course.) But when the federal government gets it wrong, then many people are denied their rights because of wrong headed ideas of what rights others should have.

For example--and no I do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of this, but am only using this as an example--if one group believes there is a human right for insurance companies to provide contraceptives and that becomes the law of the land, then that denies everybody else the right to not incur that expense, most especially if they have moral objections to it. So who should have the power to decide what is and is not moral? And what everybody will be forced to do in the interest of 'human rights.'

Again as illustration only, I personally think that if one school system chooses to teach intelligent design in their science classes, that is a human right--the right to believe and embrace one's own truths so long as that is not forced upon other school systems who do not believe or embrace the same truth. Likewise the school system that chooses not to teach intelligent design as science or anything else has the human right to not do that, but should not be able to tell the next school district over that they cannot either.

And if you object to having to leave your state in order to acquire the sociopolitical status that you consider acceptable, the how can you not object to a person having to leave their country to acquire a sociopolitical status they find acceptable?

I agree with your comments Foxy. Terms such as "social justice," and "human rights," are highly subjective. They are weasel words.

For example: To many social justice entails vast redistribution of wealth to achieve what some would consider desirable social outcomes. Yet...how is taking wealth from one set of people who earned the money, and then giving to another set of people who did not earn it social justice?

Whenever anyone throws around terms like "social justice" or "human rights," I ask them to define what they mean by those terms precisely.
Of course....they will rarely do so, because I think most realize they are walking in intellectual quicksand. Which I guess....is exactly the point.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Just what are our Human Rights beyond what the Declaration of Independance calls out ?

The DOI is not the framework for the government.

One such right is that you can love whom you wish and, if you wish, marry that person and experience the benefits of the union and that the union will be recognized by the State as legitimate.

Some prefer that your rights can be put up to popular vote and you can be stripped of it depending on your jurisdiction. Some others would, I'm sure, prefer that we can throw you in jail for it or deny you housing, etc...

Given the zillion people living out there in Cali and more coming every day, I do not think whatever drove you to leaving was a breach of human rights.

Rights in our society can only be granted by We the People. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were both ratified by We the People.

The courts have zero power under the Constitution to grant rights. Only the people have that power through there elected representatives.

 

[Foxfyre]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

But who gets to decide what the human rights will be? Will you allow me to have the power to decide that? I sure would not consent to let a lot of people here decide that because they are highly selective in what they consider human rights and what are not.

At least within your own state you can push for whatever human rights you believe are appropriate without forcing your personal opinion about that onto everybody else. (We are speaking of the generic 'you' here of course.) But when the federal government gets it wrong, then many people are denied their rights because of wrong headed ideas of what rights others should have.

For example--and no I do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of this, but am only using this as an example--if one group believes there is a human right for insurance companies to provide contraceptives and that becomes the law of the land, then that denies everybody else the right to not incur that expense, most especially if they have moral objections to it. So who should have the power to decide what is and is not moral? And what everybody will be forced to do in the interest of 'human rights.'

Again as illustration only, I personally think that if one school system chooses to teach intelligent design in their science classes, that is a human right--the right to believe and embrace one's own truths so long as that is not forced upon other school systems who do not believe or embrace the same truth. Likewise the school system that chooses not to teach intelligent design as science or anything else has the human right to not do that, but should not be able to tell the next school district over that they cannot either.

And if you object to having to leave your state in order to acquire the sociopolitical status that you consider acceptable, the how can you not object to a person having to leave their country to acquire a sociopolitical status they find acceptable?

I agree with your comments Foxy. Terms such as "social justice," and "human rights," are highly subjective. They are weasel words.

For example: To many social justice entails vast redistribution of wealth to achieve what some would consider desirable social outcomes. Yet...how is taking wealth from one set of people who earned the money, and then giving to another set of people who did not earn it social justice?

Whenever anyone throws around terms like "social justice" or "human rights," I ask them to define what they mean by those terms precisely.
Of course....they will rarely do so, because I think most realize they are walking in intellectual quicksand. Which I guess....is exactly the point.

Yes, you will notice that the question re who should have the power to dictate what is and is not a 'human right' to everybody else remains unanswered.

For example, and again I do not want the issue itself to be debated, but it is given for purposes of illustration only:

Whose human rights shall be granted and who will have to give up his/her rights:

The gay couple--A--who are very much in love and want a wedding similar to what a straight couple would have? Or the people--B--who strongly believe in their conviction that marriage is between a man and a woman and they cannot accept same sex marriage as okay? B asks nothing or requires nothing of A--all B asks is that A do their thing and leave B out of it.

But some say that B is required to accommodate A--make a private facility available to A, bake a cake or provide the flowers for the wedding, take the pictures, and otherwise participate in something A believes to be wrong. Some would say human rights support A in anything they do or want in this regard and B has no rights at all.

Now enter C, a hate-filled racist, sexist, homophobic group who delights in mocking and harrassing any who don't agree with them. Should human rights laws force A or B to accommodate C's event? Provide products that are highly offensive to A & B? Participate in the event to provide services for it?

I am pretty sure the Founders would say that A has the right to be gay and live as they choose. B has the right to believe what they believe and live accordingly. And C has the right to be as hateful and prejudiced and bigoted as they are. And none of the three has any right to require anything of the other two.

Such is what liberty looks like.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Just what are our Human Rights beyond what the Declaration of Independance calls out ?

The DOI is not the framework for the government.

One such right is that you can love whom you wish and, if you wish, marry that person and experience the benefits of the union and that the union will be recognized by the State as legitimate.

Some prefer that your rights can be put up to popular vote and you can be stripped of it depending on your jurisdiction. Some others would, I'm sure, prefer that we can throw you in jail for it or deny you housing, etc...

Given the zillion people living out there in Cali and more coming every day, I do not think whatever drove you to leaving was a breach of human rights.

And what Human Rights does the constitution call out ?

As for California.....I never said it was a breach of Human Rights. How did you come up with that ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

You are two for two.

If you can't do better than this, please don't respond.

You would be wise to heed your own advice.

Please feel free to point out when I post cryptic, non related one line posts.

As I would prefer not to get into a pissing match, I'll simply ask that if you don't understand or agree with something I've posted...you be as explicit as possible.

Somehow an earlier post seems to have draw defensive fire for picking on CA...which was in no way the case.

CA didn't work for me....I left. I never expected, nor would I expect the people of CA to bow to my individual situation.

People can and do move. It isn't easy...but is is doable.

 

[Foxfyre]

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

On this one I have to side with SD's point of view. While I do believe that federal laws were intended to be obeyed by all states, I agree with SD that the principle concept behind the U.S. Constitution was to free the people from any concept of monarch, pope, dictator, feudal lord, or other totalitarian form of government. Toward that end, the federal government was assigned and restricted to specific powers and authority, and the states were otherwise to be left alone to be whatever they chose to be.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Where do you see that?.......in the fourth paragraph or so it implies they all have them

"expressly defined"?....so some have them inexpressly defined?

You are simply incorrect.

All states have constitutions, but only 17 expressly define rights of their citizens. The rest defer to the U.S. Constitution.

Here is an example of an expressly defined bill of rights;

http://legislature.maine.gov/const/ConstitutionOfMaine2013-06-10.pdf

Here is an example where they state that they acknowledge the supremacy of federal law and will abide such.

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Public_Records_And_Publications/2013nmconst.pdf

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

 

[candycorn]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

 

[Foxfyre]

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Living in a free society means that so long as you require nobody else to participate in it or contribute to it, you can live your life as you choose and join with others to organize your society as you want it to be. If anybody else can dictate to you how you are required to do those two things, there is no liberty.

 

[candycorn]

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Living in a free society means that so long as you require nobody else to participate in it or contribute to it, you can live your life as you choose and join with others to organize your society as you want it to be. If anybody else can dictate to you how you are required to do those two things, there is no liberty.

No liberty. Oh...okay

 

[dcraelin]

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

On this one I have to side with SD's point of view. While I do believe that federal laws were intended to be obeyed by all states, I agree with SD that the principle concept behind the U.S. Constitution was to free the people from any concept of monarch, pope, dictator, feudal lord, or other totalitarian form of government. Toward that end, the federal government was assigned and restricted to specific powers and authority, and the states were otherwise to be left alone to be whatever they chose to be.

we had that in the articles of confederation....in fact...Henry said the Constitution squinted towards a king.....Jefferson said the presidency was like a polish king...........some of the framers were known to want a king....see my gallery and pic on dickensen I believe.

 

[dcraelin]

Where do you see that?.......in the fourth paragraph or so it implies they all have them

"expressly defined"?....so some have them inexpressly defined?

You are simply incorrect.

All states have constitutions, but only 17 expressly define rights of their citizens. The rest defer to the U.S. Constitution.

Here is an example of an expressly defined bill of rights;

http://legislature.maine.gov/const/ConstitutionOfMaine2013-06-10.pdf

Here is an example where they state that they acknowledge the supremacy of federal law and will abide such.

http://www.sos.state.nm.us/Public_Records_And_Publications/2013nmconst.pdf

no you are simply incorrect...your link on New Mexico's Constitution proves it. It expressly defines rights.

 

[dcraelin]

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The ability for a state to have it's own soveriegnty was the fundamental basis for the Constitution. The Constitution was a document intended to limit the federal government.

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.