Right wingers are ALL for states' rights.......except......

[nat4900]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

 

[martybegan]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

Call it abortion rights, stop trying to soft sell it.
How does having to present an easily obtainable ID quash voting rights?
A lot of people on the right support state level regulation.
Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

 

[nat4900]

How does having to present an easily obtainable ID quash voting rights?

Gee, I don't know....Why not ask this guy?

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State ...

 

[bendog]

How does having to present an easily obtainable ID quash voting rights?

Gee, I don't know....Why not ask this guy?

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State ...

Well, aren't gopers for state's rights when it comes to voter ID?

I'm not dissing you. I partially agree. The pseudo-libertarians are not libertarian when it comes to individual rights. And they tend to put corporate property rights above all other rights. And the Kochs? Don't get me started. LOL

But then the dems did require all to buy health insurance or pay a tax.

 

[nat4900]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

 

[martybegan]

How does having to present an easily obtainable ID quash voting rights?

Gee, I don't know....Why not ask this guy?

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State ...

How about you answer the question and stop with the link-a-palooza?

 

[nat4900]

How about you answer the question and stop with the link-a-palooza?

Oh,I forgot that you ONLY want answers that suit your bias.....My apologies...LOL

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

 

[martybegan]

How about you answer the question and stop with the link-a-palooza?

Oh,I forgot that you ONLY want answers that suit your bias.....My apologies...LOL

No, how about YOU answer instead of linking someone else's ideas?

What a fucking hack you are.

 

[CryptoNinja]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

 

[miketx]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

More lies, what a troll jack ass.

 

[nat4900]

A lot of people on the right support state level regulation.

DO REPUBLICANS STILL BELIEVE IN STATES' RIGHTS? SESSIONS' MARIJUANA POLICY IS ULTIMATE TEST

Do Republicans still believe in states' rights? Sessions' marijuana policy is ultimate test

 

[bendog]

Doesn't Rubio want to not allow rigs closer to Fla shores? I think that issue may be based more on geography. Here in Miss we're all for rigs close in, so long as the State gets the revenue. Of course, the shore line is really small. (-: Beaches are fugly too.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

I agree that many on the right are hypocrites.

Are you for state's rights?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

DO REPUBLICANS STILL BELIEVE IN STATES' RIGHTS? SESSIONS' MARIJUANA POLICY IS ULTIMATE TEST

They don't and apparently never have. See Lincoln, et al.


Do you believe in state's rights?

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

 

[CryptoNinja]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

 

[martybegan]

A lot of people on the right support state level regulation.

DO REPUBLICANS STILL BELIEVE IN STATES' RIGHTS? SESSIONS' MARIJUANA POLICY IS ULTIMATE TEST

Do Republicans still believe in states' rights? Sessions' marijuana policy is ultimate test

Sessions is following federal law, which was passed by congress in 1971. He is doing nothing but following the constitutional separation of powers.

it's up to congress to repeal the part of the Controlled Substances Act of 1971 that considers pot a schedule 1 substance.

 

[CryptoNinja]

DO REPUBLICANS STILL BELIEVE IN STATES' RIGHTS? SESSIONS' MARIJUANA POLICY IS ULTIMATE TEST

They don't and apparently never have. See Lincoln, et al.


Do you believe in state's rights?

Confederacy was the biggest hater of states rights of them all.

Did a Confederate state have the right to end slavery?

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't a States control of waters end a certain distance off their shore, and the feds control the rest? hasn't it always been this way?

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.