State's Rights

[Wolfstrike]

the problem with the Barron v. Baltimore case is this,
the Federalists got kicked out in 1812, they couldn't get rid of John Marshall .
Marshall rode the wave of anti-federalism and tried to convince people they had no rights unless the federal government held all the power.
By bringing false and staged cases to the court ,Marshall was successful in winning power for the supreme court it was never intended to have.


those of you who argue in favor of big government, can't quote the founders without mentioning Hamilton or Marshall, two guys who didn't believe in freedom.

 

[elektra]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

Some of those laws could be minimized by other laws. Ever think of that?

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

 

[elektra]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

haven't you been whining about the government not taking care of you over this Ebola Virus crapola?

No, now quit whining about others posts.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As with rights that pertain to individuals, states' rights are also not absolute, and are subject to restriction by the Federal Constitution.

States have the right to license occupations, create the boundaries for cities and counties, and write elections laws absent interference from the Federal government.

But the states may not deny occupation licenses to persons because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or likewise seek to disadvantage classes of persons from voting based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, as such acts are repugnant to the Constitution.

It is therefore incumbent upon state lawmakers to enact measures that comport with the Constitution and its case law, and when they fail to do that they should fully expect the Federal courts to invalidate such measures, as authorized by the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

And you, my dear, are a far right progressive as well, arguing for small government until you want big government to protect your beliefs.

Why don't you just admit you are a progressive?

Government does not need to protect my beliefs since my beliefs are my own. Government is not to interfere with the practice of my beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone else. Putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is no different than flying the American Flag.

Suck on it.

The Government has to protect others from your beliefs which are impacting what others can do. Civil rights, gay rights

 

[JakeStarkey]

States' rights are never absolute as has repeatedly been demonstrated in our history.

 

[Silhouette]

To clearly and concisely clear up the issue when states's majorities may make the law and when the 14th can overrule them there is a good rule of thumb:

1. States cannot dictate different priveleges and laws based on race or physical disability.

2. States can dicatate different priveleges and laws based on behaviors.

Yet blind people cannot drive. Mull that one over.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You clearly and conclusively did nothing of the sort.

 

[rightwinger]

To clearly and concisely clear up the issue when states's majorities may make the law and when the 14th can overrule them there is a good rule of thumb:

1. States cannot dictate different priveleges and laws based on race or physical disability.

2. States can dicatate different priveleges and laws based on behaviors.

Yet blind people cannot drive. Mull that one over.

Sure

States can provide specific harm that can occur if they allow blind people to drive
They cannot show how gay marriage harms them

 

[Skylar]

people of today can't understand the concept of freedom.
the founders were more quiet about state's control because it wasn't a concern.
you were on your farm with your gun and there was no state or federal force to kick your door in, unless there was a war. remember, the founders didn't want a standing army.
the founders envisioned a nation where people would focus on their local government.
free speech, gun rights, can only be individual rights ("the people"), there is no other possibility.
the federal government was the concern.

To a large extent, that's true. The role of the federal government changed with the 14th amendment, however. With the federal government now protecting the rights of federal citizens from abuse by the States. And that expanded role gave the Federal Government significant latitude in overruling State laws that violated the rights of individuals.

 

[Skylar]

To clearly and concisely clear up the issue when states's majorities may make the law and when the 14th can overrule them there is a good rule of thumb:

1. States cannot dictate different priveleges and laws based on race or physical disability.

2. States can dicatate different priveleges and laws based on behaviors.

Yet blind people cannot drive. Mull that one over.

Your behavior standard, isn't. Speech is a behavior. Religion is a behavior. Assembly is a behavior. They are all protected. Check out Romer V. Evans. It establishes, undeniably, that gays are a protected class from discrimination.

Kennedy keeps his own counsel. He doesn't give a fiddler's fuck about yours.

 

[Skylar]

the problem with the Barron v. Baltimore case is this,
the Federalists got kicked out in 1812, they couldn't get rid of John Marshall .
Marshall rode the wave of anti-federalism and tried to convince people they had no rights unless the federal government held all the power.
By bringing false and staged cases to the court ,Marshall was successful in winning power for the supreme court it was never intended to have.

those of you who argue in favor of big government, can't quote the founders without mentioning Hamilton or Marshall, two guys who didn't believe in freedom.

You haven't read Barron V. Baltimore. Else you'd have realized that none of your criticisms have the slightest relevance to the ruling.

As Marshall ruled that the federal government did NOT have jurisdiction, that the federal government did NOT have authority, that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the States or State legislation.

Exactly the opposite of what you just said about Marshall's 'problem'.

 

[Skylar]

As with rights that pertain to individuals, states' rights are also not absolute, and are subject to restriction by the Federal Constitution.

The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. Nor did any court ever rule that it did until long after the 14th amendment.

But the states may not deny occupation licenses to persons because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or likewise seek to disadvantage classes of persons from voting based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, as such acts are repugnant to the Constitution.

No court ever found this until after the 14th amendment was adopted. The USSC found instead that the BIll of Rights did not nor was ever intended to apply to the States. In fact, Bingham (who was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment) cited the very abuses based on race that you mentioned as the reason the 14th amendment was needed.

As without it, the Federal government was powerless to do anything to stop it.

Since the 14th, that's all different.

 

[Silhouette]

Sure

States can provide specific harm that can occur if they allow blind people to drive
They cannot show how gay marriage harms them

Yes, they can. Gay marriage harms the children that will be legally forced to be adopted to them if they get sweeping federal protection to "marry". Also all polygamists and other consenting adults may marry under the "equal protection" clauses used to force gay marriage upon unwilling states' majorities..

Gay marriage hurts the word "marriage" itself. But if you keep framing it as "how does it hurt any one singular person" it takes the focus away from the passage of time, childrens' issues and the dissolution of society itself. So I get why that's the LGBT repetitive talking point: "keep it narrow...don't talk about harm over time...don't talk about childrens' civil rights..."

I get it.

 

[rightwinger]

Sure

States can provide specific harm that can occur if they allow blind people to drive
They cannot show how gay marriage harms them

Yes, they can. Gay marriage harms the children that will be legally forced to be adopted to them if they get sweeping federal protection to "marry". Also all polygamists and other consenting adults may marry under the "equal protection" clauses used to force gay marriage upon unwilling states' majorities..

Gay marriage hurts the word "marriage" itself. But if you keep framing it as "how does it hurt any one singular person" it takes the focus away from the passage of time, childrens' issues and the dissolution of society itself. So I get why that's the LGBT repetitive talking point: "keep it narrow...don't talk about harm over time...don't talk about childrens' civil rights..."

I get it.

Once again you fail miserably
there is no evidence that children of gay marriages do any worse or that adopted children do worse than those not adopted

Polygamists or anyone else will have to argue on their own merits....just like gays and interracial couples had to

How does gay marriage cause a dissolution of society? It has been legal in Massachusetts for ten years. Can you demonstrate harm?

That is what the courts keep asking and where states fail miserably

 

[Jackson]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

Some of those laws could be minimized by other laws. Ever think of that?

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"there is no evidence that children of gay marriages do any worse or that adopted children do worse than those not adopted" is where Sil's entire philosophy collapses

 

[rightwinger]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

Some of those laws could be minimized by other laws. Ever think of that?

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

General Welfare...do what needs to be done

Works for me

 

[Dot Com]

We haven't banned "gay marriage" (a synonym for "I want to get my degenerate hands on little boys") in Colorado yet, but a bunch of democrats are about to get bounced out of office, so things are looking up.

BTW Molesting children isn't a "civil right" no matter how much queers would like us to believe otherwise.

Didn't we learn a thing from the Catholic Church debacle? Given the chance, queers molest little boys. It's been proven to the detriment of thousands of children. Does the heterosexual American left give a damn about children anymore? Do they care about their welfare?

Source?

And "hyperbole" much n00b?

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Now the queers deny deny deny that they molested thousands of little boys in the Catholic Church. Queers are degenerates are pedphiles are pathological liars. It's a simple equation.