Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression.
Absolutely right, and PC wishes to drag us back to the bad old days.
Even she can now see that is never going to happen.
I see the low-testosterone contingent is checking in.
Nothing like a moron rushing to prove what a good-hearted anti-racism individual he is!
Whoopeee!
Reminds of nothing so much as this from Coulter's best-seller, "Mugged"....
See if you recognize yourself:
"Thrilled with their role as white friend-of-the-blacks, many found that they could actually make a living at it! The part requires sneering at nonexistent racists, and memorizing one line:
Goddam it, this may cost me my career but Im going to speak up for racial equality and let the chips fall where they may!
She had you in her sights, didn't she, Jakal.
By classical liberals yes, which encompasses neither our social conservatives or libertarians today.
Seems redundant to note the following, as it applies to so very many of your posts....
...but, one more time:
WRONG!
The founders were of a variety of political persuasions, but the ideas put into the Constitution were definitely liberal, at the time. Since that period Americans and America have become even more liberal. The problem we usually see is that some want to move into liberalism faster, some slower, and some not at all. The not-at-all group is usually the one's most content with their life and status or most afraid of change.
By classical liberals yes, which encompasses neither our social conservatives or libertarians today.
Seems redundant to note the following, as it applies to so very many of your posts....
...but, one more time:
WRONG!
The founders were of a variety of political persuasions, but the ideas put into the Constitution were definitely liberal, at least for that time. Since then, the liberalism has continued and one need only to look at our history for verification.
The problem we and many nations have is that is that some people want to move into liberalism faster, some slower, and some not at all. The not-at-all group is usually the one's most content with their life and status or most afraid of change.
Is there a limit to liberalism?
Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression.
Absolutely right, and PC wishes to drag us back to the bad old days.
Even she can now see that is never going to happen.
I see the low-testosterone contingent is checking in.
Nothing like a moron rushing to prove what a good-hearted anti-racism individual he is!
Whoopeee!
Reminds of nothing so much as this from Coulter's best-seller, "Mugged"....
See if you recognize yourself:
"Thrilled with their role as white friend-of-the-blacks, many found that they could actually make a living at it! The part requires sneering at nonexistent racists, and memorizing one line:
Goddam it, this may cost me my career but Im going to speak up for racial equality and let the chips fall where they may!
She had you in her sights, didn't she, Jakal.
The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.
I see the low-testosterone contingent is checking in.
Nothing like a moron rushing to prove what a good-hearted anti-racism individual he is!
Whoopeee!
Reminds of nothing so much as this from Coulter's best-seller, "Mugged"....
See if you recognize yourself:
"Thrilled with their role as white friend-of-the-blacks, many found that they could actually make a living at it! The part requires sneering at nonexistent racists, and memorizing one line:
Goddam it, this may cost me my career but Im going to speak up for racial equality and let the chips fall where they may!
She had you in her sights, didn't she, Jakal.
The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.
I believe in the concept of '50 laboratories of democracy.'
"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]
This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as laboratories, where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept,..."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American people know right from wrong....e.g., Southerners threw out racist Democrats in the mid 20th century.
You seem to believe in judicial oppression.
"you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people."
The voting citizens decide what is oppression, and what is a difference of opinion.
Otherwise, you don't believe in democracy.
The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.
I believe in the concept of '50 laboratories of democracy.'
"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]
This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as laboratories, where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept,..."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The American people know right from wrong....e.g., Southerners threw out racist Democrats in the mid 20th century.
You seem to believe in judicial oppression.
"you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people."
The voting citizens decide what is oppression, and what is a difference of opinion.
Otherwise, you don't believe in democracy.
No. 100% wrong. The constitution specifically enumerates individual rights so that the will of the majority couldnt take them away.
Otherwise, you don't believe in freedom.
A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,
shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.
A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,
shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.
I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,
but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,
including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.
A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,
shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.
I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,
but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,
including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.
It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.
I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,
but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,
including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.
It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.
Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?
Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,
as part of their sovereignty?
Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?
In Division and Reunion, 1829-1889 (1893), which described the differences between the North and South, he agreed that the slavery system was bad in some respects, but he also insisted that as a labor and social system it had worked well. He called President Abraham Lincoln one of the most singular and admirable figures in the history of modern times and attempted to distinguish between what he called the lawyer's facts and the historian's facts. Thus, Wilson concluded, the South had seceded legally, but history had determined secession to be wrong.
Woodrow Wilson
.....by James Madison...the father of the Constitution. He said these words at the Constitutional Convention May 31, 1787, when a proposal was tabled granting states the right to suppress a seceding state. See more here from the Great Walter Williams Parting Company by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."
I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,
but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,
including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.
It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.
Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?
Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,
as part of their sovereignty?
Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?
I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,
but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,
including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.
It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.
Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?
Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,
as part of their sovereignty?
Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?
It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.
Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?
Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,
as part of their sovereignty?
Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?
Because most on the partisan right are inconsistent and hypocritical.
They advocate for the myth of 'states' rights' when it suits their political agenda, such as denying women their right to privacy or denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.
Yet when the states act in a manner that they perceive in conflict with their political agenda, they abandon the 'states' rights' myth and seek relief in Federal court.
If conservatives believe that the states lack the authority to deny a citizen a particular firearm, then to be constitutionally consistent they must also respect a woman's right to privacy, and oppose state measures seeking to compel a woman to have a child against her will.
States don't have rights. Only people have rights.
States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.
Communists also believe that collectives have rights.
States don't have rights. Only people have rights.
States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.
Communists also believe that collectives have rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
States don't have rights. Only people have rights.
States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.
Communists also believe that collectives have rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Powers are not rights.
Of course. They entered free trade and free migration treaties (you know, that entering treaties thing that states can't do under the Constitution) and a monetary union, which is not the same as national union. Note that membership in the EU doesn't require these things, as Britain amply demonstrates. But none of the United States may ever do any of these things (bar raising the militia in immediate need) and have no choice in the matter.Unfortunately for your argument, Article I enumerates all the necessary attributes of sovereignty to the federal government, and denies key ones to the states. A sovereign nation can enter treaties, maintain a military, mint money, lay import duties, and regulate migration, all things that under Article I the states may not do."they ceded much of their sovereignty"
Hogwash.
The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.
Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.
Unfortunately for the idea that you understand sovereignty, this question is going to skewer same.
Do the nations France, Germany, Italy, etc., .....exhibit sovereignty?
Of course. They entered free trade and free migration treaties (you know, that entering treaties thing that states can't do under the Constitution) and a monetary union, which is not the same as national union. Note that membership in the EU doesn't require these things, as Britain amply demonstrates. But none of the United States may ever do any of these things (bar raising the militia in immediate need) and have no choice in the matter.Unfortunately for your argument, Article I enumerates all the necessary attributes of sovereignty to the federal government, and denies key ones to the states. A sovereign nation can enter treaties, maintain a military, mint money, lay import duties, and regulate migration, all things that under Article I the states may not do.
Unfortunately for the idea that you understand sovereignty, this question is going to skewer same.
Do the nations France, Germany, Italy, etc., .....exhibit sovereignty?
