It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fear And Partisanship- Stealing your liberty to make you vote

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Anyone can probably name the most enduring social controversies in national politics right off the top of their head. Abortion, Gun Control, Affirmative Action, Religion in the Classroom, etc.

The course of these debates when they arise is familiar to us all. The talking heads of each side slam eachother back and forth, calling eachother communists and fascists respectively, each implying that the hother is attempting to undermine American values. Fund raisers, ad campaigns, celebrity statements, political speeches, and the occasional futile attempt at legislation are all trotted out to help bring the issue to a head in the semi-annual showdown between left and right to determine who speaks for the American people. The political know-it-alls in our workplaces gather round the water cooler to tell eachother how right they are in whatever stance they might take, and if it comes up at home Dad or Grandpa lays the cards on the table for you in his typical no nonsense fashion to show you how simple it is.

All the while, the real questions go unasked. WHY is it a federal matter? HOW did politicians in the federal government get it in their heads that they had any right to legislate on these matters? WHAT happened to our federal system?

To understand these most pertinent of all questions on the issues, we must examine the history of American government. The flaws of our education system leave many highschool graduates in America with a certain uncertainty as to when the Constitution was written in relation to when the Declaration of Independence was signed. They probably know that Jefferson had a hand in both, and might therefore assume that the two were nearly simultaneous. If you asked 10 people what happend on July 4th, 1776, at least 1 person would probably tell you that the Constitution was signed. If one had even a rough education in history though, he might know better.

The Constitution did not take effect until 1789. So what was going on between 1776 and 1789? The revolutionary war was carried out under the governance of the Second Continental Congress, then, after 3 years of fighting over distribution of land in the West, Maryland finally joined the rest of the states in ratifying the Articles of Confederation in 1781.
Text of Articles of Confederation

History of the US Constitution
For just under 8 years, the several states of our union refused to invest any meaningful power in a central government. Realizing this is vital to understanding the spirit of our constitution. Under the Articles of Confederation, the Central government consisted only of a unicameral legislature which could not tax, could not regulate the states except in a few enumerated cases involving weights, measures, coinage, foreign relations, disputes between states, etc. Even the power to comission army officers beneath the rank of general resided with the states!

The US Constitution was written to further unite the confederation of 13 autonomous republics which formed the original United States of America. The scope of the constitution is clearly laid out in the preamble to be consistent with the articles of Confederation. The Constitutional Convention was in fact called as a convention not to draft a constitution but only to revise the Articles of Confederation.
US Constitution, Preamble

1in Order to form a more perfect Union,2 establish Justice,3 insure domestic Tranquility,4a provide for the common defense,4b promote the general Welfare, and5 secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity


Note the 5 points I have divided this into.
1. To form a more perfect union. This underscores the objective of fine tuning the relationship between autonomous states, as opposed to creating a more unitary government (unitary systems being those in which local governments are subject to and serve at the pleasure of the central gov't.) So to what end did the union need to be made more perfect?

2. Establish Justice. The constitution created the first national judicial system for the United States, ensuring that the state legislatures must rule in a manner consistent with the high value we Americans place on liberty. This prefaces the most profound difference between our confederation of states governments and our federal government. Standardized guidelines by which state laws must abide were established in the constitution.
This was not intended to make the congress an instrument regulating the personal conduct of citizens, but only to to establish uniform standards of liberty to which such laws passed by states must conform. This view is supported by the immediate adoption of the first ten amendements, our bill of rights.
You may also find the arguement made under point 4 relevant to this.

3. To ensure domestic tranquility. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation proved incapable of satisfactorily presiding over disputes between the states. As George Washington said, they were held together "by a rope of sand". The Constitution was intended to bring issues of interstate commerce under the control, as opposed to the review, of the federal government, to prevent secession of states or armed conflict between the states. Again this clearly underscores the nature and scope of our federal government as being one of interstate and international business, offering the federal government no power to regulate the conduct of citizens.

4. To promote the general welfare and provide for the common defense. A nation must have a unified infrastructure to be potent both economically and militarily. Roads must be efficient and continuous throughout the nation. Ports must be accessible. Naval forces and armories or forts to be used in the event of raising an army (we had not standing army at the time) had to be positioned in a strategically coherent manner.

Article 1 section 8 clearly enumerates the powers of the congress, and the tone of every item therein relates to international, interstate, and national infrastructure matters. The necessary and proper clause specifically states that it may pass laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.
US Constitution, Article 1, section 8

Powers of Congress- provides background on US v. Butler
My interpretation was backed up by the Supreme Court in 1936, when in the case of The United States v. Butler the court struck down a tax, the revenues of which were earmarked for farmers, stating that the constitutional powers granted to the federal government to promote the general welfare applied only to national issues and that the clause could not be invoked for more specific applications.

5. To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. This is basically a capstone, characterizing the above as vital to the survival and independence of the United States, without which we would fall under a foreign power and lose our liberty.

So here we come to the heart of the matter. There are many issues the federal government has no say in. Constitutionally speaking, only a state government can legislate on internal matters. The state government is the seat of the social contract in America where mutual agreements to abide by laws must be made.

Why are the political parties making an issue out of it? Are they really afraid it won't get done? Are they really so hungry to tell us what to do? I think not. I believe it woudl almost immediately become clear otherwise that they aren't doing anything and their power would be in serious jeopardy. If all that the government did was regulate commerce, infrastructure, diplomacy, etc. then the difference between a Republican, a Democrat, and that one crazy uncle in your family that nobody talks about would almost disappear- unless there was a debate on going to war or on trade relations, matters which the American public at large really isn't well enough informed to have sound opinions on, there would be no disagreement. There would be nothing to fear. There would be nothing to vote against and the power structure of our political parties would crumble. Very important people who are accustomed to making their values the values of half of the nation would suddenly be reduced to the level of state legislators or city councilmen. God forbid, the people in Spec-On-The-Map, Arizona might develop a very different culture and system of laws than the people in New York City.

In short- they force your neighbor to adopt your values, so that when somebody counters that on your neighbor's side they can use him as a boogey man to make you afraid, to make you partisan, and to make you want to keep them in power.

Take abortion for an example.
The federal government can not legislate on abortion, and it is questionable whether the Supreme Court is acting in the spirit of the Constitution when it hears a case over the application of murder laws to abortion. It could be argued that the states alone have the right to legislate and rule on the scope and application of the laws which only they have the right to pass. Afterall, it is not a matter of interstate or international relations or commerce, nor is it a matter of infrastructure unless we are to view citizens primarily as government assetts as opposed to free men. And that's exactly why the political parties (not the Federal Government, but the patisan politicans who run it) have seen fit to make this a national issue. Because you are an assett to them in a sense even more perverse than the economic one suggested by their unwillingness to let you die if you choose.

Even the Supreme Court itself may perhaps be aware of this if you read between the lines of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

Because a sizeable quotes are absolutely necessary to making my point, I have at least done you the courtesy of placing them beneath my post so that you can ignore them if you please. But I would encourage you to read them and note that the aspects of this opinion tempering the absolute right to abort a child also could outlaw suicide.

They state that the government has an interest in keeping people alive, implying that it exists whether or not they desire it, and outright states that the court has not recognized the right of an individual to do with their own body as they please. One could argue that this opinion only thinly veils a view of citizens as assets of the government. And there you have it. You are an assett. You are useful. Partisan factions in government deprive you of your liberty to whatever end suits them best.

wikisource.org...

Consequently, any interest of the State in protecting the woman from an inherently hazardous procedure, except when it would be equally dangerous for her to forgo it, has largely disappeared.



Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth.



In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.


[edit on 3-9-2005 by The Vagabond]
Edit to change title.
Second edit to add links.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by The Vagabond]




posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
Oy- I knew I should have been more concise. 35 views and nobody has anything to say. It just takes so much information and structure for me to really make a case that I can be proud of.

Here's the reader's digest version for those of you who were overwhelmed by the above:

What if I told you that constitutionally the federal government has absolutely no say over things like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, etc etc, and that political hot topics like those are infact invasions of your personal liberty by powerhungry political parties, designed to create fear and division in the American public so that we will remain loyal partisan voters?



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Legalized abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Abortion should not even be a political issue to begin with! And Roe vs. Wade violates the Tenth Amendment, which says that powers not given to the federal government are given to the states. Most states had laws against abortion. The Roe ruling basically did a power grab and struck down the states' laws.

A lot of conservatives want a Republican majority so that Roe can be struck down. We have that majority...and so far Roe is still there. Never mind that Roe, being contrary to the Constitution for the reasons stated above, is actually null and void! Constitutionally the government SHOULD have some say...our laws are supposed to protect people!

As far as religion and schools: Children should not be forbidden from reading the Bible in school. Teachers should not be forbidden from passing out Bibles. If you don't want one, a "no thank you" should suffice. The ACLU says it's protecting our freedoms but when they prohibit even mentioning God in school they're running contrary to the First Amendment.

Gun control is anti-Second Amendment. No law should ever be passed forbidding anyone from owning a gun. Period.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I believe the initial turn towards a centralized, unitary government started during the Civil War. President Lincoln is revered throughout this country--and rightly so--but, he assumed powers in the presidency that had never been envisioned and were not authorized by the constitution. Indeed, many southerners will staunchly defend the notion that, to a large extent, the Civil War was all about states rights. The trend ever since has been a slow, but steady drift towards centralized government.

I will freely admit that much of the accumulation of power by the federal government has been beneficial for this country, but it also seems they don't know when to stop. The era of career politicians has seen to it that power is not likely to be re-allocated back to the states either. A fundamental change in the way we elect our representatives is clearly needed, as is some form of term limits legislation. However, an ammendment to the Constitution may be required before anything approaching term limits, or a return to the basic tenents of the principles of the republic can be achieved.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Legalized abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.


That depends on the decision of when life actually begins. If life doesn't legally begin until birth, your point is moot.



Constitutionally the government SHOULD have some say...our laws are supposed to protect people!


And that's the trouble. People are classed (generally) as those born, with rights, etc etc. The unborn are currently in that very murky grey area.



As far as religion and schools: Children should not be forbidden from reading the Bible in school. Teachers should not be forbidden from passing out Bibles.


Sure. As long as those teachers are also passing out the Koran, and the other religious books/texts held sacred by many, in equal number and with equal deference paid to those religions. Teachers who are working for any non-private or government-funded/aided school body shouldn't actually be handing out any religious teachings unless they're able to do so in a completely fair, unbiased and balanced manner. Separation of Church and State and all that. I defer to the folk at ReligiousTolerance.org .



Gun control is anti-Second Amendment. No law should ever be passed forbidding anyone from owning a gun. Period.


I disagree here. I truly do not believe that the founding members of this great nation actually wanted every Tom, Dick and Harriet to have free reign when it comes to owning a gun. This wee page puts it infinitely more clearly than I'm able. An excerpt:


Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law."


Anyway. Just a couple of my thoughts.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amethyst
Legalized abortion is a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Abortion should not even be a political issue to begin with! And Roe vs. Wade violates the Tenth Amendment, which says that powers not given to the federal government are given to the states.


Forgive me for playing devil's advocate for a moment but I am compelled to.
If the 5th Amendment outlaws abortion, then how could Roe v. Wade violate the 10th Amendment? Wouldn't the 10th Amendment clearly make that a Federal matter?
I have the answer already, but I'm curious as to how you formed your opinion.


Never mind that Roe, being contrary to the Constitution for the reasons stated above, is actually null and void!


Who judges that though? The Supreme Court does. Roe v. Wade, right or wrong, is most certainly NOT null and void. The Supreme Court has the authority to apply the law, and their ruling on the application is significant, even if you don't like it. If this were not the case, a school district could simply decide for itself that Brown v. The Board of Education is null and void and expell all of their black students.


As far as religion and schools: Children should not be forbidden from reading the Bible in school.


Maybe that's why nobody is forbidding it. You're in class to LEARN not to read ancient Hebrew mythology, unless that's the subject of the course. (My school actually offered a "Bible as Literature" class). When I was a believer I read the bible at school all the time- during lunch hour every wednesday. That's a very different thing from breaking out your bible and turning Algebra class into a sermon.
But I'll tell you what, the minute anybody rules that you can read the bible instead of paying attention to class, I'm sending my nephew to class with a copy of Playboy, and I double-dog dare the school to tell him he can't read that instead of taking notes while charlie church next to him is reading about how Lot's daughters seduced him in Genesis.


Teachers should not be forbidden from passing out Bibles.


Our 1st Amendement says that Congress may pass no law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore congress may appropriate no funds for the procurement of bibles or pay of teachers who are tasked with distributing them.


The ACLU says it's protecting our freedoms but when they prohibit even mentioning God in school they're running contrary to the First Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
You are allowed to mention God in school. You just aren't allowed to pray over the PA system.
Also, minor point of order, the ACLU isn't running the country contrary to the First Amendment, if only because they aren't running the country.


Gun control is anti-Second Amendment. No law should ever be passed forbidding anyone from owning a gun. Period.


The 2nd Amendment doesn't stipulate guns. It says arms. What about nuclear arms? This is precisely why our constitution is amendable. The founding fathers knew what all great men knew- that they don't know everything. Arguably it would take a constitutional amendment to prevent me from owning a nuclear weapon, an assault rifle, a main battle tank, or a fully armed Akula class attack sub.
Other weapons can be banned by mere state laws, provided that those laws withstood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. This is because in the 2nd Amendment, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not a sentence. It is a sentence fragment. Only weapons useful to a WELL REGULATED militia are absolutely protected.

I've got to go- we'll continue later
.

[edit on 4-9-2005 by The Vagabond]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Surely it's fairly simple.

If something can't survive on its own, it isn't alive and/or has no life?

[Common Sense Card]

Fantastic post Big V.

In my personnal view, though Partisan Politics will always exist until Political Parties are removed.

And well how many Nation's have pulled that off?
One...



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Surely it's fairly simple.

If something can't survive on its own, it isn't alive and/or has no life?


But a child can not survive on its own even after birth, can it? Without at least some clarification of "survive on its own" that would move the abortion window up from the third trimester to like the 4th year of life.

And then there is life support to consider. Some people do eventually get off of life support. Terri Schaivo wasn't one of them of course, but I've seen several people who had been alive, then couldn't survive on their own, then a couple weeks later were sitting on the couch talking to me again. So did they die and come back to life? Could I have shot them during that brief window and it wouldn't have been murder?

Just asking questions for the sake of philosophy- not necessarily disagreeing with you, just challenging you.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Surely it's fairly simple.

If something can't survive on its own, it isn't alive and/or has no life?


Originally posted by The Vagabond
But a child can not survive on its own even after birth, can it? Without at least some clarification of "survive on its own" that would move the abortion window up from the third trimester to like the 4th year of life.


I see a massive difference between being able to survive on a machine and your body having the ability to survive.

A child after about 7months can easily survive, its body has the ability to digest food and to process most of the chemicals [not all for salt like example] however prior to this the child could not survive whatsoever.

Also there are many African Tribes [I had to do a sociology paper on it but theri names escape me] which by the time the child can walk upright it is left to fend for itself. In fact I always remember one of the men saying; "If a child vanished they knew dinner was nearby." in reference to a leopold/lion or some other hunter killing the child it would be too fat to escape them.

There has to be a line between when abortion has to stop and myself that's when a child can be born unless their is massive medical risk. Prior to the child being able to leave its mothers womb I do not see it as alive. However, I think more needs to be done at an earlier stage. Any test that can be done has to be done so we don't result in terminations 7/8months into the pregnency.


Originally posted by The Vagabond
And then there is life support to consider. Some people do eventually get off of life support. Terri Schaivo wasn't one of them of course, but I've seen several people who had been alive, then couldn't survive on their own, then a couple weeks later were sitting on the couch talking to me again. So did they die and come back to life? Could I have shot them during that brief window and it wouldn't have been murder?


Again, I think there has to be a time period on it. I can't remember the numbers, but after I think it is 5years the chances of someone coming back are so slim that there is no point to keeping them on the machine - in fact, in many places they tend to switch it off after that length. [In Europe I do believe.]

But also you have another problem with life support machines - your body does not have to repair itself while you are on them. IT's normally only when you switch the machine off that they can survive on their own and begin to make internal repairs. However more money needs to go into things like this instead of being wasted by our Government's.

I myself, do not like the idea of keeping people who are mentally ill alive. It might seem wrong or evil however I've worked with people who machins say have no brain activity. They have no ability to understand anything and the Government's have to spend millions on them which it can't afford to do anymore. It's also very upsetting to sit there and have to treat a 50+ year old person as though they are 12months and in some cases younger than that.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Prior to the child being able to leave its mothers womb I do not see it as alive. However, I think more needs to be done at an earlier stage. Any test that can be done has to be done so we don't result in terminations 7/8months into the pregnency.


Very, very few terminations are performed after 21 weeks (generally accepted as less than 1% of all, with the rate of post-26 week terminations falling to less than 0.05%) . Sadly, it appears that most of these late-stage terminations are carried out electively rather than on a basis of actual medical need.

There are exceptions - there are times when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of the mother, even at a late stage (particularly in the case of eclampsia and/or heart failure): invasive carcinoma of the cervix, severe pregnancy-induced hypertension and eclampsia, ectopic pregnancies, severe congestive heart failure and placental abruption appear to be amongst the most common reasons. The danger of some of these conditions sometimes isn't detected until later in the pregnancy; in addition though, many treatment teams will prefer to go with the "We'll wait and see, and hope it doesn't become necessary" mindset, which is understandable too.

The confusion also is made worse by the ability for extremely premature newborns to actually survive after being born at 21 to 26 weeks, whilst it's still legal to perform terminations up to 24 weeks in some cases.

So - if we know that some are born full-term with severe disabilities requiring permanent mechanical life support, and we know that some are born at 22 weeks and need life support only temporarily (before they're able to live relatively normal lives), and we know that the area of "can survive outside the womb" is a very murky area to be defined - where does this leave us?

Odium -

With respect to Europe, you wouldn't happen to know exactly which countries have a law such as that in place? (with regards to mandated time limits on life support)


I myself, do not like the idea of keeping people who are mentally ill alive. It might seem wrong or evil however I've worked with people who machins say have no brain activity. They have no ability to understand anything and the Government's have to spend millions on them which it can't afford to do anymore.


I see your point, absolutely. But the families of many patients in these situations are simply hoping for new medicines and/or new technologies to come along and improve the situation. To them, where there's life, there's hope. There have been cases where long-term comatose patients have recovered even 10 years after the critical event; some have recovered fully with no sequelae whatsoever. The difficulty in this scenario is that there's just no way to predict who will, or will not recover (and indeed, will recover with any quality of life, though that in itself is open to debate).

This does however illustrate the importance of everyone getting their respective butts into gear and organising, where appropriate, their "Living Wills".



It's also very upsetting to sit there and have to treat a 50+ year old person as though they are 12months and in some cases younger than that.


It is, yes. But with all due respect - that's not the point. Your emotional feelings about treating such a patient shouldn't be a factor in whether or not that patient has the right to life, you know? Some families would say "If you can't stand the heat....get out of the kitchen"....and they might have a point.

Don't misunderstand me - I absolutely see your points here, and I agree that it can be terribly upsetting to see a 50 year old stroke victim (as one example) with the mental capacity of a 2 year old - I just don't think personal feelings like this (belonging to someone other than the family involved) should be a factor in the legal processes relating to these situations.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Tinkleflower, the problem is their parents and/or family members do not care.

My mother is very high up in the Social Services and in the area I live in [which she used to manage] between 2000 and 2004 we had roughly 100 houses, with between 3 and 6 people in them with mental illnesses.

Out of all of those, two family members came to visit in those years.

Once the Government coughs up the money, the family members stick them in a home they don't pay for and never speak to them again. Even in cases when they've known [prior to birth] the illness of the child and then they place them into homes for life.

It's sickening and to me abortion is a much better option for that person/child.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Tinkleflower, the problem is their parents and/or family members do not care.


I think that's where we're disagreeing - I don't think it's that black and white at all, you know? Not every patient is disabled from birth, and every case is going to be different.

In cases of elderly patients, sometimes it's as simple as there being no living relatives left to visit; or at the very least, none within a reasonable travelling distance.

I'm just uneasy about classifying everything under one blanket statement such as "the families don't care" - when it's obvious to me that many do care, and many spend their own time and money trying to provide care and attention to even those hospitalized/institutionalized patients.



It's sickening and to me abortion is a much better option for that person/child.


I don't think I'm understanding your logic there


It's sickening to me, too, that patients are left alone like that, without anyone to care. But does that mean they shouldn't have the opportunity to receive love and care?

What about those volunteers who dedicate their time to visiting such patients? This has to count, too, surely?

It just seems perhaps premature to effectively take away someone's "right to life" (so to speak) simply because they might not have relatives willing or able to take care of them.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Receive love and care from who though?

I've seen and been in so many of these homes [College sociology report, had to work at them] where the people looking after them would wake them up, feed them, put them all infront of the T.V. and then go and play on the pool table that their "helpers" used the disabled peoples money for.

In fact, every house in this area I have visited has a room with a pool table, gym, etc. Which the disable people can't use. They all were just left to sit and watch T.V.

See, I'm not sure where you work but I have never seen these families that care. In fact I've seen the opposite. I did my study over the Christmas period and none of them got cards, they never get birthday cards, a visit, etc. Now that's not caring. When the numbers [at least in the U.K.] show the vast majority never have contact with their family that's not care.

You also have to balance off peoples rights. Someone who is heavily disabled will get well over £20,000 per-person. Yet a College student gets only £4,000. [In fact a girl who is dyslexic at my College gets £24,000 per-year she is there. So the ones with illnesses so bad they can't feed themselves and have to have 24/7 care must cost a fortune.] They get preferential treatement on the health service [even above the elderly] yet have an amazingly poor quality of life.

I wish we lived in a World where their parents did care, the state could afford to take care of them and people wanted to but I've not seen it. I've seen the opposite.

...and I've never seen these volunteers in this area. In fact, you have to get parental permission for many of them [due to mental age] to allow it and well...have fun tracking the parents down. Most of them are glad to let the state take care of their little secret.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Hey, wake up! How did this thread turn strictly into an abortion debate and then die? What about the other aspects?

Turn it over in your mind for a second and give us your opinion. Would we be better or worse off if the federal government butted out of our private lives and allowed us to set the law as we saw fit in our communities, instead of painting the whole country with the same broad brush?

If California wants to smoke pot, why can't they? (granted that the federal government would have the authority to rule on any disputes arising over interstate travel to California for the purposes of using marijuana, and any safety concerns related to interstate commerce.)

If Arizona wants to give every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry the right to carry a concealed weapon without a special permit, from where does the federal government derive the right to tell the voters in that state that it's too dangerous?

Who made the government your nanny!? (Well, I'm sure any Rush Limbaugh fan would be happy to name a few names, but that's actually a rhetorical question).
What do you guys think? Am I way off on this?
Like I'm always saying (or threatening) I'm going to congress some day. if you don't like these ideas, this would be a really good time to work on changing my mind.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   
We could have a list as long as my arm, or maybe my arm and my leg, of all the states'rights that get trampled by the fed.

We'd be better off.
But, at this point do you really think the tide could be turned back in favor of states' rights. The web of big government is so tightly spun, I doubt the grip of big fed govt can be easily loosened.
Furthermore, too many people seem to want the federal government to take care of them.



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
...... Would we be better or worse off if the federal government butted out of our private lives and allowed us to set the law as we saw fit in our communities, instead of painting the whole country with the same broad brush?


I say no, we would not be better off. I mean how long before the U.S. fractures into rival sects seperated by ideologies..something akin to the middle east? Imho our unity is our strength. Sure somethings can and need to be "community specific", but abortion, civil rights, gun rights(laws), free speech et al need to be a one law fits all thing. [/obvious]



If California wants to smoke pot, why can't they? (granted that the federal government would have the authority to rule on any disputes arising over interstate travel to California for the purposes of using marijuana, and any safety concerns related to interstate commerce.)


I think they should be able to. No different in my opinion then cigarrettes, booze, gambling etc.. I do think though that a law legalizing Marijuana should be national law and not only specific to California. Why would it be ok for Cali and not Idaho or whatever, i don't see a rational argument. Then again i'm no lawyer..



Arizona wants to give every Tom, Dick, and Dirty Harry the right to carry a concealed weapon without a special permit, from where does the federal government derive the right to tell the voters in that state that it's too dangerous?


I think the idea of needing a special permit to carry a concealed weapon is a no-brainer. If you need to carry, for whatever reason, than it's not unreasonable imo to ask him/her to register and meet certain criteria. Again i can't see the rational argument here. No one is saying that you cannot carry a concealed weapon, only that you cannot do so anonomously. I think that's fair.



What if I told you that constitutionally the federal government has absolutely no say over things like abortion, gun control, affirmative action, etc etc, and that political hot topics like those are infact invasions of your personal liberty by powerhungry political parties, designed to create fear and division in the American public so that we will remain loyal partisan voters?


I'd say your dead on ("invasions of your personal liberty by powerhungry political parties") unfortunately politics as usual. But don't you agree that we should have supreme law of the land when it comes to specific issues? Namely the ones you named; like abortion, gun control, affirmative action,



What do you guys think? Am I way off on this?
Like I'm always saying (or threatening) I'm going to congress some day. if you don't like these ideas, this would be a really good time to work on changing my mind.




Seems to me you'd make a fine representative for the people.


I'd be down with anyone who thinks for themselves. Does what they say and says what they do. Republican or democrat doesn't matter to me, honest, knowledgeable sensible and open to new or different ideas. The problem now is there are few free-thinkers left in D.C. The way the districts have been 'drawn', term limits, lobbyists etc. etc, it's a disgrace. Hardly what our founding father's had in mind i'd wager.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rren
I say no, we would not be better off. I mean how long before the U.S. fractures into rival sects seperated by ideologies..something akin to the middle east? Imho our unity is our strength. Sure somethings can and need to be "community specific", but abortion, civil rights, gun rights(laws), free speech et al need to be a one law fits all thing. [/obvious]


Nicely done, slipping civil rights and free speech in there as if this post had anything to do with releasing the states from their obligation to constitutional standards. It was a dirty trick, and a bad gamble really, but you did it well.


I argue that unity is only strength on matters that affect us all. Our unity is our strength on fiscal policy. Our unity is our strength in foreign relations. Our unity is not our strength when it comes to abortion. We have no unity on abortion. We're quite divided over it. What does it matter to the people in California whether or not the majority of people in Texas want abortion to be legal, or vice versa? There will be no unity on this issue. The only question we have to answer for ourselves is whether or not we want an angry majority within certain states which has been dictated to by a bunch of people who in the state sense are foreigners who have no compelling interest in the matter.

For non Texans to tell the majority of Texans that they can't outlaw abortion, or for non Californians to tell the majority of Californians that they can't legalize it is every bit as ridiculous as for UN to put America under Islamic sharia law when virtually nobody here wants it. That, my friend, is what is akin to the middle east- the obsession of the majority with enforcing its narrow views on everybody else when there is no good reason for it.



I think they should be able to. No different in my opinion then cigarrettes, booze, gambling etc.. I do think though that a law legalizing Marijuana should be national law and not only specific to California. Why would it be ok for Cali and not Idaho or whatever, i don't see a rational argument.


Because the government rules and passes legislation by consent of a social contract, wherein the citizens agree to abide by laws and make the necessary concessions in order to enjoy a certain protection. In order to allow localities to enact as many protections as they might desire and prevent them from having to make concessions which they do not desire, laws should be made at the lowest level practical. The constitution doesn't even give the federal government the authority to pass certain types of laws even if they are desired.




No one is saying that you cannot carry a concealed weapon, only that you cannot do so anonomously. I think that's fair.

Me too, but that's not the point unless one of us is registered to vote in AZ (i'm not). Let's just assume that the people of the great state of Arizona didn't think that was fair. What good reason is there that Arizona should have to govern itself in the same way that everyone else does?



But don't you agree that we should have supreme law of the land when it comes to specific issues? Namely the ones you named; like abortion, gun control, affirmative action,


No, I don't. The supreme law of the land is of course the constitution, and secondary to that there are laws which that supreme law permits the federal government to pass- those laws chiefly deal with coinage, interstate commerce, naturalization of immigrants, etc.
There can be no supreme law of the land on abortion because technically the federal government doesn't even have the right to pass a law against murder. It is up to the states to pass those laws and it is up to the citizens of those states to decide whether or not they want to use the social contract to surrender the freedom to abort a child for protection from God's wrath, or whatever exactly it is that they think they get out of it.
Gun control as a whole is in the same spot. They can rule on what kind of restrictions the "well regulated militia" clause allows, and can pass laws which comply with the SCOTUS' interpretation of that clause, but they can't pass any law on gun control beyond that. States theoretically can could go further, depending on the SCOTUS ruling, since they are the controllers of the militias. Affirmative action, where it regards expenditure of funds, clearly violates the Supreme Court's findings on the scope of federal power for promoting the general welfare, as set forth in the case of US v. Butler. Furthermore no law can be passed by congress which does not facilitate the exercise of the powers given either to congress or the other branches under articles 1, 2, and 3.
The only way around this is if one of the amendments to the constitution were interpreted by the SCOTUS as mandating some kind of affirmative action, or if a suit against the government resulted in a ruling that the US must undertake affirmative action programs in order to repay damages. Failing that, a new amendment could be passed to require it. Otherwise affirmative action lies with the states.


Gotta run. thanks for the input



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Forgive the late reply, I guess I accidentally ignored DTOM while I was responding to Rren.


Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
The web of big government is so tightly spun, I doubt the grip of big fed govt can be easily loosened.
Furthermore, too many people seem to want the federal government to take care of them.


Theoretically speaking, people can want the federal government to take care of them all day long, but until those people elect a sufficient portion of congress to amend the US Constitution, every single act of the federal government on their behalf could and should be stricken down by the US Supreme Court.

Practically speaking, the law of the land as I have explained it must actually be passed anew before the web of big government can be unravelled, because the current law has been too heavily undermined by precedent.

I believe the key to this lies in education- drawing attention to our ingenious constitution, which is essentially in exile at present, as the sollution to current problems. If people are educated about the relevance of this wonderful document to their everyday lives, whether in regards to their religious views, their sexual preference, their desire to use drugs, their discontent with any federal policy, their discontent with federal policy makers, or whatever issue on which their position might be advanced by the reimplementation of constitutional government, we will infact see them begin to elect first state legislators who will assert the independence of the states, then eventually federal legislators who will lay off of the states, and ultimately this could conceivably build enough momentum either that those in power respect the constitution and will abide by it, or if they do not they may find the opposition to their view so widespread, diverse, and formidable that they have no choice but to acquiesce to the demand for limited government with powers separated between state and federal governments in accordance with the constitution.




top topics



 
0

log in

join