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.

 

How far do you support States' Rights?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Well, I suppose what I support is as much freedom as possible then. It wouldn't make any difference to me whether a law was federal, state or local if it invaded my privacy or took legal rights from me: I'd be pissed any way.


Not every law which restricts you personally is pointless though. The entire operating principle of a code of laws is that the majority of the population is willing to be restricted in order to be protected from the effects of the restricted activity.

If there was a law that truly affected only the individual, with not consequent benefit to society, for example a law saying that everyone must clip their toenails on the 1st and 3rd sunday of a month and report to the police station for nail inspection, under penalty of being made to watch an NSYNC video, they're well out of their league and you ought to be quite annoyed.

Other laws infringing your rights simply wouldn't be constitutional, and nobody is proposing that we simply shift those kinds of laws down to the state level. Suppose there is another terrorist attack, and they pass a bigger, even less constitutional version of the patriot act which deprives you of legal representation or the right to remain silent. That can't pass and stand on any level, federal or otherwise (in theory anyway- truth be told America scares the hell out of me sometimes.)

Other laws are inconvenient because we are in the minority of people who did not desire to trade that restriction for its protection. For example, they could outlaw eating fast food or using cellphones in a moving vehicle in hopes of cutting down on car accidents. Now, if you ask me, this is sort of a nanny-state thing- it has the stench of irresponsible midget-socialist political activists, but it's not necessarily a "bad" law- just one that I don't think ought to be passed. These are the kind of laws we want decided on a state by state basis, or perhaps even at a lower level in some cases, because 1. It makes the answer appropriate to your local situation. 2. It gives you the option of moving to a place where your views are in the majority. 3. It makes it easier for you to do the grass roots thing and make a difference in your own area, because you don't have to reach the whole country.

Uncompromising is a very easy position to take when it comes to laws, but barring the outbreak of total anarchy we may as well consider what sort of happy medium can be achieved. I think pushing decisions to the lower levels is one way to do that.




posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Not every law which restricts you personally is pointless though. The entire operating principle of a code of laws is that the majority of the population is willing to be restricted in order to be protected from the effects of the restricted activity.


Yeah, don't get me wrong: stealing, killing, etc. is wrong and you should never have to worry about these sorts of things, or on a lesser scale, maybe someone not paying attention on the road and ramming you head-on, as you suggest. I agree that should be a more state/local thing. But what it mean is that our freedoms should be left as unrestricted as possible, given that they should also not allow us to affect others in any harmful way without consequence.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
So long as a state abides by the bill of rights and the rest of the constitution, then i support states rights 100%. I feel nothing is more dangerous to this country than strong centralized government weilding its will over the rest of the country, which is too diverse to fall under one single rule of law.

States rights all the way.



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join