It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Bill of Rights...structural, and emphasises States' Rights. The Feds are too powerful!

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 07:13 AM
Your arguments are somewhat self-diffusing and self-assuming.

Your welcome to sit by my pool anytime too! Got the grill going also!
Kick your shoes off,...sit a spell.
(and I didn't even suggest 'see-ment pond'

But quite the contrary, laws SHOULD change from state to state. This way they will reflect the regional sentiments of the populations within these states.

And of course there are plenty of wonderfully intelligent and sober politicians on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. (alot of sarcasm there).

The Bill of Rights is for everybody and state legislators shouldn't be allowed to mess with them at all.

Tenth Amendment..... you are right, it is for all citizens,...and the states do not mess with them, they are the USA guideline to the 'legal-issue' borders.

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.


posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 01:09 PM
The Federal rights of individuals as enumerated by the bill of rights are usurped not only by many of the 50 state, they are also usurped by local governments as well.

Laws Should Be The Same In All States

Example: Why should how my auto is manufactured be legal in one state and not the other? I should not need to sell my car when I move to another state, because one state has restrictive laws. (california)

Example: Why should my right to carry a gun change when I travel from one locality to the another in the same state? Ignorance of the law is no excuse we are told. I would argue that their is no excuse for ignorant and variable laws.

Example: Virgina restricts the user of police radar/laser detectors when passing through the state. Everyone is not aware of these laws and they should not have to be aware of it, but none-the-less they can still be punished under these laws.

Example: Why should Gay marriage be allowed in one state and not the other? A gay couple's travel is also restricted by these so called 'states rights' as some states refuse to recognize the marriage.

America should not be a bunch of 50 banana republics each with its own group petty fiefdoms, it is a single country and the same laws should be reflected over the entire country. States rights is a fools fantasy, it always has been and always will be.

State and Local Governments Usurp Individual Rights

The federally protected rights enumerated in the bill of rights are not federally protected at all and are in fact blantantly usurped by the creep of state and local government without a peep from the federal government.
1--Where is the federal government when local official pass ordinances restricting the rights of people to peaceably by requiring permits to assemble, by dictating the location that people may assemble and bys specifying the number of people assembled.

2--We have local and state governments passing a wide variety of gun laws including complete prohibition of gun possession in some areas. No federal government in sight.

3--We have local and state government making random stops and conducting all manner of random search with no probable cause and often with no search warrant. Still no federal government.

4--We have states and local government depriving people of their property without due process via various drunk driver laws and drug laws. Nope no feds here either.

5--Various states deprive one of the ownership of property by requiring individuals to carry auto insurance by state law. This is an illegal tax when required by government. Still no feds.

Saying that individuals can challenge these issues in court is poppycock, when the people are poor, or when the assets they can use to mount a challenge are seized by the state and local government. As I said previously, this is a conspiracy between all levels of government to enslave the populace in a confusing mess of contradictory laws.

Federal Laws

I have no problem curtailing federal laws. I want to see federal laws, state laws and local laws all curtailed for the purpose of protecting individual rights. The tyranny flowing in this cesspool of laws goes in both directions. The states rights issue is completely bogus, laws are to protect individuals, not to protect the rights of soulless states and locality.

God Save America, The Politicians Won't

PS: I done with thread.

[edit on 14-7-2004 by df1]

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:03 PM

Laws Should Be The Same In All States

Then why even have states,..or even a constitution that provides them individual rights. After all we all have exactly the same ideals, dont we.

Example 1

Like LA needs to go back to having a massive cloud of smog hanging over the city.

Example 2

Possibly becouse NYC doesnt want the upstate yahoo's bringing in the firepower when going for a night on the town.

Example 3

But every motorist driving into Virginia should be able to see those Big Blue signs at the borders stating the facts of this law, that are at least 4 times the size of the speed limit signs. Maybe they would just prefer you drive reasonably safe, instead of playing 'hide from the radar' while blowing thru towns.

Example 4

Nobody restricts anybody's interstate travel in the US unless you are a felon. And almost all states refuse to recognise gay marriage. This is slowly changing apparently, starting with Calif. and Mass.

And all your other examples are obviously flawed, and no feds becouse the restrictions automatically fall within the constitution. It is not the feds right to force law upon the states, beyond the Bill of Rights. Although some of your examples can be effectively argued in both directions, and I support/refuse-to-support many of them, independantly.

Your words besmirch the good name of the man in your avatar, as he opposed a strong centralized Government and championed the rights of states.

PS: I done with thread.

...means more grits for me then.

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 02:12 PM
Your states rights are of no consequence if you have little or no Constitutional rights. You really dont even need civil rights. Your rights are contained in "the Supreme Law of the Land". As long as a state does not impede on the Constitution, or the constitution of the state, then there is not a problem. The problem is there is no unity. Everyone is passing a law that the minute you cross a line the next state may flip it. It's somewhat idiotic and it complicates the progression of the nation as a whole. Each state is like a body part of the whole. When you have them out of whack the body doesn't function properly.

[edit on 7/14/2004 by MOOR45]

posted on Jul, 14 2004 @ 05:07 PM
df1 sorry to explain to you but the Bill of Rights is not a list of individual Rights. The states (being that they can regulate the militias) can regulate which weapons you are allowed to have, this has been supported by the courts even before the Civil War.

Most of your reasoning is based off a lack of knowledge of history which I may explain better at a later date.

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in