I tend to lean to the right

[thraashman]

Assuming you are talking about marriage, then the federal government should propose a constitutional amendment banning discriminating same sex marriages. Until them, its a states rights issue.

Well in the current situation it IS restricted to states determining. I don't like that because it allows a restriction of rights to be voted on in many states. And I DO believe the federal government should rule on it, but I don't think it requires an amendment as interracial marriage didn't require an amendment.

 

[ElFenix]

Babies are born.

And no person, born or unborn, as it were, has a right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with foreign hormones and waste without that person's explicit consent.

Facts to republicans are like crucifixes to vampires.

so you don't intend the natural consequences of your actions?

 

[nakedfrog]

Would you support a brother and sister having the right to marry? Two brothers? A father and a son? Just curious if you feel there should be any limitations on marriage, or open season for all.

Is it actually illegal for a brother and sister to get married?

 

[Red Dawn]

I don't advocate either abortion or homos marrying.

Except in your parents case.

 

[Tristicus]

Except in your parents case.

You must really love me.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

so you don't intend the natural consequences of your actions?

I owe no duties to parties that don't exist when I perform acts which are not negligent.

 

[nick1985]

I don't advocate either abortion or homos marrying.

ok?

 

[Kappo]

We are a nation now, and states are a relic of the past, a relic we will preserve in name. But the fact is that the better California gets the more people screwed over by donkeys elsewhere come here. A camel can't offer free rides or else it will be crushed by the weight of thousands. The backward imbecility of the defeated and now self hating South destroys everyone. The nation can't prosper with an infected colon and so all the healthier states have to send antibodies to the feds to stomp our the infection.

There is nothing a contagion carrier hates and fears more than quarantine. Such is the nature of an infected asshole that he's reluctant to shit, but if you don't shit there'll be no pudding.

Wow, bigot much?

 

[Tristicus]

ok?

Ok?

 

[ccbadd]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

What business does the government have identifying people as married or not, just treat them all as individuals and let marriage be dealt with by the individuals.

 

[ElFenix]

I owe no duties to parties that don't exist when I perform acts which are not negligent.

nice dodge

 

[Fern]

See my edit above (the last paragraph). The democrats have a far looser hold on their members. Plenty of democrats vote against the party on pretty much ANY issue. There is a pretty vast difference in the way the parties address their varied members.

With the GOP, you pretty much have to sign a document saying that you'll vote with them on all issues otherwise you won't get a dime in campaign funds.

With the Democrats, the diversity is encouraged.

The difference is almost like comparing the freedoms of a democracy to a dictatorship. Sure, both have varied members, but in one case, you are far freer to express your differences.

To me, that is the single biggest problem with the current GOP. There are no strong ties that link them together. Can you give me one valid reason why these must happen?

If you want lower taxes, why must you be pro-life?
If you want pro-life, why must you be pro-NRA?
If you are pro-NRA, why must you be anti-gay rights?
If you are anti-gay rights, why must you be for a smaller federal government?
If you are for a smaller federal government, why must you be pro-military?
If you are pro-military, why must you be in favor of lower taxes?

Yet, the GOP essentially requires any politician to link ALL of the topics or be banished. The GOP gets its power, not from a group of united individuals, but instead from an iron fist controlling disparate groups. That tactic worked in the 1990s, but it cannot and will not work forever. The GOP really must fix that problem, or they will eventually fall apart.

The democrats may be weaker (see the health care debacle with strong majorities in house, senate, and presidency), but the personal freedoms they allow their members will eventually win if the GOP doesn't address their discontinuities.

You overstate the case, me thinks.

There was a draft statement of Repub party principals circulated (and reported on). We had a thread on it here.

It listed 10 principals/policies and it was suggested a candidate needed to agree with at least 8 of the 10. I don't see a problem with that, however, AFAIK, nothing has come of the proposal.

Link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/11/23/2134917.aspx

Otherwise, there are GOP members who are strong on the 2nd, but are not "anti-gay rights" (IIRC, McCain has the same position on that as Obama)

There are also members who are pro-choice, but do want some restrictions such as those on late-term abortions.

And as for smaller federal government, IMO they are almost all a disappointment as far as that principal goes. I would say that they are just for a fed gov that's smaller than the one the Dems want.

BTW: Try being a pro-life Democrat and getting allowed on the platform to speak during the convention. The Dems certainly don't seem to be tolerant of this sort of "personal freedom" within their party. And judging by many P&N members, they aren't very tolerant of any Dem who won't vote the party line on HC etc. They are derided as being 'hicks" etc.

Fern

 

[Fern]

yet I cannot understand many other rightie's stance on marriage/abortion.

I feel that the Constitution doesn't deal with civil issues such as these, so these issues should be up to the states. If a state wants to ban abortion and only allow for man/woman marriages, then thats great. If a state wants to allow abortion and allow for homosexual marriages, them thats fantastic as well, I love seeing the 10th amendment being used.

/shrug

I thought most on the right shared your views as stated above.

Otherwise, I thought the 'righty' view was that these two items should be determined by vote, rather than unilateral court action.

Also, should Roe v Wade ever be overturned all it does is return the decision to the states. It will not outlaw abortion as so many on the left falsely claim.

Fern

 

[CrackRabbit]

I thought most on the right shared your views as stated above.

Otherwise, I thought the 'righty' view was that these two items should be determined by vote, rather than unilateral court action.

Also, should Roe v Wade ever be overturned all it does is return the decision to the states. It will not outlaw abortion as so many on the left falsely claim.

Fern

You are correct, it would not outlaw abortion.
But it would create a giant clusterfuck when some states outlaw it and others don't.
This type of situation is what I was trying to show where an overarching federal law/rule can keep things running more smoothly than a bunch of states acting unilaterally.

 

[nick1985]

You are correct, it would not outlaw abortion.
But it would create a giant clusterfuck when some states outlaw it and others don't.
This type of situation is what I was trying to show where an overarching federal law/rule can keep things running more smoothly than a bunch of states acting unilaterally.

The problem is when an overarching federal law isnt a power congress has.

 

[CrackRabbit]

The problem is when an overarching federal law isnt a power congress has.

That is why they overuse the interstate commerce clause.
I'm not saying that the overuse of it is right, but in certain circumstances it become necessary for the good of the nation of have to have everything run smoothly.

 

[werepossum]

On abortion: No problem. Leave it up to the states. That's why Roe v. Wade should be repealed.

I'm opposed to gay marriage, but if it were enacted by state legislatures, I'd shut up and accept it. For me, democracy trumps all. Oligarchy should not.

To me, freedom trumps all. I think neither the states nor the federal government should impede a woman's right to abort her baby up until that baby (a genetically unique individual) is viable outside the womb, nor should they be in the business of deciding who can and can't marry.

 

[Kappo]

You are correct, it would not outlaw abortion.
But it would create a giant clusterfuck when some states outlaw it and others don't.
This type of situation is what I was trying to show where an overarching federal law/rule can keep things running more smoothly than a bunch of states acting unilaterally.

Along that same line, giving one person all the power for all the decisions would "keep things running more smoothly". The point is not what is easier, it is what is right.

 

[Tsavo]

I lean to the right but dress to the left.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Along that same line, giving one person all the power for all the decisions would "keep things running more smoothly". The point is not what is easier, it is what is right.

But we don't have one person deciding everything. We use our own values elect people to represent us.

Your value of "what is right" may be different from mine, or Joe Blow's.

 

[Kappo]

But we don't have one person deciding everything. We use our own values elect people to represent us.

Your value of "what is right" may be different from mine, or Joe Blow's.

True, but the issue you are commenting on is "Well, they are overreaching their bounds". Sorry, saying that it's easier so we should just do it now, despite it being wrong, is not the way to go.

I actually don't think abortion should be illegal, but it really should be left up to the state.

 

[BoberFett]

It's not so much that everyone live the same way its to make life easier if you were to travel from state to state. The ability of rapid travel that has come about in the past century have made some state laws almost moot in point.

Lets use CCW as an example. You live in state A, this state has laws making it easy to have a CCW. You know that your state has a reciprocation agreement with most other sates that makes your CCW permit good there.
You travel via car to state B, state B has a bunch of gun hating people in its legislative body and unbeknown to you repealed it's reciprocation agreement.

You get pulled over for speeding, and the officer asks if you have any weapons. You volunteer your CCW and are promptly arrested on weapons charges.

An overarching federal law forcing universal CCW reciprocation could of prevented it.

Overarching government is the same as overbearing government. Take drug laws for example. The feds have made them universal in the US and turned them into a clusterfuck. Drugs that turn people into zombies but are produced by massive corporations which donate money to politicians are fine, while smoking a little grass to relax is punishable, even while the calls for legalization are growing.

The further government gets from the people the less representative it is and the more likely to abuse the people it's supposed to represent. Government should be as close to the people as possible. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

 

[BoberFett]

Babies are born.

And no person, born or unborn, as it were, has a right to occupy the body of another person, forcibly respirate and extract nutrients from that person's bloodstream, and inject that person with foreign hormones and waste without that person's explicit consent.

Facts to republicans are like crucifixes to vampires.

I'm pro-choice and even I'm rolling my eyes at you, asshole.

You don't seem to know what the word "fact" means you dumbfuck.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Overarching government is the same as overbearing government. Take drug laws for example. The feds have made them universal in the US and turned them into a clusterfuck. Drugs that turn people into zombies but are produced by massive corporations which donate money to politicians are fine, while smoking a little grass to relax is punishable, even while the calls for legalization are growing.

The further government gets from the people the less representative it is and the more likely to abuse the people it's supposed to represent. Government should be as close to the people as possible. Sorry if that's inconvenient for you.

Yes, the federal drug laws are a clusterfuck, but they are a consistent clusterfuck.
Change needs to come at the Federal level. The legalization initiative on the ballot in California is going to create a bigger mess than the medical MJ laws that are in place now.
If it passes you can have up to an ounce of MJ on you at any time, that is fine and dandy but you can't leave the state with it.
This can (and probably will) create a Marijuana tourism industry. You can come in smoke as much as you want and leave. All good and well until you realize that people will try to take some home.
The moment you get caught outside of California with weed you're fucked. You know that Arizona, Nevada and Oregon (ok maybe not Oregon) will have cops on the border waiting to bust these tourist leaving the state. And the TSA will just LOVE to sort through your luggage if you try to fly out with it.

A personal note: I personally think that most recreational drugs should be legal to have and use. As a California resident I am unsure how I feel about the initiative to to legalize possession of it within the state due to the scenario I made above.

 

[LunarRay]

Well that sounds about right to me but I can't really extend the discussion because I'm ignorant. I don't know what judicial traditions exist and I don't therefore know what a classical federalist is. Too bad my buddy LunarRay doesn't post much as he has interests in these matters and knows stuff.

I argued with him that judges interpret the law according to the law. I say they read the law according to emotional feelings and he says they have to put those aside and decide strictly on the law. Hehe, at least that's what I think he said. I am pretty sure what I said is what I believe. But it could be that because the sun is out after a nice rain I'm just feeling emotionally cheery.

Moonster, SCOTUS are suppose to have looked to the Constitution to derive their opinions. They were suppose to have been doing that since we adopted our form of government. Now then... Assuming they have, decisions flowing from that basis should have changed only to the extent the Constitution had been amended. I'm not too sure how they could have managed to opine as they have over the years and be true to the task at hand... They DO use their Political and Emotional bias to opine and that is wrong, imo. How can they sit there and fall sharply on the side of an issue that follows the obvious Political Agenda they support and still look in the judicial mirror?

As I see it, if it don't say it clearly it don't be so. Remember, the Constitution started out being a limit on the Central Government until the 14th tied the States into the mix and what Hamilton wanted came to pass.

The only aspect that is a given and although not explicit in the Constitution are the Fundamental Rights of Humankind... They are Axiomatic and without question the basis for the creation of the Government in the first place... But yet we've had to Amend to free the Slave make him a citizen and give him the vote... I can't imagine having to Amend to do that but there it is... Some 50ish years later we got around to woman folk... (by Amending again) And still the ERA goes by the wayside...

We is a funny lot!!