States Rights

[imported_tss4]

I don't see why we just don't return to state's rights. Since, politcal views are so correlated to geographics regions, why not let the states decide issues like abortion, gun control, civil unions, etc. States in the north east and west coast could at their discretion restrict guns since they have to deal with more inner city violence, allow civil unions since that appears more popular there, and preserve the woman's right to choose. Those in the heartland and the south could also maintain thier values by restricting abortion how ever they see fit, not recognizing gay marriage, and preserving the right to bear arms. Federal legislation on these topics only seems to further divide the nation. I can see where hand guns are not the prelude to violent crine in rural areas that they are in inner cities and thus deserve less dangerous to society there . In fact some things like gun control could probably be handled more at the county level. It just seems that maybe we should all acknowledge we have different values and learn to live with each other. Federal legislation, Convervative or Liberal will just alienate one group or the other.

Any comments on why this would or would not work? Or why it may be good or bad for the country?

 

[b0mbrman]

My first impression is that I like this idea. Having lived in both American extremes, I don't see how anyone could even think that one all-encompassing set of laws and values could best serve all the people of the US.

My second is that I get the feeling this is how the founding fathers intended our republic to look like.

 

[MidasKnight]

Excellent post by you two.

 

[dmcowen674]

That doesn't work for the Religious Radicals, they have to have all or nothing.

 

[Thump553]

Ironically, states rights was a keystone concept of traditional GOP/conservative thought when they were the minority party and were upset by decisions from Washington (primarily those dealing with civil rights). Now that the GOP is controls Washington the party has totally abandoned that concept in favor of strengthening the central government to force states to do with Mr. Bush wants. Look, for example, at his strong efforts to force Massachusetts to abolish gay marriage.

The fact of the matter, however, is the the United States was founded as a confederation of otherwise independent states. United States was never designed to be a sole nation-state. Since the start of the twentieth century a high degree of centralization has been necessary for the US to function in the modern world, but the diversity and experimentation (not to mention freedoms) inherent in state rights should never be abandoned.

A similar concept that has been totally distorted in recent years has been the idea of strict construction of the Constitution. As presently followed by the Bush administration, strict construction means only that you must interpret the Constitution in the manner most convenient to Bush's doctrines. Core foundations of our Constitution, like seperation of church and state, state rights and, most importantly, that the government derives its power from the power (as opposed to the concept of the government granted its citizens certain rights) are run roughshod over.

Sometimes I think our political leaders need some basic lessons in civics, especially when they accuse fellow citizens of acting in an un-American manner.

 

[cwjerome]

"That doesn't work for the Religious Radicals, they have to have all or nothing."

Does anyone else here notice that cowen has become a one-note caricature? Dude, you've reached parody status. Every post in every topic is a one or two sentence slam against the evil Christians. You've always made your hate for those people clear, but since the election you've just been tweaking. :thumbsdown:

 

[Infohawk]

This probably won't work because any party that has a lot of power, like Republicans do now, will retreat from states rights and try to impose their will on the other half. The Dems did it and now the Repugs will do it. That said, we should advocate going in this direction. We are two countries and this would help bridge the gap.

 

[ciba]

Thump553, the GOP was never for State's rights except for when it suits them. The democrats have never been for state's rights either.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: tss4
I don't see why we just don't return to state's rights. Since, politcal views are so correlated to geographics regions, why not let the states decide issues like abortion, gun control, civil unions, etc.

Why do you think it is not that way right now?

Each state is free to permit or ban gay marriage.
Each state is free to permit CCW or limit gun ownership.

So pretty much the only thing you want to see changed is RvW overturned to allow states to decide if abortion should be allowed within their borders?

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
This probably won't work because any party that has a lot of power, like Republicans do now, will retreat from states rights and try to impose their will on the other half. The Dems did it and now the Repugs will do it. That said, we should advocate going in this direction. We are two countries and this would help bridge the gap.

Like brady


History didnt start this morning pal, dont try to impose your beliefs on me!

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: tss4
I don't see why we just don't return to state's rights. Since, politcal views are so correlated to geographics regions, why not let the states decide issues like abortion, gun control, civil unions, etc.

Why do you think it is not that way right now?

Each state is free to permit or ban gay marriage.
Each state is free to permit CCW or limit gun ownership.

So pretty much the only thing you want to see changed is RvW overturned to allow states to decide if abortion should be allowed within their borders?

Because its not that way right now. The Assault Weapon Ban was quite clearly an attempt at federalizing gun rights. A constitutional amendament banning gay marriage would clearly violate state's rights. Federalizing abortion restrictions, violates states rights. These are all issues that the Democrats and Republicans have taken positions on that violate states rights.

I'm actually for Roe vs wade. I'm just presenting a compromise that allows red states and blue states to stop feeling threatened by the others. I for one, want to allow abortion, restrict guns, and allow gay marriage. I don't want the Republicans to impose there will on me that I do not agree with. However, I'm betting they don't me to impose my will on them, either. This wouldn't work at all if we weren't so geographically devided. But since we are, this seems like a reasonable way for us to live in harmony and stop fighting amongst us. Then we can concentrate on issues that are universal to us all, like the War on Terror and the economy of our country.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: tss4
I don't see why we just don't return to state's rights. Since, politcal views are so correlated to geographics regions, why not let the states decide issues like abortion, gun control, civil unions, etc.

Why do you think it is not that way right now?

Each state is free to permit or ban gay marriage.
Each state is free to permit CCW or limit gun ownership.

So pretty much the only thing you want to see changed is RvW overturned to allow states to decide if abortion should be allowed within their borders?

Because people are free to travel across state lines. Say some one in a red neck state wants an abortion they would just have to take a quck drive north. Some one in NYC needs a gun well that is just a days drive away.

 

[ElFenix]

the northeastern states have forever thought that they should mess in other states' business. i don't think they'd go for it

 

[nageov3t]

maybe when Bush leaves office... the gay marriage constitutional amendment ban showed his total disregard for states' rights.

 

[OFFascist]

Funny how when the Democrats were in power they didnt thing much of states rights.

I'm sure now that they are the minority they will be all for it.

That being said I will still agree with states rights.

Alot of things the Fed government does should not be done, it should be up to the states.

 

[OFFascist]

Originally posted by: loki8481
maybe when Bush leaves office... the gay marriage constitutional amendment ban showed his total disregard for states' rights.

Well for an amendment to pass you need the majority of all of the people's representatives in Congress to go for it.

You would also need the majority of the people's representative's an overwhelming majority of states to go for it also.

I wouldn't say constitutional amendments violate states rights.

However laws such as the now dead Assault Weapon Ban were definately an infringement on states rights.

 

[eclavatar]

I am watching all these people ignorant of the Constitution amendedment process try and talk about state rights. If you have no idea how the process of government works, then why are you talking about it?

For a Constitutional amendment to pass it needs both halves legislature to pass it with two-thirds majority each. Then it goes to the states in which it needs three-fourths of the states.

States only get to preside over things that are not in the Consitution and Bill of Rights.

 

[lordtyranus]

Originally posted by: OFFascist

Originally posted by: loki8481
maybe when Bush leaves office... the gay marriage constitutional amendment ban showed his total disregard for states' rights.

Well for an amendment to pass you need the majority of all of the people's representatives in Congress to go for it.

You would also need the majority of the people's representative's an overwhelming majority of states to go for it also.

I wouldn't say constitutional amendments violate states rights.

However laws such as the now dead Assault Weapon Ban were definately an infringement on states rights.

I wouldn't be surprised if a gay marragie ban would pass in 38 states. We still have problems in congress though.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Any comments on why this would or would not work?

You can't get much more right wing then your proposal. If you honestly support the idea, check out the Libertarian party as that is the foundation of their political beliefs. I am not saying the Republicans are very represenative of the right at the moment, too many people around the States equate Republican with right wing and Democratic with left wing despite the fact that both parties fail to live up to their supposed leaning on numerous issues. The more localized/individualized you make government, the further you move towards the proper definition of conservative.

States only get to preside over things that are not in the Consitution and Bill of Rights.

That is worded a bit odd, anything not covered by the Constitution is a reserved right of the state. You make it sound like that covers a wide variety of issues when on realistic terms the fed is significantly beyond the level of powers the Constitution entitles them to(I'm not saying what you wrote was inaccurate, it just makes it sound like the powers that are supposed to be reserved to the state are considerably less then what they are).

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Any comments on why this would or would not work?

You can't get much more right wing then your proposal. If you honestly support the idea, check out the Libertarian party as that is the foundation of their political beliefs. I am not saying the Republicans are very represenative of the right at the moment, too many people around the States equate Republican with right wing and Democratic with left wing despite the fact that both parties fail to live up to their supposed leaning on numerous issues. The more localized/individualized you make government, the further you move towards the proper definition of conservative.

States only get to preside over things that are not in the Consitution and Bill of Rights.

That is worded a bit odd, anything not covered by the Constitution is a reserved right of the state. You make it sound like that covers a wide variety of issues when on realistic terms the fed is significantly beyond the level of powers the Constitution entitles them to(I'm not saying what you wrote was inaccurate, it just makes it sound like the powers that are supposed to be reserved to the state are considerably less then what they are).

Actually, you can get quite a bit more right wing than my proposal. My proposal still allows states to be very liberal if they so choose. It is most definately NOT libertarian as I do not propose that people be allowed to do what ever they want. I propose that regions (states) be allowed to express the popular view of the their people. Its basically a compromise with Republicans. Stay out of my affairs and I'll stay out of yours. Seems like it could go along ways towards reducing the hostility bewtween parts of the country. And I don't agree that all repubs would hate the idea since they are majority now. If that were the case, I think they'd be saying that in this thread.

I think that we are all the sum of our experiences. Being the minority can mature ones view. I don't think that realizing the merit of states rights makes me as a democratic hypocritical. It just means that with more experience I have reconsidered some of my views. Now, if I were to be against states rights the minute my party gets a majority again then you should feel free to point out my obvious hyprocricy.

 

[BenSkywalker]

It is most definately NOT libertarian as I do not propose that people be allowed to do what ever they want.

It is pretty much to the letter Libertarian, for some reason it seems that you equate that with Anarchist which is most certainly not the case. On the Federal level Libertarian's main goal is what you are proposing here.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: tss4
I don't see why we just don't return to state's rights. Since, politcal views are so correlated to geographics regions, why not let the states decide issues like abortion, gun control, civil unions, etc.

Why do you think it is not that way right now?

Each state is free to permit or ban gay marriage.
Each state is free to permit CCW or limit gun ownership.

So pretty much the only thing you want to see changed is RvW overturned to allow states to decide if abortion should be allowed within their borders?

Because people are free to travel across state lines. Say some one in a red neck state wants an abortion they would just have to take a quck drive north. Some one in NYC needs a gun well that is just a days drive away.

So? The guns are still banned or whatever in their state, so legally they shouldn't be there. And if we ban abortion they'll go to Canada for abortions.

I don't understand why this isn't the way now. Its clearly how the founding fathers wanted it, and it allows everyone to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Having all these issues become State's Rights issues is not the way to unify this country. The gay rights movement will be akin to the Civil Rights movement. First it will be met with ferocious resistance. Afterwards the Federal Government will have to step in and enforce national law, and after many long years the South will learn to accept it. Honestly, when has the South ever gotten their way? They've always been bitchslapped by our government, and I don't see gay rights as being any different.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Having all these issues become State's Rights issues is not the way to unify this country. The gay rights movement will be akin to the Civil Rights movement. First it will be met with ferocious resistance. Afterwards the Federal Government will have to step in and enforce national law, and after many long years the South will learn to accept it. Honestly, when has the South ever gotten their way? They've always been bitchslapped by our government, and I don't see gay rights as being any different.

You are absolutely delusional as usual sudsy. Look at the maps, it was not the south that took this election, it was pretty much everywhere but the coasts. I dont equate same sex marriage with the civil rights movement and from everything Ive read niether do the leaders of that movement.


You really need to decide of you are for or against states rights. It seem as though you are for em if they go your way but against if you do not agree.

Myself Im beginning to believe that being in close proximity to salt water takes away all sense of reason and warps peoples minds.

 

[Steeplerot]

Posted by Nutxo:
Myself Im beginning to believe that being in close proximity to salt water takes away all sense of reason and warps peoples minds.

And being isolated and out of touch in the middle of nowhere tends to make your mind complacient, lazy and uncultured and a prefect victim for funda-headcases kool-aid. We can go on with this forever hehe