Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks, every time I bring up this point I get a lot of positive feedback from a majority of conservative and middle of the road posters. I would like to hear some feedback from liberal posters, since conservatives typically already believe in the Tenth Amendment and would theoretically be on board with this type of compromise.
Oh, I'm sure everyone believes in the Tenth Amendment. It isn't like it's Santa Claus or something. The problem is that it is a residual statement. It reserves to the states or to the people only what's left over or still allowed after all the rest of what's in the Constitution has been duly taken into account. Like it or not, the Constitution was written to create a strong central government as an upgrade to the one that had so much trouble with even basic national functions under the Articles of Confederation. States ceded some sovereignty in its ratification and more still in passage of the 14th Amendment. We are not, as the result, some loose alliance or federation of 50 independent country-states, but a nation comprised of 50 member states, each owing certain responsibilities and obligations to the federal government of that nation. What Tenth Amendment fanatics typically want is simply to erase at least the last 250 years or so of our history.
Oh, I'm sure everyone believes in the Tenth Amendment. It isn't like it's Santa Claus or something. The problem is that it is a residual statement. It reserves to the states or to the people only what's left over or still allowed after all the rest of what's in the Constitution has been duly taken into account. Like it or not, the Constitution was written to create a strong central government as an upgrade to the one that had so much trouble with even basic national functions under the Articles of Confederation. States ceded some sovereignty in its ratification and more still in passage of the 14th Amendment. We are not, as the result, some loose alliance or federation of 50 independent country-states, but a nation comprised of 50 member states, each owing certain responsibilities and obligations to the federal government of that nation. What Tenth Amendment fanatics typically want is simply to erase at least the last 250 years or so of our history.
Regardless of your definition, I'm seeking to use the Tenth Amendment (or some future amendment) to provide a compromise so all ideologies can live in more peace instead of pushing their agenda when in power or fighting to get the other side out of power every two years. We'll have less to argue about if we can agree on a few basic federal govt responsibilities, and leave the rest to the states (or groups of states that band together to provide a service like single payer for liberal states that want it).
For example, I am fiscally conservative but that is how I was raised.
Socially I'm fairly libertarian to liberal with a huge dose of personal responsibility.
The problem is that there are many many people that really aren't liberal or conservative but THINK they are. They have fallen into a sort of party tribalism which is *generally* associated with liberalism or conservatism but in reality they will change their views on topics according to what the tribe tells them to think.
Example: anti-war used to be a liberal thing....until Obama got elected and many self-proclaimed libs suddenly weren't anti-war and a bunch of self proclaims conservatives suddenly started choking on the wars price tag.
So, it's a rather hard topic to tackle when in fairness a lot of people have no conviction in their claimed liberal or conservative beliefs.
The words "liberal" and "conservative" can mean a lot of different things. You can't expect one word to stand for a whole philosophy of life, yet people seem to think it can. The concepts of liberal and conservative in America today are really just tribal labels. There is the red tribe and the blue tribe, and they mutually distrust and dislike each other. Neither tribe makes an effort to understand the other.
Not in the slightest. It makes what I would otherwise take to be my inalienable Constitutional rights as an American and makes them subject to the whims of whatever 50%+1 local majority some band of yahoos can manage to whip up. Exactly such a strategy could, would, and repeatedly has been used to enforce discrimination and abrogate individual rights. Why would any rational person be interested in such a thing?
Not in the slightest. It makes what I would otherwise take to be my inalienable Constitutional rights as an American and makes them subject to the whims of whatever 50%+1 local majority some band of yahoos can manage to whip up. Exactly such a strategy could, would, and repeatedly has been used to enforce discrimination and abrogate individual rights. Why would any rational person be interested in such a thing?
What inalienable rights are you referring to? I've already stated that part of the federal government's role would still be to protect and enforce rights. I am not advocating for eliminating the federal government, I am suggesting we allow the government to do only what is constitutionally mandated and let the states keep a larger share their own tax dollars to engage in the social policies they deem important. This is much easier for us to all get along instead of having states and lobbyists fight for the feds to distribute our own money back to us.
People move around a lot these days...When people "invade" a new area or state they bring their agenda with them and push for changes in their new city and state that reflect "who they are" and "what they want" and "what they left behind." This doesn't always set well with the "oldtimers" and the existing residents of a city or state...Things can get "juggled around a lot" based on how many newcomers move into the area...We can be in a state of constant flux versus having things stay fixed.
What inalienable rights are you referring to?I've already stated that part of the federal government's role would still be to protect and enforce rights. I am not advocating for eliminating the federal government, I am suggesting we allow the government to do only what is constitutionally mandated and let the states keep a larger share their own tax dollars to engage in the social policies they deem important. This is much easier for us to all get along instead of having states and lobbyists fight for the feds to distribute our own money back to us.
Your view -- if that of the typical Tenth Amendment touter -- is a threat to the well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans. You lose any interest or support I might have offered at "a few basic federal govt responsibilities".
Much of all this disagreement that you can't seem to abide derives from direct attacks on Constitutional rights by fundamentalist religion. Most of us don't like fundamentalist religion on Sunday and wouldn't care for it on any of the other six days of the week either. Much of the rest derives from some Marlboro Man, self-made man, wild stallion roaming free across the open plains imagery that has somehow become stuck in some people's heads. They don't recall that they live in a society and are in fact pieces in a puzzle as the result. No way any of them should be in charge either.
As for lobbying, it too is a Constitutional right, and if money were to be somehow migrated from federal to state control, guess who would be coming along with that.
I do not believe it is born in to us what we will be. Most people, when young, are very liberal. (I mean kids.) They have fantasies of how great the world could be if....not realizing that the world is not as nice as they'd like to think it is. Unfortunately.
I think the deciding factor is based on personal experiences, experiencing the world, other parts of the country, other countries, other cultures and learning to think critically.
Some people believe everything they see on t.v. and in the papers. Some people never question anything. Some people don't bother to follow the money trail. (One should always ask, "who benefits from this..." follow the money trail, you find the truth. Do it with anything.) Some people do not understand that, "I believe..." or, "I think..." or, "I feel..." are not facts, they are opinions.
Some people base their opinions solely on the opinions of other people and never do any research at all.
Some people have no idea what they believe. They just go with what seems popular.
Some people don't even bother to learn about politics, how things work, what has been done in the past, voting records of those in office, what those politicians believe and stand for, etc.
Some times people are swayed simply by image and "charm". "Well, he talks good, he's very charming, I'm going to vote for him." Stupid reason to vote for someone.
But for those who DO take the time to educate themselves with reliable sources, (not wikipedia or blogs), and know what they believe in, follow along, have life experiences, have a heart, have a brain, know how to think critically and not take everything at face value, are going to figure out which side they agree with more often.
However, I do agree with another poster...one can be very conservative on some things and very liberal on others. Just because someone is conservative does not mean they are all conservative, all the time. Just because someone is liberal does not mean they are all liberal, all the time.
The people we need to watch out for are those who are extremists on either side of the spectrum. The ones who can find balance are the ones we can work with the best and find a happy medium. All of this takes time to develop, experience, and living. We can't know any of this when we are born.
So, no, I don't believe people are born one way or the other.
I haven't read all the posts, but I'm guessing they will have little to do with what I have to "contribute."
My dear aunt died several months ago. She lived in coastal North Carolina, where many people are still old-school democrats, and have been for generations. They're democrats because dad was because his dad was, etc. etc. That's just the way it is.
As family members were standing around talking after the funeral, I overheard the following statement: "I knew I was a democrat and a Methodist three months before I was born."
So, maybe that's not the scientific evidence you are looking for, but someone in Carteret County, NC is convinced his politics and his religion were pre-ordained.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
