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.
if you believe in the rights of the individual, you are not left leaning. leftists seem to favor collectivist rights over individual liberty. nevertheless, this is off topic.
I disagree with your opinion that a liberal/progressive doesn’t put an individual over state or even above the nation. On the issue of collectivism, however, the disagreement wouldn’t be quite as clear because it isn’t just liberals that choose to live in a society under a banner, at state level or nation. Being an American makes you and me, under many common goals, a flag, anthem, government… very much proponents of collectivism.
Quote:
i'm referring to the rights of states to make most of their own laws and fund all of their institutions etc. so, drug laws, medical, food, financial regulation, bankruptcy etc. fund their own schools, roads, public transport, etc
You’re proving my point, once again. You’re about state’s rights. I favor individual rights. Most states today are larger than the nation was at its foundation. The problems that were seen at federal level then, apply today to state level as well. But, the constitution and consequently the government, exists for the people, not for federal or state boundaries.
And your argument makes no sense as states do have the authority (sometimes oppressive against the people) to frame and execute their own laws, while the federal government provides a baseline, an umbrella. Take health care reform, for example. It allows states to meet federal goals in any way they choose. Some states have chosen to explore single payer system, others can go about devising theirs. Why do you think that is a bad idea?
Perhaps you think the model, under Articles of Confederation where states were virtually free of anything, was better in that they had no accountability to the federal government? Why do you think the article of confederation was replaced with the US constitution?
Bankruptcy for example. You don't want people avoiding debts by fleeing to a state where they can't be touched. It's good thing that we have a consistent, single law on the subject.
Excuse me but, there are many different exemptions between the states - for instance, the homestead exemption - some states have an unlimited exemption while others have a specific dollar exemption.
When the Constitution was passed, it was because there was, under the Articles of Confederation, a weak Federal govt. and it did not work. President Washington supported a strong Federal govt. Jefferson left the cabinet due to this disagreement. Meanwhile Washington forged ahead with the nationalization of the lighthouses (OMG was Washington a socialist?) and establising a strong central bank. And the Federal govt assumed the debts of the states.
Excuse me but, there are many different exemptions between the states - for instance, the homestead exemption - some states have an unlimited exemption while others have a specific dollar exemption.
A uniform federal law on bankruptcies is a requirement per the constitution. No?
Leftist and liberal do not mean the same thing, necessarily.
But try telling that to a Republican talking point dispenser and see how far you get.
Every state already has their own laws. There are just some areas where it makes more sense to have a single, consistent national law.
Bankruptcy for example. You don't want people avoiding debts by fleeing to a state where they can't be touched. It's good thing that we have a consistent, single law on the subject.
leftist, liberal, you're just arguing semantics here. i could classify myself as a classical liberal but most would draw the wrong conclusion. we all know what was meant by eg's post.
it might make sense to you. i disagree, going to a different state should be like going to another country, except you should be free to do so.
the example on bankruptcy is wrong. different states have different bankruptcy laws and many people have jumped states to avoid their possessions being repo'd.
racism is a really tired excuse to let the federal govt get away with everything.
So you're not a fan of civil rights, I take it. Well that would explain why you want the 10th revived.
I could just as well have posted a religious example. I think you just missed the point entirely.
We already fought a long and bloody war over what the meaning of the 10th amendment was, and the right side won. After the war, we amended the Constitution to make sure we didn't have to deal with that kind of nonsense ever again.
Why on EARTH would you want to roll back such progress?
Quote:
unfortunately we live in a very polarized country. half of the country wants the fed govt to pay for healthcare, the other half not. half of the country wants gay marriage, the other not, half of the country want pot legalized the other not. i could go on all day. the reality is that this ends many arguments, because you can ultimately vote with your feet. this one size fits all approach makes for a very unhappy citizenry.
I don't think you grasp the kind of legal and economic chaos you are promoting.
Quote:
on the topic of interracial marriage do you really think that were it not for the 14th amendment, you still would not be able to marry outside of your race?
Yes, absolutely. Virginia had to have its law overturned by the SCOTUS. Alabama had to have it's segregation laws overturned by the SCOTUS.
I think you don't really have a good understanding of how constitutional rights and civil rights work - they are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Basically you are arguing against the 14th amendment, and you're wrong for all the reasons its opponents were wrong in 1868.
Quote:
really? that is a load of nonsense and you know it. some states might have been a bit slow in the uptake, but eventually they'll all get it.
I've been in court enough to know you are completely wrong about this stuff. We still have cases on civil rights issues. If we didn't have the 14th and its effect on the 10th, we'd have a lot more.
You really don't seem to realize what you are asking for here.
Excuse me but, there are many different exemptions between the states - for instance, the homestead exemption - some states have an unlimited exemption while others have a specific dollar exemption.
Which is part of my point.
States have their own laws already in most areas, so where is the motivation to revive the 10th?
leftist, liberal, you're just arguing semantics here. i could classify myself as a classical liberal but most would draw the wrong conclusion. we all know what was meant by eg's post.
Is a nation an example of collectivism, and you a part of it? Is state an example of collectivism? Is identifying self with ANY group, political, economic, social, religious, cultural, employment or whatever an example of collectivism? You bet! And you're a collectivist without the guts to accept that reality.
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.
