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.
But you can't say you're for states rights one minute and then say you want a constitutional amendment five minutes later. Well, you could, but it makes one look stupid.
No, I can be for a constitutional amendment and still be for States' Rights. States' Rights was always an issue of constitutionality of jurisdiction. Not a matter of being completely unattached.
If you look at the history of States' Rights, it was about whether or not the federal government had authority to regulate things like slavery. Things like the Northwest ordinance, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even the actual origins of States' Rights in the Kentucky and Virginian resolutions(which were against the Alien and sedition acts). It was always about constitutionality, in that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional mandate, and that it was the States' responsibility to prevent despotism of the Federal Assembly.
The concept behind the amendment process is that, it takes far more than a majority to make an amendment. The intent was to create a sort of almost unanimous nature to any change to the constitution. There are going to be times where practically all Americans will agree on something, and they should have the authority to pass that amendment. And the truth is, a gay-marriage amendment simply will not pass, so it doesn't matter.
My only actual complaint when it comes to the constitution itself, comes from a combination of a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause(far beyond what the framers had intended), and the illegal 14th amendment(which would be the legal foundation for forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage).
Rick Perry is a flipping ignoramus and hypocrite...just perfect to represent the Tea Baggers and the rest of the GOP in the coming years.
A similar article was posted on CNN the other day, where he [Perry] said that marriage was completely and utterly a states rights issue, a la New York last month. I believe he said he was happy states can maintain that sovereignty.
Then it came spewing out.
He's only for states' rights when it suits him or his ilk Christian terrorists Fundamentalists. Then all bets are off.
I like more that the article cited states he appointed a Creationist believing biology teacher as Chairwoman.
Hypocrisy I guess runs deep in the heart of Texas.
____
If you love America and reason [and many of us LOVE both, and can rectify both] we need to remove Texas from this nation. Heck 'Perry dog' wants that anyway.
No, I can be for a constitutional amendment and still be for States' Rights. States' Rights was always an issue of constitutionality of jurisdiction. Not a matter of being completely unattached.
If you look at the history of States' Rights, it was about whether or not the federal government had authority to regulate things like slavery. Things like the Northwest ordinance, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even the actual origins of States' Rights in the Kentucky and Virginian resolutions(which were against the Alien and sedition acts). It was always about constitutionality, in that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional mandate, and that it was the States' responsibility to prevent despotism of the Federal Assembly.
The concept behind the amendment process is that, it takes far more than a majority to make an amendment. The intent was to create a sort of almost unanimous nature to any change to the constitution. There are going to be times where practically all Americans will agree on something, and they should have the authority to pass that amendment. And the truth is, a gay-marriage amendment simply will not pass, so it doesn't matter.
My only actual complaint when it comes to the constitution itself, comes from a combination of a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause(far beyond what the framers had intended), and the illegal 14th amendment(which would be the legal foundation for forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage).
Okay, I will think about what you've said. Thanks for the rational explanation.
Maybe I don't speak for all States' Rights people, but I feel like its more an issue of the constitution than anything.
In regards to States' Rights today, what are the issues? Things like freedom of speech(California law that prohibited the sale of violent games to minors), which the Supreme Court only has jurisdiction because of the illegally ratified 14th amendment. Another issue is Gun Rights, which again is directly related to the 14th amendment. Freedom of Religion, such as the building of Mosques, also related to the 14th amendment. Abortion rights? 14th amendment. Immigration and birthright citizenship? 14th amendment(which created US citizenship). Anti-discrimination laws and affirmative-action? A combination of a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause and the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Texas's anti-sodomy laws? 14th amendment. Same-sex marriage? 14th amendment. Healthcare overall? Liberal interpretation of the commerce clause. Illegal drugs? Commerce clause.
The only issue that doesn't fall under the 14th amendment or commerce clause umbrella, would be our constant wars all over the world, and the federal reserve/debt situation.
If you could force the Supreme Court to stop following the "Dormant Commerce Clause" theory that they pulled out of their asses. And then stop acknowledging that the illegally ratified 14th amendment even exists. I feel like that is sufficient to fix many of the problems we have today.
No, I can be for a constitutional amendment and still be for States' Rights. States' Rights was always an issue of constitutionality of jurisdiction. Not a matter of being completely unattached.
If you look at the history of States' Rights, it was about whether or not the federal government had authority to regulate things like slavery. Things like the Northwest ordinance, the Missouri Compromise, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even the actual origins of States' Rights in the Kentucky and Virginian resolutions(which were against the Alien and sedition acts). It was always about constitutionality, in that the federal government was overstepping its constitutional mandate, and that it was the States' responsibility to prevent despotism of the Federal Assembly.
The concept behind the amendment process is that, it takes far more than a majority to make an amendment. The intent was to create a sort of almost unanimous nature to any change to the constitution. There are going to be times where practically all Americans will agree on something, and they should have the authority to pass that amendment. And the truth is, a gay-marriage amendment simply will not pass, so it doesn't matter.
My only actual complaint when it comes to the constitution itself, comes from a combination of a liberal interpretation of the commerce clause(far beyond what the framers had intended), and the illegal 14th amendment(which would be the legal foundation for forcing the states to recognize same-sex marriage).
No, there is a very clear difference between saying:
"I think individual states should get to decide X",
and saying:
"I think Congress and at least 3/4ths of states should be able to force up to 1/4 of states to do X"
The latter contradicts the former. They are not compatible.
It's okay to admit that Perry flip-flopped. All politicians do it -- pretending otherwise is silly. The politicians you like and the politicians I like have all done it and, if they're still in office, will do it again.
I think that's a bizarre thing to say, although it's certainly not the first time I've seen that strange conclusion being drawn. The anti-gay crowd often likes to draw parallels between same-sex marriage and an endorsement of anal sex. What perverted minds they have.
Relax.
We'll elect another governor from Texas right after we vote in another first-term senator from Illinois.
There is no consensus for adding a DOMA to the Constitution. Of course that would change overnight if same-sex marriage were forced on us by new legislation from the SCOTUS.
No, there is a very clear difference between saying:
"I think individual states should get to decide X",
and saying:
"I think Congress and at least 3/4ths of states should be able to force up to 1/4 of states to do X"
The latter contradicts the former. They are not compatible.
It isn't quite the same. A country must have some kind of basic function, otherwise it isn't a country. Everyone acknowledges that the federal government should have some power. Even States' Rights enthusiasts will recognize that the federal government has certain things it needs to be doing. Even if it is nothing more than a free travel/trade system, or a tied monetary system, or military, etc.
The issue seems to have more to do with the limits of what power the federal government should wield. The issue of "States' rights" comes from Madison and Jefferson writing the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, which basically stated that the federal government passed acts that were unconstitutional and totally against the principles of the constitution. And so it was the duty of the states to ignore these acts as being forms of a federal tyranny.
Coincedently, after the Alien and sedition acts were passed in 1798. The ruling federalist party was thoroughly trounced in the 1800 elections by Jefferson and Madison. And would remain effectively out of power for a quarter century. And the Alien and sedition acts were repealed, and it was later shown that they would have been unconstitutional.
If you actually look at the history of States' rights after that period, all the way up to the Civil War. You will notice it is always about whether or not Congress was acting within the authority or intention of the constitution. It was not about preventing the federal government from functioning within its agreed mandate.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson(the founder of States' Rights) stopped the Atlantic slave-trade without too much opposition.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 07-30-2011 at 08:45 PM..
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.
