Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-28-2011, 04:11 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,795 posts, read 7,258,076 times
Reputation: 5194

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Ok...



Well that's fascinating come on the heels of your opening statement considering that the rights of indentured white people (Celts excepted in some jurisdictions from the definition of white free or other wise), non-property owners, women, or persons of African descent simply didn't exist and sure as hell weren't acknowledge by a goodly number of the "founding fathers".



Great stuff for a pamphlet, not much practical meaning or grounds in reality.
See above post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-28-2011, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
37,641 posts, read 21,786,598 times
Reputation: 13592
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs View Post
i don't see why this cannot be done. imo the common market in europe was hugely successful. the problems started when they insisted on legislating from brussels as we today dictate from dc.

texans want californian kids to be taught creationism and californians want texan kids to be taught evolution. new yorkers want universal health, new hampshire citizens want free market care. why not give the states the power to govern themselves instead of forcing everyone to accept federal rule. the feds can look after defense (not offense btw), and leave the rest up to states.
Agreed, this statist agenda of all decisions on all things must come from the federal government in Washington DC, is the wrong direction for the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2011, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,879,373 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post


Another victim of public education!

Do you even understand what sovereign means?

In its simplest meaning, it is ownership. Being sovereign means, you have ownership of yourself, your own life, you are not the property of anyone else.

A subject by contrast, is the property of their King. They enjoy only what privilege the king chooses to allow them.

Our States are not sovereign, and neither is the Federal government. They derive whatever power they have from the people.
The people are sovereign.
No government official is superior to a citizen. No citizen can be judged by the government; only by their equals, other citizens.
Any power not specifically given to government directly by the people, is retained by the people, from which all power is derived.
Any power government usurps without direct vote of the people is illegal.

These were the standards the founding fathers fought and died to pass on to ungrateful and undeserving people like yourself, who now do not even understand the concepts of freedom.
Actually, Sovereignty is having supremacy, independent authority over a geographic area, such as a King.

Quote:
sov·er·eign·ty
   /ˈsɒvrɪnti, ˈsʌv-/ Show Spelled[sov-rin-tee, suhv-] Show IPA
noun, plural -ties.
1.the quality or state of being sovereign.
2.the status, dominion, power, or authority of a sovereign; royalty.
3.supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4.rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5.a sovereign state, community, or political unit.
With respect to the United States, the States have sovereignty, that's how they can legally claim sovereign immunity in legal cases.

It has nothing to do with personal ownership -- and to righteously claim in snotty and superior terms that I lack education, when it's clear that you don't know what you are talking about, is laughable and sad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 07:49 AM
 
16,433 posts, read 22,112,075 times
Reputation: 9622
The 10th Amendment has been a moot point since the Civil War (actually since the Whiskey Rebellion). There are no states rights, only Federal control.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs View Post
and we need to get them back
It took 650,000 American lives to invalidate the 10th Amendment in the Civil War. How many are we prepared to lose to re-instate it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 02:25 PM
 
913 posts, read 869,301 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bideshi View Post
The 10th Amendment has been a moot point since the Civil War (actually since the Whiskey Rebellion). There are no states rights, only Federal control.



It took 650,000 American lives to invalidate the 10th Amendment in the Civil War. How many are we prepared to lose to re-instate it?
why is it that everytime someone brings up states rights, people conclude the the only way to reinstate them is to fight a war. at some point the people have to realize that the two sides play us like fools. we need to win the battle of ideas and accept that texans and californians, floridians and new yorkers, simply don't want the same things. while texas voters want the federal govt to force through their ideas, and californians, alaskans and floridians want the feds to force through theirs, nobody wins, nobody gets what they want and we all lose
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 06:45 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,910,828 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
With respect to the United States, the States have sovereignty, that's how they can legally claim sovereign immunity in legal cases.
Solely within their state and only against the the federal government on those limited issues arise from the 10th Amendment. That is a limited claim to sovereignty.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with personal ownership -- and to righteously claim in snotty and superior terms that I lack education, when it's clear that you don't know what you are talking about, is laughable and sad.
Amen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 06:53 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,910,828 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs View Post
...while texas voters want the federal govt to force through their ideas, and californians, alaskans and floridians want the feds to force through theirs, nobody wins, nobody gets what they want and we all lose
Well that isn't exactly true, sometimes the citizens of Texas win and sometimes they lose. The problem is that some folks can seem to understand that in a democracy you aren't always going to win. Which brings me to another point. The fact is the government is us, we get the laws that some group of citizens want, be that group Wall St or Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Everyday their is someone calling on this or that Congressman or Senator demanding some action on the part of government and as it should be those Congressmen and Senators press home the wishes and desires of their constituents. To blame to the government is, well just plain silly. That isn't to say that some people have greater access and sway over their representatives but the fact remains law, regulations and policies don't just rise up out of Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,437 posts, read 6,054,823 times
Reputation: 2700
Imagine what things would be like without the Interstate System, some people really need to have their medication levels checked or stop taking whatever, many vacations wouldn't be possible, prices would be much higher, etc..

I wonder how many of the "States Rights" people want a constitutional amendment regarding marriage being between a male and female.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:48 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,347,296 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammbriggs View Post
why is it that everytime someone brings up states rights, people conclude the the only way to reinstate them is to fight a war. at some point the people have to realize that the two sides play us like fools. we need to win the battle of ideas and accept that texans and californians, floridians and new yorkers, simply don't want the same things. while texas voters want the federal govt to force through their ideas, and californians, alaskans and floridians want the feds to force through theirs, nobody wins, nobody gets what they want and we all lose
It depends on how far each side is willing to push their idea. In Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Alaska, and Virginia, for example, enacted legislation that authorized weapons and ammunition to be manufactured in their respective States for the sole purpose of being used exclusively in those States, and is therefore exempt from all federal regulations or statute law. Wyoming's law goes so far as to authorize the arrest of any federal agent attempting to enforce federal law on such weapons or ammunition.

Nobody is threatening secession, or violence of any kind, they are threatening to hold the federal government accountable. A show-down between the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment, if you will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,347,296 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackwatch View Post
Imagine what things would be like without the Interstate System, some people really need to have their medication levels checked or stop taking whatever, many vacations wouldn't be possible, prices would be much higher, etc..

I wonder how many of the "States Rights" people want a constitutional amendment regarding marriage being between a male and female.
There is no "Interstate System" in Alaska or Hawaii, but they still pay for the lower-48 "Interstate System." We manage to get around just fine in Alaska on 4,900 miles of paved road covering an area about one-third the size of the lower-49 States, or 586,412 square miles. What is your malfunction?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top