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.
Every State is fundamentally different from every other State,
and their laws reflect those differences.
I reject this in total.
Every state is fundamentally a mirror image of every other state.
What differences that do exist between us,
and particularly in their laws and codes are only in the minor and mostly immaterial details.
For the moment set the 5 or 6 hot button social issues aside...
and focus on the 5 or 6 million other aspects of our lives instead.
As an example:
Do the commercial property insurance regulations of Mississippi need to be materially different
than those in Michigan? Are they materially different now?
What minor differences that do exist between these entire sets of laws,
either in principle or letter, are easily reconciled.
That's it. Have an issue in mind? Find the commonalities.
They will outnumber the differences 1000:1.
Do us all a favor and go find yourself a barren island where you can play at dictator. I will not bandy words with a witless fool that thinks one law is sufficient for everyone. Your nick is truly a misnomer.
I will tell you this much, if anyone tries the kind of crap you are spewing in Alaska, they would suddenly disappear and never been heard from again. We do not take kindly to ignorant lesser-48ers telling us what to do.
I reject this in total.
Every state is fundamentally a mirror image of every other state.
What differences that do exist between us,
and particularly in their laws and codes are only in the minor and mostly immaterial details.
For the moment set the 5 or 6 hot button social issues aside...
and focus on the 5 or 6 million other aspects of our lives instead.
As an example:
Do the commercial property insurance regulations of Mississippi need to be materially different
than those in Michigan? Are they materially different now?
What minor differences that do exist between these entire sets of laws,
either in principle or letter, are easily reconciled.
That's it. Have an issue in mind? Find the commonalities.
They will outnumber the differences 1000:1.
hth
No, I'd move to Canada, Austrialia, and Norway, who has more personal freedoms than the USA.
Or Singapore, Hong Kong, for the free market prosperity.
Oh, so now Madison and Hamilton are just a "few framers" and despite the fact that both Madison and Hamilton were tasked with explaining the rationale behind the Constitution prior to ratification by the Constitutional Convention. Ya boy, you're on quite an ahistorical roll!
Quote:
I suggest you read it more carfully and learn a little history surrounding it.
I suggest you post chapter and verse along with proper citations instead of attempting to argue that I'm the one that needs to study. In short put up or shut up!
Quote:
Any law made outside of the scope of the powers enumerated within the Constituion have no Federal Authority. This is why Obama and his ilk tried to hide the Health Care Bill under the Commerce Clause (another abused clause of Dictators) - because they need justification for their BS. No State would have ratified that thing otherwise - and it would make the 10th jibberish hogwash.
Oh spare me the strawman argument! The topic is state supremacy and sovereignty not the enumerated powers.
With yer choices I would rather live in a separate country. I know there is more than just 2 different ideological choices as well. In my view I believe the country will become balkanized within 100 years.
Man you really are an oddball.
It's more like 20.
10-20-2011, 05:43 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Hardly, see Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869)
As if The Court is not politically motivated and fallable.
Quote:
Oh, so now Madison and Hamilton are just a "few framers" and despite the fact that both Madison and Hamilton were tasked with explaining the rationale behind the Constitution prior to ratification by the Constitutional Convention. Ya boy, you're on quite an ahistorical roll!
Madison himself said that if you want to know the true meaning of the Constitution consult the text itself or the State Ratifying Conventions not the Federalist papers.
Quote:
I suggest you post chapter and verse along with proper citations instead of attempting to argue that I'm the one that needs to study. In short put up or shut up!
Back at you!
Quote:
Oh spare me the strawman argument! The topic is state supremacy and sovereignty not the enumerated powers.
Spare me, spare you, I am the one who started the topic - you responded to me - don't go delineating the scope of the subject so you can try and win your point. They are in relation to one another - if you don't understand to bad.
Question: Did you read the articles posted? Doubt it!
Both parties now (and that means the majority of voters) are ideological (little one sided thinking brains that do not see relational structures) morons . We have historical examples of both of these positions ruling countries and yet our country is full of dopes that think one of these maggot cans will bring us to Narvana. This keeps up and we will self destruct into a giant bag of mediocrity-well we already got to the mediocrity.
I'd like to see the whole country come together but I think this country is too big and the states are too different (as well they should be) to be governed by one entity. I would start a new country with the New England states and a few others. I don't want liberal or conservative, but somewhere like moderate. I definitely don't want some Bible thumping fake "Christians" telling me what to do. If those who look down upon everyone else's religion want to start their own theocracy, then let them go ahead and do it. Leave the rest of us out, please, we believe in the separation of church and state.
I'd like to see the whole country come together but I think this country is too big and the states are too different (as well they should be) to be governed by one entity. I would start a new country with the New England states and a few others. I don't want liberal or conservative, but somewhere like moderate. I definitely don't want some Bible thumping fake "Christians" telling me what to do. If those who look down upon everyone else's religion want to start their own theocracy, then let them go ahead and do it. Leave the rest of us out, please, we believe in the separation of church and state.
Alaska is certainly large enough to be its own country, and then some. No other States need apply. We also have enough oil, gas, gold, coal, zinc, lead, and copper resources to make Alaska obscenely wealthy, once we get the federal government off our backs and we develop our resources.
The United States is one of the most partisan countries in the developed world. There are two very distinct political ideologies that are diametrically opposed to one another. Add to that the vast distance that the federal government controls, which means people from states with entirely different cultures, histories, and demographics, have to all live under the same set of federal laws. Case in point: The distance from Los Angeles to Columbia, South Carolina is greater than the distance from London to Moscow (and the cultural difference is greater too). Yet, while the Europeans have over 50 independent nations, over here people in San Francisco have to live under the same federal laws as those in Charleston.
What does this mean for us? That we're all unhappy. We are all living under policies we don't want to live under (Health care is the best example, an odd mixture of public [democratic] and private [republican] that make us get the worst of both worlds and the benefits of neither).
Why are we so naive to think that someday things will be better? Are we that shortsighted to believe that "if we can just win this next election, everything will be ok!" Lets just be honest here, we will NEVER be happy living together. Every 4-12 years someone from the other party will gain office, and the majority in congress will shift, and they will remove old policies and implement new ones that will make half the nation ecstatic and leave the other half seethingly bitter and angry. This means no policies will ever be in place long enough to have a real effect, there will always be constant congressional gridlocks so very little will ever get done, and our taxation and economic regulatory systems will constantly be in flux.
When we will all realize that our country isn't "too big to fail" and that completely independent, smaller regional nations would be much more effective. Why can't people in Oregon smoke pot? Why can't kids in Alabama pray in schools? Why can't Arizona enforce it's own immigration laws? Why are Californian's paying for and engaged in a war both of their senators voted againts?
One day you will all wake up and realize this union needs to be divided. I just hope we can do it without any bloodshed.
I would rather divide the country into 3 parts.
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.
