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.
Correct, which makes it a federal issue. No state can go further than the federal law, meaning the federal law only allows states to do what they say they can do on this issue.
the government is basically forfeiting its duty to satisfactorily enforce it. arizona is stepping up in protecting its own interest when the government hasn't done its job, which under a similar case, de canas v. bica, isn't unconstitutional. if the federal government did its job, which it's not, then none of the liberals would have to complain about sb 1070 because it wouldn't need to be implemented.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 04-23-2011 at 05:15 PM..
the main issue surrounding the civil war was slavery but the whole thing was a matter of states rights vs federal government. if the issue at the time wasn't slavery, but the federal government restricting cotton or whatever instead, it would've likely played out the same way.
it's like the arizona law currently and same with this health care "reform." people 'disagree' with a state level issue in a state they don't even reside in, and then they think they can go out and shoot it down by running to the federal government, or the federal government does it itself even with a majority protest from a state or numerous states. that is what the north winning the civil war has led up to.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Of course it was states' rights, the right for states to keep ad maintain slavery.
Of course it was states' rights, the right for states to keep ad maintain slavery.
exactly.
i can understand people who are happy that slavery ended, i'm not for slavery either, but that doesn't mean other states should be sticking their noses into business that's not theirs, regardless of the issue.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 04-23-2011 at 11:13 PM..
of course, what i've come to expect. little argument and yet more quick shots implying my supposed stupidity when stating reality of the hypocrisy of the north and the fact that they overstepped their boundaries.
I don't think sticking your nose in another states business is as bad as everyone makes it out to be. We all live right next to each other in the same country. It isn't like sticking your nose into Japans business or something. I believe in states rights, but I wouldn't mind knowing what CA's doing. Depending on how heinous it is, I wouldn't try to prompt anyone or care to stop it if it isn't something crazy. Hey if people in Bama want to kill goats and sacrifice them to the Crimson Tide God, than it's whatever, it's not my state.
i can understand people who are happy that slavery ended, i'm not for slavery either, but that doesn't mean other states should be sticking their noses into business that's not theirs, regardless of the issue.
How do you feel about the U.S. sticking their nose in other countries' business, such as Europe during the holocaust or the situation in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was removed from power? Just curious.
How do you feel about the U.S. sticking their nose in other countries' business, such as Europe during the holocaust or the situation in Iraq before Saddam Hussein was removed from power? Just curious.
we didn't stick our noses into world war II, we were attacked by the axis first. we did mind our business for quite a while after the war began. even if they didn't attack us, they still posed a threat to our security if they gained power.
we also didn't stick our noses in iraq's business. hussein violated 16 un security council resolutions (http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/iraq_un.pdf). i'm glad we invaded them, and i also believe we should benefit from the oil. since when does an invading country not benefit? iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world and shares a border with iran.
Last edited by CelticGermanicPride; 04-24-2011 at 08:34 AM..
i can understand people who are happy that slavery ended, i'm not for slavery either, but that doesn't mean other states should be sticking their noses into business that's not theirs, regardless of the issue.
I can't help but feel that government intervention was needed. If it had not happened, then slavery would have continued on longer. Civil Rights movement may have happened on a local level, but it took the federal government to make sure African-Americans were guaranteed the right to vote. This "states rights" stuff, I don't agree with it one bit because given the historical context, it would never work for ME.
I can't help but feel that government intervention was needed. If it had not happened, then slavery would have continued on longer. Civil Rights movement may have happened on a local level, but it took the federal government to make sure African-Americans were guaranteed the right to vote. This "states rights" stuff, I don't agree with it one bit because given the historical context, it would never work for ME.
maybe you felt intervention needed, but that didn't give them the right to intervene.
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.
