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.
Dubya spoke of supporting States rights then did exactly the opposite when states did things he was against. The right only believes in States rights so long as the States do what the right wants, but do something like legalize pot or allow gay marriages and all heck breaks lose.
Casper
Marijuana for personal use has been legal in Alaska since 1974, and Alaska is a very Red state. So much for your clearly inaccurate generalization.
You/We, voted the Reps in Congress into office and You/We can vote them out. They come up for re-election on a regular basis, let your vote voice your opinion of the job they are doing and let the majority rule. Pretty simple.
Casper
Marijuana for personal use has been legal in Alaska since 1974, and Alaska is a very Red state. So much for your clearly inaccurate generalization.
Yes, a Red State that gets more government assistance than any other in the union, nice conservative state ya got there. No, my comment had to do with Dubya stating that he would have the feds arrest those that sold or bought pot for medical reasons when Cal legalized it for health reasons. That is a FACT and documented, so much for your selective memory.
Casper
I don't like states having too much power, I don't like crossing state lines and having it feel like another country. Also, I live in idaho, and I can't imagine giving more power to these republican half wits we keep getting elected
Excuse me but I just have to mention this, you people do know that the Federal Government is made up of people we elected to represent our states in Washington at the federal level, don' you? So every time you whine on and on about the Federal government you are whining about those we all sent there, you act if someone outside the nation put those Reps there? The more I think of the State vs. Federal argument the more I realize the argument is ridiculous. What I believe the real driving force behind this particular argument is that some want any state to ignore the fact that they are part of a greater whenever they disagree with a particular Federal Government policy. We are not talking about a majority of states, if we were then there would be no issue since if there was such a major disagreement on a broad scale then the Federal government would never have implemented the policy due to the policy being so unpopular, it is how politics works. As for states’ rights, ask Alabama and George Wallace if you can defy the Federal Government on an individual basis.
Casper
Supreme authority is not the word I would use, considering Article VI/Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause).
You're right, that was probably not the best choice of adjectives. How about absolute, foremost, preeminent, prevailing, ultimate, or utmost authority?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
Besides, 75% of the states would have to ratify any amendment to the constitution.
True. The States can propose new amendments to the US Constitution and the States can ratify those very same amendments. Which leaves the federal government holding the bag, because they only have the authority the States gave them when they ratified the US Constitution and subsequent amendments.
Yes, a Red State that gets more government assistance than any other in the union, nice conservative state ya got there.
It is indeed a nice conservative state. If you have a problem with all the federal money being spent in Alaska, you might want to consider getting rid of some of that federal land or closing down one or more of the 16 military bases and countless of other federal agencies receiving all that federal money in Alaska. You will get a lot of support from us conservative Alaskans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas
No, my comment had to do with Dubya stating that he would have the feds arrest those that sold or bought pot for medical reasons when Cal legalized it for health reasons. That is a FACT and documented, so much for your selective memory.
Casper
A politician said something that turned out to be not true?!?!?!?! Say it isn't so!
Would you support an amendment to the constitution that would allow two-thirds of the states to repeal an act by the federal government? The purpose would be to restore the balance between the federal government and the states. If you say no, how about if the amendment language specifically addressed unfunded federal mandates to the states?
You're right, that was probably not the best choice of adjectives. How about absolute, foremost, preeminent, prevailing, ultimate, or utmost authority?
True. The States can propose new amendments to the US Constitution and the States can ratify those very same amendments. Which leaves the federal government holding the bag, because they only have the authority the States gave them when they ratified the US Constitution and subsequent amendments.
Not individual states but a substantially large (75%) conglomeration of them. In fact, the US Constitution came about as a result of excessive powers in the hands of the states that the Articles of Confederation extended, and replaced it to favor a stronger federal government.
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.
