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.
So you're not a fan of civil rights, I take it. Well that would explain why you want the 10th revived.
I don't think you grasp the kind of legal and economic chaos you are promoting.
well, there are elements of the civil rights act i don't agree with. i don't think the state has the right to enforce morality. if people discriminate because of race, religion, age, physical condition, looks, political ideology, hair color, iq, taste in music, sexual orientation, that is their right to do so, except where federal funds are involved. i can discourage discrimination, but i don't think i should be able to enforce my morality on other people.
i often have this argument with bible bashers who promote the war on drugs. i say to them that they're entitled to their opinion. they can promote their ideas and encourage me not to smoke a joint but when they endorse force against me i have a problem with it. in fact it very often gets my back up and in inclined to go on the offensive against said bible bashers.
well, there are elements of the civil rights act i don't agree with. i don't think the state has the right to enforce morality. if people discriminate because of race, religion, age, physical condition, looks, political ideology, hair color, iq, taste in music, sexual orientation, that is their right to do so, except where federal funds are involved. i can discourage discrimination, but i don't think i should be able to enforce my morality on other people.
In a complex society, it isn't quite as easy to separate benefits of (not just federal but also state) government funds. For example EVERYBODY, directly or indirectly benefits from developments in infrastructure. It is not a right to take away others' rights, certainly not in a society based on the premise of equality.
Quote:
i often have this argument with bible bashers who promote the war on drugs...
I can agree with you to a point here, but like I asked the other poster, what happens to equal protection and civil rights in general if the state laws and constitutions can depart significantly from the Federal Bill of Rights?
yes, i hate all of those things. i have a general rule for govt. projects which they undertake to help the less fortunate, often have the effect exactly opposite to what was originally intended. the less fortunate are worse off because of medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage laws, federal deposit guarantees etc.
yes, i do worry that civil rights under thew bill of rights might be lost in some states. for that to happen though, every state would have to install tyranical legislation indepedently. nevertheless, still very worrying indeed. under the current system though, president bush literally gutted the 4th amendment, not for one state, for all of us. that happened literally overnight. in this case, i'd have to say that the states rights position whilst not 100% safe, is the lesser of two evils
yes, i hate all of those things. i have a general rule for govt. projects which they undertake to help the less fortunate, often have the effect exactly opposite to what was originally intended. the less fortunate are worse off because of medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage laws, federal deposit guarantees etc.
But why on Earth would you think that is always the case, or is the case often enough that we should reconstruct the government?
I've been involved with MANY goverment projects to help the less fortunate that were very successful as well as efficient. But those don't make the news, I suppose.
And I know a great many people who would strongly disagree with your assertion that they are worse off with medicare, medicaid, social security and minimum wage laws...I'm sitting within earshot of a couple right now that would be dead but for these programs.
Quote:
yes, i do worry that civil rights under thew bill of rights might be lost in some states. for that to happen though, every state would have to install tyranical legislation indepedently.
Which they did in the past.
Quote:
nevertheless, still very worrying indeed. under the current system though, president bush literally gutted the 4th amendment, not for one state, for all of us. that happened literally overnight. in this case, i'd have to say that the states rights position whilst not 100% safe, is the lesser of two evils
I think I would rather try to fix what we have than throw the bay out with the bathwater.
The 14th amendment gutted the 10th, and it was no accident.
We had good reasons to weaken the 10th. I can only imagine the horrors that would come out of Oklahoma, Kentucky and the like if the 14th amendment were repealed.
Legal chaos, at a minimum. Or worse, degradation and erosion of the civil rights guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.
Is that what you really want? Be careful what you wish for.
Why not repeal the 10th if the intent was to "gut it"?
Why not repeal the 10th if the intent was to "gut it"?
"Gutting" was perhaps a wrong word to use, but 10th amendment provisions for rights left off the powers of the federal government. 14th amendment added to the powers, so essentially, less would qualify as being available to the states. In my opinion, both, the 14th amendment as well as the transition from Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution expanded federal authority.
Why not repeal the 10th if the intent was to "gut it"?
Because those are two different things.
And perhaps "gut" was too strong a word. The 14th weakened it by making some rights effectively immune to it.
In other words, the 10th might reserve all sorts of stuff for the states, but that stuff no longer includes anything that might violate due process or equal protection.
Like outlawing interracial marriage, for instance. Or gay marriage for that matter...
I'm tired of being labeled a "leftist" when I am no such thing by people ignorant of the original meaning of the word liberal.
Which would be expensive, inefficient and a real boon to every lawyer in the country. What would be the benefit of such a system, one that we already tried, with disastrous results?
.
we really need another spectrum. on some issues, i'm hard right, some hard left, others i'm conservative others liberal. the bottom line is i'm for a heavily limited central govt and i don't discriminate against those things i like or dislike. i'm for limited govt period. not ltd govt except for the drug issue, or limited govt except for food regulation or public schools, i'm for limited govt PERIOD!
it does seem that way. 50 different medical regulaotrs, 50 different auto regulators etc. i'd make the argument that it would be much more efficient if we only had one manufacturer of televisions on this planet. it could be done. think of all the resources that would be saved. the key thing here is competition. private industry needs competition to keep them honest and to keep them efficient. i don't see govt as any different.
in the european example, there are many companies who operate in more than one european country. they deal with the differentr rules. not that big a deal really.
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.
