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.
Many states have done so and set their own exemption limits. As a result, many of those who intend on filing BK (known as debtors) relocate to states when the exemption limits are beneficial to them.
republicans generally support the 10th amendment and states rights. granted, they never follow through but in rhetoric, they definitely support a limited federal govt. everyone knows all that and i don't want to discuss that in this thread.
what i want to know is why democrats are so opposed to the idea. along with our votes and scotus, seccession and nullification were powerful safeguards to our constitution. these have pretty much been discarded to the dustbin of time and it is to our detriment. if we elct a republican president, house and senate, those in democrat states have to live under gop oppression and vice versa. it really doesn't have to be that way. if the federal govt were once again limited, the states could do waht they wanted and we'd all have a choice as to what govt we'd want to live under
Why do you presume democrats are left? Your definition of left is warped. If malevolence has taken over the Republican party it would explain why so many conservatives have been alienated & feel themselves not represented. Continuing to bash democrats for the sickness that took hold of republican party serves no other purpose than to distract them from their own waywardness.
States rights never went anywhere. It's all about how people go about things using it to scapegoat citizens against citizens. It's how someone like Rand Paul failed to articulate his position or present meaningful solutions but instead plays cards close to the vest only to spring yet another lockstep trap through legislation. Mostly what I see coming from libertarian thinking is a negation of any and all responsibility. They're better suited living in a commune than demanding to be in office only to negate the job requirements. Irrational to say the least.
Many states have done so and set their own exemption limits. As a result, many of those who intend on filing BK (known as debtors) relocate to states when the exemption limits are beneficial to them.
Ummm not without constraints. Do states get to mind their own business, disregarding federal laws?
leftist, liberal, you're just arguing semantics here. i could classify myself as a classical liberal but most would draw the wrong conclusion. we all know what was meant by eg's post.
I think you just contradicted yourself. It is much more than semantics. I'll spare you a posting of the dictionary definition of liberal, since you basically describe the one I am talking about above, so you know better.
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.
Quote:
it might make sense to you. i disagree, going to a different state should be like going to another country, except you should be free to do so.
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?
You lost this argument in 1868.
[qoute]the example on bankruptcy is wrong. different states have different bankruptcy laws and many people have jumped states to avoid their possessions being repo'd.[/quote]
State bankruptcy courts?
Where?
Bankruptcy falls under FEDERAL jurisdiction per Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitutiuon, which allows Congress to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States."
There are always exceptions where a state law would also apply, but it still falls under Federal jurisdiction.
republicans generally support the 10th amendment and states rights. granted, they never follow through but in rhetoric, they definitely support a limited federal govt. everyone knows all that and i don't want to discuss that in this thread.
what i want to know is why democrats are so opposed to the idea. along with our votes and scotus, seccession and nullification were powerful safeguards to our constitution. these have pretty much been discarded to the dustbin of time and it is to our detriment. if we elct a republican president, house and senate, those in democrat states have to live under gop oppression and vice versa. it really doesn't have to be that way. if the federal govt were once again limited, the states could do waht they wanted and we'd all have a choice as to what govt we'd want to live under
As the old saying goes, power is easy to give away, but quite hard to take back.
We've let the federal government control things they have no business controlling. Drugs, just as an example, where in the constitution does it say that I can't posses a plant that grows naturally in my yard? If I'm not selling it, then its not interstate commerce, so they have no damned business what so ever.
I do have to disagree with you on one thing, the GOP doesn't give a damn about states rights or limited constitutional power. They'd love to outlaw abortion, pornography, and crack down on other religions they deem "evil".
GOP and Democrats are just the opposite side of the same coin. They may differ on what they support, but they both want more power.
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.
