Would you rather live under the "other" party forever, or divide the country? (employment, lawyers)

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Frankly, I'm not really concerned whether or not you like the facts, just as long as you know that facts.

I am not sure what you think I think the facts are - other than misreading me. If you think that States had no Sovereignty, even the right to Secede, then you are the one without the facts - Sir.

By the way the Federalist's papers were not the Law of the Land.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

State Sovereignty.

Oh that.
That 18th century concept has been proven to not work.
Some additional reading

The constitution is not a suicide pact.
It's time to move on.

The governments of the several states will always have a role n the actual administration of the law...
the question is whether the letter of that law being different in Minnesota than it is in Maryland
serves the interests of anyone (in MN or MD or AZ ftm) in any meaningful or constructive way.

The short answer is no.
No one is better served by having a different set of laws in one place than another.

hth

[Roaddog]

I don't live under any party, I work and pay taxes, no party will change that and other than that I live my life, I do what I want and theres nothing to stop me.

[Surftown831]

Originally Posted by MrRational

the question is whether the letter of that law being different in Minnesota than it is in Maryland
serves the interests of anyone (in MN or MD or AZ ftm) in any meaningful or constructive way.

The short answer is no.
No one is better served by having a different set of laws in one place than another.

hth

To believe that a state like Texas, with large population, diverse demograhic, and that shares a border with another nation, would have the same political needs regarding immigration, health care and civil liberties as North Dakota, well that's certainly irrational.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

To believe that a state like Texas, with large population, diverse demograhic, and that shares a border with another nation, would have the same political needs regarding immigration, health care and civil liberties as North Dakota, well that's certainly irrational.

Political needs?
a) What does that even mean?
b) What do political needs have to do with anything of consequence?

Besides... The questions at issue are about the actual laws of the land.

As regards these actual laws...
The differences between the needs of the people of Texas...
are virtually the same as the needs of the people in any of the other 49 States.

If you're aware of some significant aspect of law that needs to be different...
feel free to pipe right up with that.

hth

Originally Posted by MrRational

Oh that.
That 18th century concept has been proven to not work.
Some additional reading

The constitution is not a suicide pact.
It's time to move on.

The governments of the several states will always have a role n the actual administration of the law...
the question is whether the letter of that law being different in Minnesota than it is in Maryland
serves the interests of anyone (in MN or MD or AZ ftm) in any meaningful or constructive way.

The short answer is no.
No one is better served by having a different set of laws in one place than another.

hth

Whether it works or not is not the point - the point is that it was a historical fact.

Also, decentralization regarding many issues is a great protection from corruption. Furthermore, someone elses 'law' may be considered someone elses injustice - so different people are and can be better serverd in such cases. But that is beside main point regarding the OP and my comments.

[Surftown831]

Originally Posted by MrRational

Political needs?
a) What does that even mean?
b) What do political needs have to do with anything of consequence?

Besides... The questions at issue are about the actual laws of the land.

As regards these actual laws...
The differences between the needs of the people of Texas...
are virtually the same as the needs of the people in any of the other 49 States.

If you're aware of some significant aspect of law that needs to be different...
feel free to pipe right up with that.

hth

I can't tell if you're serious, but just in case you are, here it goes: First of all, border states like California, Arizona and Texas might understandably need different illegal immigration policies than non-border states and states that don't attract large numbers of immigrants. The "one-size-fits-all" immigration approach that the federal government bestows just simply isn't adequate. I'm not a right winger, but I can totally understand states like Arizona wanting to take matters of immigration in their own hands. What would a state like North Dakota need such a strong immigration policy for? If anything, the might want lax policies so as to invite cheap labor for their rapidly growing economy (one of the fastest in the nation).

Also, small, financially homogenous states can better run and afford public healthcare than larger states with more economic diversity (larger gap between the rich and the poor), more "anchor babies" who would be eligible for government health care even though their parents don't pay taxes into the system, and states that are already hampered by entitlements.

I also notice that coastal states and states with lots of greenery and bio-diversity, like California, Oregon and Washington, seem to have a greater interest in protecting the environment and thus tend to implement more environmental laws and regulations. Whereas desert states and other states with less desirable geography have very little concern for environmental issues. So shouldn't the federal government also stay out of environmental issues and let the states handle that?

What about states that have a strong religious culture and tradition, like those in the deep south? Should more progressive states have to live under their laws regarding marriage, prayer in schools, creation science in schools and prohibition of marijuana, and even alcohol on Sundays?

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by UNLV09

I can't tell if you're serious, but just in case you are, here it goes:

First of all, border states like California, Arizona and Texas might understandably need different illegal immigration policies...

Also, small, financially homogenous states can better run and afford public healthcare than larger states with more economic diversity...

I also notice that coastal states and states with lots of greenery and bio-diversity, like California, Oregon and Washington, seem to have a greater interest in protecting the environment...

What about states that have a strong religious culture and tradition, like those in the deep south?

Turn around and go back to the first posts in the thread.
You're beginning to repeat yourself (by restating the basic premises there).

hth

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

If you think that States had no Sovereignty, even the right to Secede, then you are the one without the facts - Sir.

How'd that work out them confederate states?

By the way the Federalist's papers were not the Law of the Land.

Well ya got one right, sort of.

But there's a problem while the Federalist Papers may not be law, they are the dicta that underly its interpretation and the intent of the framers.

By the way, the Supremacy Clause is the law of the land. In fact it is THE law of the land.

[boiseguy]

omg if I had to live under republican/conservatives FOR EVER! I would so chuck a BETCH FIT

:P