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.
We put hundreds of people in a room everyday, people that we elect ourselves, to solve our problems and they can't agree on anything.
That's because we're sending people to DC who have no interest in trying to work with anyone else--they're in the crazy fringe. That's the frustration--people like that represent a small portion of the population, but they seem to have a majority of the power. It needs to change.
10-20-2011, 02:57 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
How'd that work out them confederate states?[
That is irrelevant.
Quote:
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.
The intent of a few framers - others disagreed.
Quote:
By the way, the Supremacy Clause is the law of the land. In fact it is THE law of the land.
I suggest you read it more carfully and learn a little history surrounding it. The Clause itself is not 'THE law of the land' - The Constituion and the Laws made in pursuance thereof are - that includes the 10th Amendment.
'This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof... shall be the supreme law of the land.'
Any law made outside of the scope of the powers enumerated within the Constituion have no Federal Authority. This is why Obama and his ilk tried to hide the Health Care Bill under the Commerce Clause (another abused clause of Dictators) - because they need justification for their BS. No State would have ratified that thing otherwise - and it would make the 10th jibberish hogwash.
But it's NOT irrelevant; not in the least..
This is the underlying fundamental lesson to be learned here (perhaps again for some).
10-20-2011, 11:25 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
But it's NOT irrelevant; not in the least..
This is the underlying fundamental lesson to be learned here (perhaps again for some).
I am talking about whether it was a historical fact and in that case it is not relevant.
But saying that because they lost a war (an economic war which slavery was at the heart) does not mean that there is something intrinsicly wrong with the concept - either theoretically or practically.
But saying that because they lost a war (an economic war which slavery was at the heart) does not mean that there is something intrinsicly wrong with the concept - either theoretically or practically.
Yeah... it does actually.
The principle in question... that the several states, or even a small group of them, had or deserved the right to impose or endorse civil standards (ie laws) that are materially different than those of the other states...
is (in short) un-Constitutional.
The inverse or perhaps extension of this, is that as there is no justifiable need for separate sets of laws
among the several states... even when there is no material difference between them.
---
btw.. I love how when people argue for states rights the slavery aspect (of the Civil War) was peripheral
and when others argue the economics and slavery aspect (of the Civil War) the states rights aspect becomes peripheral. You should visit the History forum.
10-20-2011, 11:50 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational
Yeah... it does actually.
The principle in question... that the several states, or even a small group of them, had or deserved the right to impose or endorse civil standards (ie laws) that are materially different than those of the other states... is (in short) un-Constitutional.
The inverse of this, is that as there is no justifiable need for separate sets of laws... even when there is no material difference between them.
---
btw.. I love how when people argue for states rights the slavery aspect (of the Civil War) was peripheral and when others argue the economics and slavery aspect (of the Civil War) the states rights aspect becomes peripheral
You should visit the History forum.
No, my argument is that of the Constitutional Historicity of State Sovereignty over Federal matters outside the scope of delegated authority - even secession - something that is relevant to one of the points in the OP
Please don't tell me what I am talking about - if you would have followed my post from the begining (which you think you would be capable of since you responded to me) you would see that your first point is misdirected. Furthermore, I made comments in regard to another poster and you quoted him with your response - his point was not about your principle.
I can understand the tactic of trying to obfuscate and misdirect. Nice try!
No, my argument is that of the Constitutional Historicity of State Sovereignty over Federal matters outside the scope of delegated authority - even secession - something that is relevant to one of the points in the OP.
Constitutional Historicity? wtf is that?
Anyway... I understand your point very well.
My point is that it is (at best) outdated; and as such is irrelevant.
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.
