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.
Ever since, Cons have been pushing state's rights to take away people's rights.
You are clearly confused. States Rights and People's Rights are totally unrelated. And it's the Federal Government that is taking away people's rights as it has for over 200 years.
It's usually the Feds who control people's rights while States work to preserve them. A good current example is the Federal drug laws versus the States efforts to return the right to smoke pot to the people.
Maybe if you read a little history you would understand.
Our Big Bloated Federal Nanny State led by Obama has tried to prevent people from smoking pot for five years. STATES have fought to give people that right.
You are clearly confused. States Rights and People's Rights are totally unrelated. And it's the Federal Government that is taking away people's rights as it has for over 200 years.
It's usually the Feds who control people's rights while States work to preserve them. A good current example is the Federal drug laws versus the States efforts to return the right to smoke pot to the people.
Maybe if you read a little history you would understand.
I seem to remember that we have added about 16 amendments in 200 years. other than the repeal of prohibition, what rights have been removed from the American people?
Unless you consider the right to own slaves a lost right...
Last edited by Chimuelojones; 10-12-2013 at 05:43 PM..
I seem to remember that we have added about 16 amendments in 200 years. other that the repeal of prohibition, what rights have been removed from the American people?
Unless you consider the right to own slaves a lost right...
Well, I'll tell you what... The right to work for something, and keep it. The right to engage in commerce without interference, the right to own something... anything.
All you have to do is read the US Code or any of the state's laws, and discover that there's a lot of prohibitions or conditions on people doing almost anything. Few of them are justified as actually harming someone else. So, our right to live, unmolested, has been taken. As well as a whole lot of individual liberty.
So, do you see this confiscation of autonomy and ownership as a removal of rights, or do you think that people never did have any right to own things or live and do as they see fit?
Well, I'll tell you what... The right to work for something, and keep it. The right to engage in commerce without interference, the right to own something... anything.
All you have to do is read the US Code or any of the state's laws, and discover that there's a lot of prohibitions or conditions on people doing almost anything. Few of them are justified as actually harming someone else. So, our right to live, unmolested, has been taken. As well as a whole lot of individual liberty.
So, do you see this confiscation of autonomy and ownership as a removal of rights, or do you think that people never did have any right to own things or live and do as they see fit?
when I posted "Against all enemies foreign and domestic" - The Oath of Office
I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.
I was agreeing with the poster I quoted who said "It is A SELF EVIDENT RIGHT OF HUMANITY to separate itself from any government that becomes oppressive."
Take that up with all the federal judges and justices over the years who disagree with you.
Where in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment is the federal government given the kind of power you are implying? Below is the text of the Fourteenth Amendment for convenient reference. Which provisions below give the federal government supreme power over the states and everything else where it didn't have it before? The states are restrained vis-a-vis the people, but that doesn't fundamentally change the relationship between the federal government and the states, considering the federal government has to abide by the same restraints. Indeed, the most commonly cited justification for federal preeminence is the Supremacy Clause, which was part of the original Constitution.
Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
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.
