The United States? (interstates, serial killers, weapons, highway)

[nononsenseguy]

Originally Posted by MIKEETC

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Several States are reasserting their sovereignty rights in resolutions such as in Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Rep. Charles Key introduced a resolution in the state Legislature last year calling on the federal government to "cease and desist" issuing federal mandates beyond the scope of the enumerated powers of the Constitution. The House passed the resolution, but it died in the Senate.
This year, State Sen. Randy Brogdon has joined the effort to insure that the resolution will get a hearing and a vote in the Oklahoma Senate. The resolution is quite clear:

… the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

This should be clear enough, even for Harvard graduates, especially those who claim to be constitutional scholars.

States get assertive with 'King' Obama

This article mentions that some 15 other states are considering similar resolutions.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Are you serious with this question? You need to go back and study American History.

I know my history quite well.What if North Dakota decided to make a law that cocaine should be legal because it boost morale or fathers teaching their daughters about sex with physical contact from the fathers(attempted in Utah).This is why the federal government has to have certain laws that are universal. Not too many would need to be but like previous stated.
1-driving age
2-age of consent
3-smoking age/drinking
4-gun control(not banning,but standards)
5-legality of drugs

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

Several States are reasserting their sovereignty rights

States have no sovereign rights, and states have sovereign rights.
???
The government (State of _____) is a servant of the sovereign people. And all state officials have to swear a dual oath, giving supremacy to the oath to the USCON. State constitutions only delegate powers to the servants in government - not rights.

However, the term, "state", also refers to the people, who DO have rights, as in inalienable rights. So be careful which "state" you are referring to. No servant State government can "resolve" to rise in stature to one of the sovereign people. No government or subdivision is sovereign over the people.

---------
STATE - A people permanently occupying a fixed territory bound together by common-law habits and custom into one body politic exercising, through the medium of an organized government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and entering into international relations with other communities of the globe.
-In its largest sense, a "state" is a body politic or a society of men.
-The section of territory occupied by one of the United States.
-One of the component commonwealths or states of the United States of America.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.1407

"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for expressing the will of the sovereign power."
City of Bisbee v. Cochise County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1

"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.

"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)

"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463

REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people,... directly,.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary

SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme, absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.

SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

"CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights. "
- - - Black's Law Dictionary,Sixth Ed. p.244

"SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government."
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425

In America, the people are sovereigns, but the citizens are subjects. That's why the government can claim "sovereign immunity" from lawsuit - by its own citizens. But government is NOT sovereignty.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

You think that different driving ages, or ages of consent, are good things?

Why not?

So someone who lives in a state where consent is 17 or 18 decides he wants to kidnap someone and she's 16 so he drives her to some state where it's 16 and rapes a girl.Then he says he had consent and it's a he said she said case whereas if it was universal it would automatically be statuatory rape so he couldn't cross a border into a STUPID state.

Have you ever known a scenario like that to happen? And what the hell's wrong with an age of consent of 16? It's 13 in Spain and was 14 in Canada until last year, and those places are not hotbeds of rape. The age of consent is 16 in more states than not. But that's even beside the point, since in your cited example the person would've been in violation of the Mann Act. When someone crosses state lines it's called interstate commerce and is definitely regulable by the federal government.

Just like if Kentucky decided that to run for governor you had to win a MMA (mixed martial arts) match to be elected.This would be crap.

States have a right to pass stupid laws, up to a point. I'm all for vigorous enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation clause when it comes to a person's federal constitutional rights being violated. But that's all we really need. If states all had the same laws in regard to everything important, why even keep up the pretense that we are a union of separate states any longer?

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by djacques

Why not?



Have you ever known a scenario like that to happen? And what the hell's wrong with an age of consent of 16? It's 13 in Spain and was 14 in Canada until last year, and those places are not hotbeds of rape. The age of consent is 16 in more states than not. But that's even beside the point, since in your cited example the person would've been in violation of the Mann Act. When someone crosses state lines it's called interstate commerce and is definitely regulable by the federal government.



States have a right to pass stupid laws, up to a point. I'm all for vigorous enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment's incorporation clause when it comes to a person's federal constitutional rights being violated. But that's all we really need. If states all had the same laws in regard to everything important, why even keep up the pretense that we are a union of separate states any longer?

Why not? Because people shouldn't be allowed to move from one state to another to avoid laws.If you're 30 and your girlfriend is 16 should be able to go to whatever state considers it right for a 16 year old to consent. It happened about 7 or 8 years ago when a 50 year old man took a kid (I think it was to North Carolina)out of the state,raped her repeatedly in a hotel and then left.The only reason he got busted was that they saw the struggle on video tape of her not wanting to go with him.

I'll say it again: I just think certain laws should be federal(very specific) but the majority of states should make their own laws.Curfews,taxes, tickets,blood alcohol levels,etc...I have no problem with these and others being decided by each state.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

Why not? Because people shouldn't be allowed to move from one state to another to avoid laws.

I'm sorry, I can't even begin to fathom the logic here. Why stop at states, why not have a single world government while we're in the business of destroying local prerogatives, and the freedom to emigrate to a place more in line with your ideals?

If you're 30 and your girlfriend is 16 should be able to go to whatever state considers it right for a 16 year old to consent.

Again, Mann Act.

It happened about 7 or 8 years ago when a 50 year old man took a kid (I think it was to North Carolina)out of the state,raped her repeatedly in a hotel and then left.The only reason he got busted was that they saw the struggle on video tape of her not wanting to go with him.

Rape is always hard to prove. I don't think making it easier to convict people of rape is a good enough reason to have an exceptionally high age of consent.

Since most states have age of consent of 16, and yours is in the minority (at 17), would you like the rest of the states to outvote you and force you to lower yours? Same principle.

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by djacques

I'm sorry, I can't even begin to fathom the logic here. Why stop at states, why not have a single world government while we're in the business of destroying local prerogatives, and the freedom to emigrate to a place more in line with your ideals?



Again, Mann Act.



Rape is always hard to prove. I don't think making it easier to convict people of rape is a good enough reason to have an exceptionally high age of consent.

Since most states have age of consent of 16, and yours is in the minority (at 17), would you like the rest of the states to outvote you and force you to lower yours? Same principle.

I'm not saying to raise your age,i'm just saying to come up with an age that is an age where they can realistically understand the course of their actions whether it's 15,16,or 17.We've seen it in the past with serial killers where they murder people in one state because of no capital punishment laws.Also with a consistent age of consent statuatory cases would be easier to handle.I'm from state 'A',I didn't know that it was 17 here wouldn't be an excuse.
A single world government is different considering some countries belief system is entirely different then ours.Some middle east countries still use the eye for an eye laws.If you steal,we cut off that hand,etc...
Also prostitution and drugs are legal in alot of countries as well as some animals eaten and others regarded as holy and untouchable.
What i'm suggesting is simple and not a drastic change the way you make it out to be.

[Lancet71]

Local prerogative?If you like an agricultural society you move to one.If you like the city,then...
I'm just saying that we shouldn't be able to avoid prosecution by going to a state with easier laws.If you were the serial killer and all states had capital punishment or none did, then at least there's no benefit to going to one place or the other and how about all those years of guys going to Atlanta to buy guns and then bring them up north because of Georgia's easy sales requirements or lack thereof.

[Thomas_Thumb]

Originally Posted by Lancet71

What if North Dakota decided to make a law that cocaine should be legal because it boost morale or fathers teaching their daughters about sex with physical contact from the fathers(attempted in Utah).

With that kind of crazy logic, what If the federal government decided to make a federal law that cocaine should be legal because it boost morale?

Originally Posted by Lancet71

Just like if Kentucky decided that to run for governor you had to win a MMA (mixed martial arts) match to be elected.This would be crap.

What the? What if the federal government decided that you have to win a MMA match to become president. What if the federal government decided that the next president should be decided in a death match, gladiator stye? Or on reality tv, in a Survivor season?
Dude, you are hilarious.
Oh, I forgot... that would cause civil war

[Lancet71]

Originally Posted by Thomas_Thumb

With that kind of crazy logic, what If the federal government decided to make a federal law that cocaine should be legal because it boost morale?

What the? What if the federal government decided that you have to win a MMA match to become president. What if the federal government decided that the next president should be decided in a death match, gladiator stye? Or on reality tv, in a Survivor season?
Dude, you are hilarious.
Oh, I forgot... that would cause civil war

We can't even get POT legalized,what makes you think cocaine will be? If you see some of the laws from state to state you'd know what i'm talking about.I spent a bunch of well travelled years in the military ending in the 90's and you'd be shocked at what certain states can get away with because of simple laws.I'll say it again-SOME THINGS NEED TO BE UNIVERSAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS but definitely not all.