states are independent

[SuperDemocrat]

I see states like independent variables where the legislation of one doesn't affect the other. Maybe socialist can make an argument that individual freedom can't exist since the actions of one will always have an affect on the other. Thus such behavior has to be regulated. However, a states legislative power only exist over its territory which allows other states to do what they want. The only time when the actions of one affects the other is when there is a shared resource like a river running through one or ,ore states. Apart from that states can act independently without affecting another thus independent of one another. This is why states should be free to act independently since most of what they do is independent of each other.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

The teapers are getting desperate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees.

Oh look -- another lie.

We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all

None of this changes the fact that that the claim by the OP, that the US is made of 50 sovereign states which all have the right to enact laws that differ from one another, is absolutely correct.

 

[Contumacious]

I see states like independent variables where the legislation of one doesn't affect the other. Maybe socialist can make an argument that individual freedom can't exist since the actions of one will always have an affect on the other. Thus such behavior has to be regulated. However, a states legislative power only exist over its territory which allows other states to do what they want. The only time when the actions of one affects the other is when there is a shared resource like a river running through one or ,ore states. Apart from that states can act independently without affecting another thus independent of one another. This is why states should be free to act independently since most of what they do is independent of each other.

Bullshit


Before the 1860's the states were FREE SOVEREIGN NATIONS united for an specifically enumerated purpose . The federal government was then limited to conducting foreign policy and ensuring that INTERSTATE COMMERCE flowed without obstruction.

Ape Lincoln reduced the states to CENTRALLY CONTROLLED subservient appendages.


As stated by Jonathan Gruber , Americans have been reduced to parasitic stupid fucks.


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

 

[Ringel05]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Mostly he is correct however those laws enacted must be in the confines of both State and Federal constitutions, where State law is in direct conflict with Federal law Federal law trumps State law (The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption).
If he was attempting to make a case against the Supremacy Clause then he is wrong, if he is only pointing out that each State is a separate entity under the Federal Constitution then he is correct.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

 

[Contumacious]

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

Mr Dingle berry

Can you identified when the states voted to amend the Constitution by adopting the FOURTEENTH "AMENDMENT"?


.


.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

So you're saying you don't like the constitution? Which part do you want to change?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

So you're saying you don't like the constitution?

I see you aren't fluent in English.

 

[Kosh]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

So you're saying you don't like the constitution? Which part do you want to change?

Typical far left drone!

 

[Contumacious]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

So you're saying you don't like the constitution? Which part do you want to change?

I like the US Constitution (1787)


I hate the welfare/warfare police state Constitution (1935)


.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

Look in the dictionary under "dreamy wishful thinking", and you'll find a copy of this post.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

Mr Dingle berry

Can you identified when the states voted to amend the Constitution by adopting the FOURTEENTH "AMENDMENT"?


.


.

You can look those dates up for yourself, but I understand you are upset because they were forced to do it by the Reconstruction Act. Are you saying that Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to pass the Reconstruction Act? That has been discussed for more than 150 years, and nobody has been able to point out where the passing of that act was unconstitutional yet, unless you have come up with something new

 

[Contumacious]

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

Mr Dingle berry

Can you identified when the states voted to amend the Constitution by adopting the FOURTEENTH "AMENDMENT"?


.


.

You can look those dates up for yourself, but I understand you are upset because they were forced to do it by the Reconstruction Act. Are you saying that Congress didn't have the constitutional authority to pass the Reconstruction Act? That has been discussed for more than 150 years, and nobody has been able to point out where the passing of that act was unconstitutional yet, unless you have come up with something new

EXCUSE ME DINGLE BERRY


THE QUESTION WAS


Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self?


I have identified one instance - but in reality the ENTIRE CONSTITUTION has been replaced by


The welfare/warfare police state Constitution of 1935.


.

 

[BULLDOG]

Thanks for the explanation of your beliefs. Fortunately, the entire country disagrees. We are not just a bunch of separate areas fending for ourselves, but a group of United States who have joined together for the good of all. Sorry that doesn't fit your little fantasy.

Correct, we are both.

The Founders knew exactly that, and wrote the Articles of Confederation to reflect it, and later the Constitution when the AOC was found to have weaknesses. The states and the people agreed, and ratified both.

The purpose of both the AOC and the Const was to name exactly what powers the States (and the people) would turn over to the Federal government. If a power wasn't named, the Fed didn't have that power, but the States and the people still did.

The whole idea was that the States were still sovereign and supreme, except for the things named in the Constitution. The Fed govt was supreme in those matters.

Modern liberals have been hacking away at the Constitution ever since, trying to usurp and turn more and more powers over to the Fed that aren't granted to it by the Constitution.

Hacking away? Can you name one instance where the constitution has been changed or reinterpreted in ways other than the procedures specifically stated by the constitution it's self? The right acts as if they believe the constitution can, and has be manipulated with nothing more than political power. There are laws governing how changes can occur, and you can't name one instance where those laws have not been strictly enforced.

The entire federal welfare state is based on a politically-based mal-application of the constitution, the "rules", and the clauses found therein.

So you're saying you don't like the constitution?

I see you aren't fluent in English.

Which of the "rules" do you think were applied in any way other than in strict constitutional compliance? Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean every I wasn't dotted, and every T wasn't crossed. Obviously you think the rules must be defective.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government power over the states in any matter that it can legislate and pass Supreme Court scrutiny.

 

[Kosh]

The Supremacy Clause gives the federal government power over the states in any matter that it can legislate and pass Supreme Court scrutiny.

Once again the far left shows they do not understand the Constitution, just the far left religious dogma!