States rights pipe dream

[The T]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

Our votes are at their most potent at the State and Local level, where we're big fish in a small pond. We're better able to affect our immediate environment, to tailor legislation to the specific needs of each community. At the national level, our votes are diluted. Our communities are controlled by distant power-broker... a federal aristocracy that's damn near beyond our influence. Hell, with an incumbency rate of 95%, we can't hardly blast the bastards out with dynamite once they're entrenched. With vast central powers, they have their thumbs in too many pies.

The power was supposed to be limited, thus limiting their influence. A federalist system avoids oligarchy, which to the founders' minds was too close for comfort to the monarchist system they'd just broken free of.


There's also a side benefit to Federalism that people don't often consider. When we have 50 States, each solving problems in their own way, not only are they more accountable to the people, they're more innovative as they compete with one another for citizens and businesses. They're forced to balance the social needs of their population with their ability to generate revenues. And the eggs aren't all in one basket. If one State makes poor choices, they don't drag the other 49 down. There's some left standing to pull the fat off the fire.

Yes, there is some benefits of that, but a lot of time anything federal people go off on and complain its unconstitutional. I'm not advocating total federal control of everything, although I can see how people think that from my OP, which I think other posts have cleared up more. I understand each state has differences and problems that need to be addressed locally. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

I guess its the extremists that claim anything federal is unconstitutional and wrong

Alot of those Institutions are repitive/redundant, and what the States should be doing for themselves.

They were created solely to give the Federal Government more power so they could justify larger taxes to justify the existence.

Tell me Gregg? Do you like the FED posing unfunded mandates upon the States...and therefore make them BEG for Tax Money that is rightfully theirs [The States] to start with?

-Ponder-

 

[Murf76]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

See... here's what you're missing, aside from the whole Constitution thingey.

There was a REASON why our framers balanced the power of central government with state sovereignty. Central power is prone to corruption, much as we're seeing now in Washington.

Our votes are at their most potent at the State and Local level, where we're big fish in a small pond. We're better able to affect our immediate environment, to tailor legislation to the specific needs of each community. At the national level, our votes are diluted. Our communities are controlled by distant power-broker... a federal aristocracy that's damn near beyond our influence. Hell, with an incumbency rate of 95%, we can't hardly blast the bastards out with dynamite once they're entrenched. With vast central powers, they have their thumbs in too many pies.

The power was supposed to be limited, thus limiting their influence. A federalist system avoids oligarchy, which to the founders' minds was too close for comfort to the monarchist system they'd just broken free of.


There's also a side benefit to Federalism that people don't often consider. When we have 50 States, each solving problems in their own way, not only are they more accountable to the people, they're more innovative as they compete with one another for citizens and businesses. They're forced to balance the social needs of their population with their ability to generate revenues. And the eggs aren't all in one basket. If one State makes poor choices, they don't drag the other 49 down. There's some left standing to pull the fat off the fire.

Yes, there is some benefits of that, but a lot of time anything federal people go off on and complain its unconstitutional. I'm not advocating total federal control of everything, although I can see how people think that from my OP, which I think other posts have cleared up more. I understand each state has differences and problems that need to be addressed locally. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

I guess its the extremists that claim anything federal is unconstitutional and wrong

Well... sometimes SCOTUS is clearly wrong. Dred Scott ring a bell?

I can't speak to the FDA, because I haven't researched it properly.. but on a side note, I find it absurd that we spend as much money as we do for things like drug research to the point where it's taking 10-20 years to bring a medication to market... and in half that time the ambulance chasers are filing class action on it.

You mistake Republicans if you believe we're some kind of crazy anarchists. We do believe in some regulation. But regulatory law needs to fall within the authorization of the Constitution and it needs to utilize the smallest increment of force necessary. No need to bring a Sherman tank if a flyswatter will do, because absolute government authority over industry is de facto government ownership. There is a tipping point at which regulatory power becomes fascist.

 

[Oddball]

Yes, there is some benefits of that, but a lot of time anything federal people go off on and complain its unconstitutional. I'm not advocating total federal control of everything, although I can see how people think that from my OP, which I think other posts have cleared up more. I understand each state has differences and problems that need to be addressed locally. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

I guess its the extremists that claim anything federal is unconstitutional and wrong

And Jacobin fifth columnists like you can claim everything under the sun is constitutional, by claiming interstate commerce, just and necessary, and/or general welfare.

Hell, why even have a constitution to begin with?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, there is some benefits of that, but a lot of time anything federal people go off on and complain its unconstitutional. I'm not advocating total federal control of everything, although I can see how people think that from my OP, which I think other posts have cleared up more. I understand each state has differences and problems that need to be addressed locally. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

I guess its the extremists that claim anything federal is unconstitutional and wrong

And Jacobin fifth columnists like you can claim everything under the sun is constitutional, by claiming interstate commerce, just and necessary, and/or general welfare.

Hell, why even have a constitution to begin with?

Thats why we have courts big fella

 

[Oddball]

We have courts in order to impose a judicial oligarchy....That's why the scumbucket judges and looyahs refuse to apprise juries of their lawful power to judge both the facts and the justness of the laws.

 

[Oscar Wao]

I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

 

[Oddball]

I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

 

[Oscar Wao]

And GM foods too...

 

[The T]

I'm not, you guys bitch and moan about things federal gov't does to violate states right, yet not a single supreme court case has determined that. I've even heard people claim regulations in drugs and other stuff should be determined by the states. Imagine what a clusterfuck that would be

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

Still...YET...FDA is good. I am reminded of it by the Lawyer Commercials I see for the substances that the FDA had approved...and later pulled off the shelves.

Think Government can be Sued [much less the FDA]? Ain't happening.

*It Should*.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, and they prohibited aspirin manufacturers and EMS personnel, for no less than a decade, from prescribing a couple of chewed aspirin in the event of a heart attack, to improve your chances of survivability...In fact, if aspirin didn't already exist, it couldn't even get FDA approval for all of its various and sundry side-effects.

Lest we forget orphan drugs.

The FDA has literally killed thousands upon thousands of people.

[/derail off]

 

[Cuyo]

The FDA is a "clusterfuck" enough already.

I mean, they approve aspartame for goodnessakes. Read more about it, and you'll see it's more harmful than good...

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

Still...YET...FDA is good. I am reminded of it by the Lawyer Commercials I see for the substances that the FDA had approved...and later pulled off the shelves.

Think Government can be Sued [much less the FDA]? Ain't happening.

*It Should*.

OK... SO when dangerous products slink through despite the FDA's best efforts and somebody successfully sues the Federal Government for damages (rather than the manufacturer of the product)... Who pays for that?

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

Do you THINK before you say things?

 

[Oscar Wao]

I'd rather have a non-FDA society than a society with "FDA Approved" drugs in our pharmacies that would actually FIT your scenario of "bad drugs."

So, your question to Tom should actually be asked of you.

 

[The T]

And Thalidomide...And Vioxx...And Fen-phen...

But when has any FDA bureaucrat ever been held to account when they approve such disasters?....Never.

Still...YET...FDA is good. I am reminded of it by the Lawyer Commercials I see for the substances that the FDA had approved...and later pulled off the shelves.

Think Government can be Sued [much less the FDA]? Ain't happening.

*It Should*.

OK... SO when dangerous products slink through despite the FDA's best efforts and somebody successfully sues the Federal Government for damages (rather than the manufacturer of the product)... Who pays for that?

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

Do you THINK before you say things?

Seems their 'Best Efforts' have fucked many people.

*TRY AGAIN*

 

[Cuyo]

Still...YET...FDA is good. I am reminded of it by the Lawyer Commercials I see for the substances that the FDA had approved...and later pulled off the shelves.

Think Government can be Sued [much less the FDA]? Ain't happening.

*It Should*.

OK... SO when dangerous products slink through despite the FDA's best efforts and somebody successfully sues the Federal Government for damages (rather than the manufacturer of the product)... Who pays for that?

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

Do you THINK before you say things?

Seems their 'Best Efforts' have fucked many people.

*TRY AGAIN*

mmm-hmm, I actually agree with you there, the job they do could be much better. They've failed many people. And saved exponentially more people no doubt.

But your feeling is that we'd be better off with NO regulation, and anyone could market anything they want?

And again, if FDA could be sued, who pays for that?

 

[2Parties]

The OP must support global government or he's a hypocrite.

2Parties must not be able to read, or is an idiot.

What does that have to do with my OP. HOly nutters

Why have so many countries with different laws then? Isn't that hindering progress?

That's my point. Why not just aim for top?

 

[2Parties]

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

They would probably put poison in ever single pill that would instantly kill everyone.

 

[Cuyo]

What do you think would transpire if the FDA was abolished and drug companies could put anything they want onto market?

They would probably put poison in ever single pill that would instantly kill everyone.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you're an idiot.

 

[Murf76]

. I guess my problem is with some people that think having an FDA, or other federal agencies setting policies is so horrible. ANd yes, I've heard those argument made on this forum. There has to be some laws that are global to all states. And if its "unconstitutional for federal laws, wouldn't it be ruled so?

In a cursory look for more information on the Constitutional standing of agencies like the FDA, I found a pretty good argument....

Part I: The FDA and HCFA (Part I): Unconstitutional Regulatory Agencies
Part II: The FDA and HCFA (Part II): Unconstitutional Regulatory Agencies

This guy's premise is that the "regulations" these bureaucracies make are pretty much indistinguishable from "laws", and that Article I, Section 1 is clear that, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress...". This, to be balanced by separate Executive and Judicial branches.

He goes on to describe specific instances in the FDA where it abuses its power, behaving in an authoritarian manner. He makes a good case too, because these bureaucracies really do behave as if legislative power was theirs to have... as well as executive and judicial powers.

All in all, it's a bit of a thumbnail sketch where its easy to see the problems inherent in growing bureaucracy and how "regulation" can become tyrannical.

 

[code1211]

When will many conservative realize this isn't 19th century anymore and get over their love affair over states rights? Having 50 different states with all kinds of different rules and regulations may have made sense back then, but these days of vast and fast travel, and much more complicated industries, it would be a clusterfuck having states rule everything by themselves. Hardly a united country. And certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations.

Plus its happened already and the federal gov't has been strong for so long now. Stop kicking and screaming and try to make it work for once. Get over the pipe dream and ideology, its the way it is now, regardless of what you think the framers wanted.

Great post comrade! There will be an extra half loaf of stale bread waiting for you at the commissary, but don't tell the others........they believe they are all getting the same amount.

Seriously......how do all the countries in the world get along with all their different rules and laws? What about all the different companies in the same high rise?

Ah yes, the response from the moron right on this forum to everything, call someone communist

We are one country, not 50 different countries that has no centralized rules and regulations. many on this forum bitch and moan and cry unconstitutional anything the federal gov't does anything.

Just to clarify, we are one Republic comprised of fifty separate states.

 

[code1211]

And who interprets and rules whether its constitutional or not? The Supreme court

Do you even know the constitution if you miss that part?

The power of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution was established in Case Law, not the Constitution. Somebody help. Was this Marbury v. Madison?

right, so we haven't followed the constitution in decades and decades?

And what else would the judicial branch do if they did'nt interpret laws? What was the point of the judicial branch then if not to determine if laws are unconstitutional or not? To look pretty in robes?

And wouldn't the courts ruling that be in fact constitutional?

I'm not a lawyer and I suspect that you are not either so we could as justifiably be talking about brain surgery.

That said, I don't think in law that there are any "facts". The law is always evolving so the phrase "in practice" is probably a better one.

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. It seems to me that every lawyer exists only to pervert the law to support a victory for his client and, with this in mind, we need courts to provide a forum for this perversion.

In the world of legality, honesty means nothing, morality means nothing, truth means nothing and fairness means nothing. All of these concepts are perverted by the perverse for the profit of their clients.

If your lawyer is a more talented perverter than his opponent in court, you will win and none of the traditional standards of righteousness have anything to do with it.

Even though "verdict" literally means truth, the verdict and the truth coincide only coincidentally.