States rights pipe dream

[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.

The constitution strictly says that states have most of the power in this governmental system. You are free to alter the constitution with amendments giving the federal government more power but until then your way of thinking is nothing more than a pipedream.

NO need to. Maybe the whiny conservatives can change the constitution every time the federal gov't does something and they cry its unconstitutional, yet it never is ruled so.

Most of FDR's New Deal was ruled unconstitutional. FDR was the President, more than any other, who dismantled the States Rights bulwark.

He loaded the court, increased the number of justices so his justices could win votes. This was a slimy period in our history. He had very certain ideas and the results were a prolonged Depression and the Iron Curtain.

 

[code1211]

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

How can you explain two hundred years of trying to interpret the second amendment?

Politics. It came into being because it was politically expediant. Since that moment, politics has driven the argument that has swirled around it.

The Constitution is a political document as well as a legal one.

The court that interprets it is a political body as well as a legal one. As the pendulum of political allegiance swings back and forth in our history from more Conservative to more Liberal, the court's members, appointed for life during the previous arc in the swing, rule on the current ideas with the bygone aspect.

One more bit of check and balance tension provided by the Founders. These guys are good!

 

[code1211]

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

They always seem to forget that without the U.S. Constitution, they have no authority with which to compel us, save right of might. And that's a double-edged sword best not to be fucked with.

There is NO United States of America without that Constitution. There are just 50 States.

Actually, just 13 Colonies.

 

[code1211]

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?

So your contention is they ignore it but WHY follow it? Dangerous thinking...but right on track with Obama, The Congress and other Statist Nutjobs.

Now forget---That the Constitution IS what ALL American LAW is based.

What you propose is Anarchy.

You sir, are a fuckin' DOPE.

As you continue to make shit up and twist what I'm arguing. Having a more centralized government and federal rules and regulations, like we have today and has been that way for a long time, is not anarchy. Where are you getting this from?

So the constitution doesn't say that the Judicial branch determines whether laws are unconstitutional or not? Then how is it that they do such a thing, and have been doing it for a while now?

Marbury vs Madison


Marbury sued. The Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice Marshall, faced a dilemma. If it ruled in favor of Marbury, it would no doubt be defied by the administration. If it ruled against Marbury, however, it would be admitting that the Court had no power.

Marshall found the political middle. He ruled against Marbury on a technicality. On the other hand, he ruled that the judiciary had the right and responsibility to decide what was and what was not constitutional.

 

[code1211]

How does the Constitution interpret itself?

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

Of course, you don't address the point. Words do have meaning, and the constitution having SCOTUS rule on laws based on the constitution is indeed IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Are some of you for real?

Plese cite the Section and Clause.

 

[code1211]

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

I had to agree with that statement. It seemed that due to the passage of time, the need for representation according to locality was past in your view.

By extension, any locality no longer requires localized representation and therefore no borders, whether state or national, are justified in the 21st Century.

Care to re-address?

 

[code1211]

<snip>
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.

This is the problem with the failed Stimulus. A small group of panicked idiots, the Congress and President, made decisions that affected us all with almost no guidance and certainly no real intent to help.

If the power had been de-centralized, they would not have had the access to the big pool of cash and not have been able to do the harm they have done.

They would still be idiots, but idiots without so much power.

A strong central government has put a loaded gun in the hands of addicts. Power addicts.

 

[code1211]

the supreme court isn't the final arbitor, the constitution is.

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

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

do you really think the extreme power the supreme court has now came from the constitution?

Does john marshall ring a bell?

ding ding ding.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You want to CHANGE the Constitution? Got an idea for you.... Create an Amendment and PASS it. Until then you have no business advocating the Federal Government violate the very document that Governs how they work.

I am WAY PAST TIRED of you liberal dumb asses advocating ignoring the Constitution. Grow a set and actually pass Amendments for the powers you claim we should have. That is the way it is supposed to work. You constantly make the claim the PEOPLE support your lame brain ideas, PROVE it, pass an amendment.

 

[code1211]

<SNIP>

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.

We are closing in on that point right now.

 

[editec]

Since 1808 the States have had the constiutional right to kill the current constitution AND the FEDERAL government upon which it is founded.

They have had the right to hold a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION...

The atendees to this constiutional convention might be, but do not have to be, the current members of Congress.

Those people could be anybody the STATE LEGISLATURES decide to sent on their behalf

The Federal government has no right to prevent the states from doing that.


So they could, if they found the political will to do so, repeal the current constitution and rewrite it in any way they damn well pleased.

Article V - Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

My point here is this...if 2/3's of STATES LEGISLATURES feel they are being screwed, they have a LEGAL way to supercede the authority of the FEDS, the SCOTUS AND the current Constitution, too....

IF they can get a 3/4 vote from the state legislatures to accept their New Constitution, then this current system is finished.

Never gonna happen, but that amendment is the safeguard that the Floundering Fathers put into the constitution to provide relief for the STATES from oppressive FEDERALISM.

 

[nraforlife]

hmmmm, another leftist progressive vomits a stinking pile of Statism on his shoes. Move along folks nothing to see here, the stench is harmful to your heath and the mess is too big to clean up.

 

[rightwinger]

Words Mean things. And the Founders left a 'Manual' of sorts. It's there for the reading and as an added bonus? It's free all over the Internet.

I suggest that YOU aquaint and educate yourself sewerboy.

The shit you're spewing here doesn't quite cut it, nor is your twisting of words.

I ain't buying what yer sellin.

Of course, you don't address the point. Words do have meaning, and the constitution having SCOTUS rule on laws based on the constitution is indeed IN THE CONSTITUTION.
Are some of you for real?

Plese cite the Section and Clause.

Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects

 

[editec]

hmmmm, another leftist progressive vomits a stinking pile of Statism on his shoes. Move along folks nothing to see here, the stench is harmful to your heath and the mess is too big to clean up.

Well this (I presume you would imagine) leftist just gave you the LEGAL PATH to changing the status quo.

I personally think a new constitutional convention is long overdue.

And this clause in the current constitution is how the STATES can check the creeping FEDERALISM that so many on the left AND right fear.

 

[sweetie]

..as one wag put it, "oh, oh, the stooooooopid fuck republicrats are engaging in 'the fallacy of reification' again...you see dummies, in reality, "states" are concepts/labels..and concepts/labels don't 'have rights'...only real, living people/beings can "have rights"..so maybe you dumbasses ought to spend your time learning, for example, what 'a dollar' is or something..and stfu about 'states rights'.."



...the rest of you, have a good day!..

 

[nraforlife]

hmmmm, another leftist progressive vomits a stinking pile of Statism on his shoes. Move along folks nothing to see here, the stench is harmful to your heath and the mess is too big to clean up.

Well this (I presume you would imagine) leftist just gave you the LEGAL PATH to changing the status quo.

I personally think a new constitutional convention is long overdue.

And this clause in the current constitution is how the STATES can check the creeping FEDERALISM that so many on the left AND right fear.

The Constitution we have is just fine though we do have a lot of leftists who need to be put down.

 

[editec]

hmmmm, another leftist progressive vomits a stinking pile of Statism on his shoes. Move along folks nothing to see here, the stench is harmful to your heath and the mess is too big to clean up.

Well this (I presume you would imagine) leftist just gave you the LEGAL PATH to changing the status quo.

I personally think a new constitutional convention is long overdue.

And this clause in the current constitution is how the STATES can check the creeping FEDERALISM that so many on the left AND right fear.

The Constitution we have is just fine though we do have a lot of leftists who need to be put down.

Well you see, lad, there's where your confused thinking is getting you into trouble.

The Constitution you think is just fine prevents people like you from putting down leftists, doesn't it?

Maybe that should be one of the things you and your brownshirted thugs ought to demand change if the STATES ever decide to call for a new constitutional convention.

Until then, of course, we're all (left middle or right) stuck with the FEDERALISM that the SCOTUS has allowed to manifest

 

[Gunny]

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.

While many leftwingfools don't understand this:

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.

It's STILL the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution whether or not idiots like you choose to ignore it.

 

[American Horse]

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.

So you&#8217;re willing to trust one claque of demagogues with every aspect of government, instead of retaining local control and flexibility to deal with local problems, solutions, and initiatives? This idea shows an absolutely incredible lack of understanding of how systems work and/or fail. I'd at least like to credit this idea as trolling, but since ideas like this one are standard product for you, you are probably serious. I don't think you have a clue how federalism and local government work together because you haven't availed yourself to looking into it.

Straighten me out on this: You seem to believe the US Dept of Education hires teachers and builds brick-and-mortar school buildings, or that the US DOT builds highways because there is an interstate highway system, while in fact virtually all construction work and maintenance of our interstate highway system is contracted out and completed under state supervision, with limited federal funding to leverage the work between states. The Feds standardize and coordinate the system for all 50 states; the states do everything else within their borders physically and administratively.

(quote: "....certain things its just not feasible to have each state make their own rules and regulations." )
THIS IS how a federal system works, and practically and administratively it works well, because every state, even every county is different in uncountable ways. You seem to not grasp the ingenious design of the system, and why it works well when it works at all.

 

[Oddball]

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?

As was already pointed out, aspirin was in the marketplace and in common usage before the FDA....Lots of other OTC preparations, too.