States rights pipe dream

[JakeStarkey]

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’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.

Your hobby, horse, is interesting and predictable. But we are not going back to the 1950s and earlier, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

So what?

One could get opium OTC before FDA. Common sense to regulate, decriminalize, tax so that the users are paying for their own medical and recovery programs.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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*.

That's because you have no clue about biology, chemistry and medicine. NO idea how clinical trials work, no idea about the complex interactions of drugs with people taking other medications, no different diets, different genetics, different lifestyles, etc. No drug, even OTC, is without side effects or dangers in a tiny percentage of people. Even foods can illicit a bad reaction in people. It's what happens when you try to simplify the complexities of life into black or white, this or that, when in reality its a hell of a lot more complex.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

The history prior to FDA showed many did just that, albeit not intentionally. NOthing had to be proven to work, so some companies were nothing more than snake oil salesmen. They didn't have to test for safety, leading to many deaths. There was no regulation of food processing places and people would die from e coli and other bacteria in the food.

 

[Dr Gregg]

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.

Who decides this? THE FRIGGEN COURTS! which people here are claiming is unconstitutional. And whether they believe a ruling is "wrong" doesn't matter, the courts make that decision ultimately. That's the whole point.

Don't need a lawyer to know that, don't even need to know the laws, history and facts of hte matter show that courts make those decisions. Not people on an internet forum.

 

[Dr Gregg]

You guys can kick and scream and say that SCOTUS doesn't have the rights, nor gave themselves the rights, but the fact is, that's the way it is. Period. For most of american history.So no matter what your opinion is, you are wrong. Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You guys can kick and scream and say that SCOTUS doesn't have the rights, nor gave themselves the rights, but the fact is, that's the way it is. Period. For most of american history.So no matter what your opinion is, you are wrong. Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

I get a kick out of the some numbheads that want to rule in place of SCOTUS. Morons. Nothing wrong with questioning its decisions, but to say it is not legitmate is the statement of an uneducated and prejudiced fool.

 

[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’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.

Your hobby, horse, is interesting and predictable. But we are not going back to the 1950s and earlier, period.

Where did I say that? Things are not as different now as you suggest. In Indiana we still have township Trustees to handle relationships between citizens where conflict over property rights (including fences) happen, and handle welfare for the poor as a local initiative to restore them to responsible citizenship rather than just encourage their hopelessness. How would that work? They intercede between renters and landlords, lenders and borrowers in default, distribute food for the needy, etc. etc.

The obvious outcome of the proposition in the OP was a single system which would replace all the lower echelons of government. That would include an overarching tax system which would provide for all disbursement of revenues for government services and administration, with universal benefits throughout the states, with minor differences due to geography and certain demographics, of course.

So with the same taxing system, and all the states' rolled into that system, or some scaled down version of that (since it's too ridiculous to contemplate in all its implications), we, the citizens would lose something very vital: There would be nowhere to go within the country to escape the tyranny of the system. We would have nowhere to flee to except to leave the country, and certainly some would flee the country.

You (we) might be able to escape a certain hated and persecuting bureaucrat by making a move, but to “vote with your feet” to get away from an over burdensome tax by leaving a state would now be more or less meaningless, and we would lose the "vital" differences. We would lose the system of testing ideas of governance and regulations, and so there would be no way to measure gradations of success or failure, except as calculated by the same bureaucrats who create the system in the first place.

 

[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?

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.

Dr. Gregg said:

Who decides this? THE FRIGGEN COURTS! which people here are claiming is unconstitutional. And whether they believe a ruling is "wrong" doesn't matter, the courts make that decision ultimately. That's the whole point.

Don't need a lawyer to know that, don't even need to know the laws, history and facts of hte matter show that courts make those decisions. Not people on an internet forum.

Code replied:

The way the system works, "people" do have a very strong influence on the courts and especially on the Supreme Court. If those people happen to be on an internet forum, that does not diminish their input.

People elect the officials that appoint the judges. People comprise the "community" from which "community standards" are drawn. People form the society into which the effect of the decisions are flung and from which the outrage or approval of decisions are heard.

The long string of Civil Rights decisions was tempered and forstalled by the tenor of Community Standards. The wise Justice balances his rulings to accomodate the legal justice and the effect they will have on the community.

 

[Oddball]

Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

I have, but you willfully ignored the fact.

Juries have the power to rule on unjust laws, but the judicial oligarchy purposefully keep that lawful and factual information away from jurors, so they can continue to rule politically, without check and balance, from the court room and judicial bench.

Fully Informed Jury Association

 

[rightwinger]

Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

I have, but you willfully ignored the fact.

Juries have the power to rule on unjust laws, but the judicial oligarchy purposefully keep that lawful and factual information away from jurors, so they can continue to rule politically, without check and balance, from the court room and judicial bench.

Fully Informed Jury Association

Juries?

Constitutional issues don't get ruled on by juries

 

[Oddball]

They are when juries refuse to enforce and nullify laws that they believe to be beyond the scope of the constitution.

Mebby you should go through and digest the info at the FIJA site before commenting anymore.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Null juries are not a part of the constitutional apparatus, only in Dude's and others' minds.

One word suffices: nonsense.

 

[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.

So you’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.

Your hobby, horse, is interesting and predictable. But we are not going back to the 1950s and earlier, period.

In other words, you cannot and/or are incapable of addressing the topic.

 

[Gunny]

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*.

That's because you have no clue about biology, chemistry and medicine. NO idea how clinical trials work, no idea about the complex interactions of drugs with people taking other medications, no different diets, different genetics, different lifestyles, etc. No drug, even OTC, is without side effects or dangers in a tiny percentage of people. Even foods can illicit a bad reaction in people. It's what happens when you try to simplify the complexities of life into black or white, this or that, when in reality its a hell of a lot more complex.

*yawn*

Rule #2 in the leftwingnut handbook ... attack the poster's intellect with superfluous bullshit, assuming a position of superiority one has not earned. Code name: smoke n mirrors.

You're a worthless fuck. You have no argument. You're some sad fuck hiding in mommy's basement and have [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ]YouTube - Brad Paisley - Online[/ame] on wrap in your cd changer.

 

[Gunny]

You guys can kick and scream and say that SCOTUS doesn't have the rights, nor gave themselves the rights, but the fact is, that's the way it is. Period. For most of american history.So no matter what your opinion is, you are wrong. Judicial branch has to power to rule on constitutionality of laws. Who the hell else would if not judicial branch.

aNd nobody has answered this, but what is the purpose of Judicial branch if not to rule on laws?

We can also lock and load. Court's cool. Long as you aren't the deceased and a lifeless piece of evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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*.

That's because you have no clue about biology, chemistry and medicine. NO idea how clinical trials work, no idea about the complex interactions of drugs with people taking other medications, no different diets, different genetics, different lifestyles, etc. No drug, even OTC, is without side effects or dangers in a tiny percentage of people. Even foods can illicit a bad reaction in people. It's what happens when you try to simplify the complexities of life into black or white, this or that, when in reality its a hell of a lot more complex.

Gunny, you just described yourself, young son. Quit acting like a noob lance corporal. Sheesh. Grow up. Double sheesh.

 

[JakeStarkey]

So you’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.

Your hobby, horse, is interesting and predictable. But we are not going back to the 1950s and earlier, period.

In other words, you cannot and/or are incapable of addressing the topic.

Fully answered.

 

[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’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.

Your hobby, horse, is interesting and predictable. But we are not going back to the 1950s and earlier, period.

In other words, you cannot and/or are incapable of addressing the topic.

Fully answered.

And likewise Jake... I fully addressed your deflection in post #108 of this thread

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, you cannot and/or are incapable of addressing the topic.

Fully answered.

And likewise Jake... I fully addressed your deflection in post #108 of this thread

You have every right to believe that wandering in the word of phantasy answers whatever you want it to answer.