States Rights / States Wronged.

[uptownlivin90]

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

Has that law forbid you from attending a church, your own choice about what you believe, or restricted you from practicing your own religion? It has not because despite this law being founded on a judeo-christian belief it still has not forbid other faiths from being establlished in this country. That is what the first amendment was designed to do. To protect people's right to form a religion on their own.

You are assuming that freedom of religion is the only right upon which "the church" or a state religion can step on first of all. Islamofacist nations use the exact same excuse to support their ideas. They claim to have an Islamic based system, you can attend the church of your choice, practice as you choose but the moral code that the law is based upon is Quranic in nature.

That's why in this nation laws against adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are enforced, and the private lives of the citizens of these nations are controlled by the state. This is the real danger behind having a "christian nation". It's not in the restriction of religious worship, it's in the allowing a christian moral code to control the private lives of citizens. Islamofascism does not always restrict other religions, but it forces upon the citizens of Islamofascist nations a moral code based upon the Quran.

Having an agenda based upon a moral code coming from a specific religion and trying to force that agenda on the nation's citizens is dangerous. I govern myself by a moral code that I personally derive from the Bible as a moderate adventist christian. That is how I govern my personal day to day activities, simply because I have the right to do so. You have the right to conduct yourself in a similar manner, or not to. That's where the question of civil liberties comes in, and how forcing one religion's "moral codes" upon the population is dangerous.

If we're going to have a real discussion about how keep the government out of people's personal lives in the total sense, a moral code based upon religious beliefs governing this nation shouldn't even be apart of the conversation. Why should promoting christianity be a function of government? Why should promoting a private and personal affairs such as religion be the concern of the state? It shouldn't. There is no real reason why it should, and we critize Islamic nations for doing exactly what many within the christian right wing would do: legislating morality based upon a set of religious beliefs. That to me, is unacceptable.

 

[uptownlivin90]

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

"Never suggested that people didn't come from Europe to escape persecution because of their religious beliefs, quakers, puritans, catholics, calvinists, baptists, methodists, weslyans"

On one hand you say that we were never a christian nation then say that the people who came here and eventually composed the populations religious beliefs were all of the christian faith. Wouldn't that make us a christian nation simply because the people who compose the population are christian?

No. It makes us a predominately christian nation. The majority of our citizens govern their personal lives upon a set of beliefs coming from the Bible, as do I. That is there and my business. The less the government is involved in the personal lives of it's citizens the better in my view. I don't see any justification for a "collective" mind frame being promoted by the government when it comes to "values" and religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Change the theme from predominantly Christian nation to predominantly a nation of Christians, and I am with you on that.

 

[manifold]

Why not?

If the above statement is true then humanity is either too stupid to co-exist, too stubborn to co-exist, or some fatal combination of the two.

I, a resident board atheist, refuse to believe that. Am I being naive? Can I trust you all not to destroy the only place your children are physically capable of calling 'home', or are we simply doomed to self destruction?

If you believe that coexistence is not a concern, why the need for a common defense at all?

I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, mani. I'll not be taking the bait from you, but I salute your capabilities - you, my friend, are a Master Baiter.

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean the question is bait.

 

[ihopehefails]

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

Has that law forbid you from attending a church, your own choice about what you believe, or restricted you from practicing your own religion? It has not because despite this law being founded on a judeo-christian belief it still has not forbid other faiths from being establlished in this country. That is what the first amendment was designed to do. To protect people's right to form a religion on their own.

You are assuming that freedom of religion is the only right upon which "the church" or a state religion can step on first of all. Islamofacist nations use the exact same excuse to support their ideas. They claim to have an Islamic based system, you can attend the church of your choice, practice as you choose but the moral code that the law is based upon is Quranic in nature.

That's why in this nation laws against adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are enforced, and the private lives of the citizens of these nations are controlled by the state. This is the real danger behind having a "christian nation". It's not in the restriction of religious worship, it's in the allowing a christian moral code to control the private lives of citizens. Islamofascism does not always restrict other religions, but it forces upon the citizens of Islamofascist nations a moral code based upon the Quran.

Having an agenda based upon a moral code coming from a specific religion and trying to force that agenda on the nation's citizens is dangerous. I govern myself by a moral code that I personally derive from the Bible as a moderate adventist christian. That is how I govern my personal day to day activities, simply because I have the right to do so. You have the right to conduct yourself in a similar manner, or not to. That's where the question of civil liberties comes in, and how forcing one religion's "moral codes" upon the population is dangerous.

If we're going to have a real discussion about how keep the government out of people's personal lives in the total sense, a moral code based upon religious beliefs governing this nation shouldn't even be apart of the conversation. Why should promoting christianity be a function of government? Why should promoting a private and personal affairs such as religion be the concern of the state? It shouldn't. There is no real reason why it should, and we critize Islamic nations for doing exactly what many within the christian right wing would do: legislating morality based upon a set of religious beliefs. That to me, is unacceptable.

Let me imagine a scenario. Two people think of an identical idea for a law forbidding theft. One person is an atheist who didn't like things being stolen from them and the other person is a christian who thinks that 'thou shall not steal' will be a good thing for society to live by because it sucks to have you stuff stolen. Both go to the legislature to get this law enacted but someone says to the christian "you can't have this law passed because it is based on christian morals".

The atheist is then allowed to present his case to the legislature and the law gets passed. Are we not denying the christian and any other person's right to participate in the political process simply because that person is a christian?

Now lets imagine that the christian or muslim thinks of something more drastic like forcing women to wear a burka. This law would violate 'freedom of speech' (or at least I'm hoping) so they are told it is unconstitutional. They come back and suggest other laws that are inline with the constitution that may or may not get approved. The question is; does it really matter what the source of the law is if that law is fully constitutional?

 

[ihopehefails]

Change the theme from predominantly Christian nation to predominantly a nation of Christians, and I am with you on that.

I'm OK with that but even the non-christian is affected by the beliefs of others around them. A very religious person my close their store on christmas which means non-christians are indirectly participating in the holiday since they are not allowed to shop there on that day. The same thing would happen but in reverse if we were a nation of predominantly muslims where they would close all their shops on ramadan and every non-muslim is indirectly participating in the holiday.

So what is the effectual difference between a christian nation and a nation of predominantly christians?

 

[manifold]

Let me imagine a scenario. Two people think of an identical idea for a law forbidding theft. One person is an atheist who didn't like things being stolen from them and the other person is a christian who thinks that 'thou shall not steal' will be a good thing for society to live by because it sucks to have you stuff stolen. Both go to the legislature to get this law enacted but someone says to the christian "you can't have this law passed because it is based on christian morals".

The atheist is then allowed to present his case to the legislature and the law gets passed. Are we not denying the christian and any other person's right to participate in the political process simply because that person is a christian?

Well of course we are, because everyone knows that our current political landscape reflects no Christians or Christian values and everything is run by atheists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A Christian nation would give preference to Christianity and automatically in doing so would discriminate against non-Christians and non-believers. That is exactly why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fought against Governor Patrick Henry's proposal to establish "Christianity" as the religion of the state of Virginia.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Has that law forbid you from attending a church, your own choice about what you believe, or restricted you from practicing your own religion? It has not because despite this law being founded on a judeo-christian belief it still has not forbid other faiths from being establlished in this country. That is what the first amendment was designed to do. To protect people's right to form a religion on their own.

You are assuming that freedom of religion is the only right upon which "the church" or a state religion can step on first of all. Islamofacist nations use the exact same excuse to support their ideas. They claim to have an Islamic based system, you can attend the church of your choice, practice as you choose but the moral code that the law is based upon is Quranic in nature.

That's why in this nation laws against adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are enforced, and the private lives of the citizens of these nations are controlled by the state. This is the real danger behind having a "christian nation". It's not in the restriction of religious worship, it's in the allowing a christian moral code to control the private lives of citizens. Islamofascism does not always restrict other religions, but it forces upon the citizens of Islamofascist nations a moral code based upon the Quran.

Having an agenda based upon a moral code coming from a specific religion and trying to force that agenda on the nation's citizens is dangerous. I govern myself by a moral code that I personally derive from the Bible as a moderate adventist christian. That is how I govern my personal day to day activities, simply because I have the right to do so. You have the right to conduct yourself in a similar manner, or not to. That's where the question of civil liberties comes in, and how forcing one religion's "moral codes" upon the population is dangerous.

If we're going to have a real discussion about how keep the government out of people's personal lives in the total sense, a moral code based upon religious beliefs governing this nation shouldn't even be apart of the conversation. Why should promoting christianity be a function of government? Why should promoting a private and personal affairs such as religion be the concern of the state? It shouldn't. There is no real reason why it should, and we critize Islamic nations for doing exactly what many within the christian right wing would do: legislating morality based upon a set of religious beliefs. That to me, is unacceptable.

Let me imagine a scenario. Two people think of an identical idea for a law forbidding theft. One person is an atheist who didn't like things being stolen from them and the other person is a christian who thinks that 'thou shall not steal' will be a good thing for society to live by because it sucks to have you stuff stolen. Both go to the legislature to get this law enacted but someone says to the christian "you can't have this law passed because it is based on christian morals".

The atheist is then allowed to present his case to the legislature and the law gets passed. Are we not denying the christian and any other person's right to participate in the political process simply because that person is a christian?

Now lets imagine that the christian or muslim thinks of something more drastic like forcing women to wear a burka. This law would violate 'freedom of speech' (or at least I'm hoping) so they are told it is unconstitutional. They come back and suggest other laws that are inline with the constitution that may or may not get approved. The question is; does it really matter what the source of the law is if that law is fully constitutional?

Your argument ignores the fact that there is a very significant difference between laws against stealing and laws demanding that individuals wear a burqa. One is a law against an act (stealing) that violates people's rights in and of itself. When I say that people's personal activities should not be interfered with I do not mean that people should be allowed to victimize EACH OTHER freely with no consequence from the government (which is why we have the rule of law). However you don't have to base law upon biblical priniciples or on any principles besides the basic protection of one's civil liberties: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

I have a right to live without fear of my property being stolen, being raped, and I have a right to live whether or not I'm a christian. When those rights are taken from me by anyone they must face the law. Plain and simple. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, so does the law. Does that mean that we derive our law from the Bible? Just as much as it does we derive our law from the Quran and the Egyptian Book of the Dead which preach against stealing as well. And nobody is saying that the christian can't speak and make laws, but they cannot base the law they wish to promote solely on the premise that the Bible backs that law. The system of law we have in this nation must remain secular.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you believe that coexistence is not a concern, why the need for a common defense at all?

I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, mani. I'll not be taking the bait from you, but I salute your capabilities - you, my friend, are a Master Baiter.

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean the question is bait.

Granted. But in the case of your question, against the back drop of the history of this planet, staged on the platform of today's political landscape, the answer is 'common sense'.

That's what makes your question appear to be bait for a pointless discussion of national defense starting with an assumption of a political world more perfect than the one we have.

Even my opening post doesn't have a wish to change the past, but an exhortation to learn from it and move forward with a little more political power resting closer to the average American by way of increased self determination for the 50 states.

If nothing else, giving the states the task of dealing with issues like gun rights, intoxication rights, medical rights, death rights, religious rights, sexual rights, marriage rights etc. - all framed upon the foundation of our original constitution - would give our children a future with a lot more different policies to analyze for what works and what doesn't, instead of having to implement a whole new bureaucracy on a national level to deal with the rule book required to satisfy all of the special interests, including the voters, that currently wield what passes for national political power in this country.

 

[ihopehefails]

A Christian nation would give preference to Christianity and automatically in doing so would discriminate against non-Christians and non-believers. That is exactly why Thomas Jefferson and James Madison fought against Governor Patrick Henry's proposal to establish "Christianity" as the religion of the state of Virginia.

I didn't say we had a christian state, government, or political authority. I meant christian nation where nation is the people that compose of the population. Establishing an official state religion would violate the first amendment but not having laws that happen to line itself up with something found inside a religious document like 'thou shall not steal'.

 

[ihopehefails]

You are assuming that freedom of religion is the only right upon which "the church" or a state religion can step on first of all. Islamofacist nations use the exact same excuse to support their ideas. They claim to have an Islamic based system, you can attend the church of your choice, practice as you choose but the moral code that the law is based upon is Quranic in nature.

That's why in this nation laws against adultery, fornication, and homosexuality are enforced, and the private lives of the citizens of these nations are controlled by the state. This is the real danger behind having a "christian nation". It's not in the restriction of religious worship, it's in the allowing a christian moral code to control the private lives of citizens. Islamofascism does not always restrict other religions, but it forces upon the citizens of Islamofascist nations a moral code based upon the Quran.

Having an agenda based upon a moral code coming from a specific religion and trying to force that agenda on the nation's citizens is dangerous. I govern myself by a moral code that I personally derive from the Bible as a moderate adventist christian. That is how I govern my personal day to day activities, simply because I have the right to do so. You have the right to conduct yourself in a similar manner, or not to. That's where the question of civil liberties comes in, and how forcing one religion's "moral codes" upon the population is dangerous.

If we're going to have a real discussion about how keep the government out of people's personal lives in the total sense, a moral code based upon religious beliefs governing this nation shouldn't even be apart of the conversation. Why should promoting christianity be a function of government? Why should promoting a private and personal affairs such as religion be the concern of the state? It shouldn't. There is no real reason why it should, and we critize Islamic nations for doing exactly what many within the christian right wing would do: legislating morality based upon a set of religious beliefs. That to me, is unacceptable.

Let me imagine a scenario. Two people think of an identical idea for a law forbidding theft. One person is an atheist who didn't like things being stolen from them and the other person is a christian who thinks that 'thou shall not steal' will be a good thing for society to live by because it sucks to have you stuff stolen. Both go to the legislature to get this law enacted but someone says to the christian "you can't have this law passed because it is based on christian morals".

The atheist is then allowed to present his case to the legislature and the law gets passed. Are we not denying the christian and any other person's right to participate in the political process simply because that person is a christian?

Now lets imagine that the christian or muslim thinks of something more drastic like forcing women to wear a burka. This law would violate 'freedom of speech' (or at least I'm hoping) so they are told it is unconstitutional. They come back and suggest other laws that are inline with the constitution that may or may not get approved. The question is; does it really matter what the source of the law is if that law is fully constitutional?

Your argument ignores the fact that there is a very significant difference between laws against stealing and laws demanding that individuals wear a burqa. One is a law against an act (stealing) that violates people's rights in and of itself. When I say that people's personal activities should not be interfered with I do not mean that people should be allowed to victimize EACH OTHER freely with no consequence from the government (which is why we have the rule of law). However you don't have to base law upon biblical priniciples or on any principles besides the basic protection of one's civil liberties: life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

I have a right to live without fear of my property being stolen, being raped, and I have a right to live whether or not I'm a christian. When those rights are taken from me by anyone they must face the law. Plain and simple. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, so does the law. Does that mean that we derive our law from the Bible? Just as much as it does we derive our law from the Quran and the Egyptian Book of the Dead which preach against stealing as well. And nobody is saying that the christian can't speak and make laws, but they cannot base the law they wish to promote solely on the premise that the Bible backs that law. The system of law we have in this nation must remain secular.

Lets assume that any law proposed and can pass the constitution does not interfere with anyone's personal liberties for arguments sake. How would that same law violate the freedom of anyone if the inspiration, creation of, or is found in a religious text somewhere if it also passes the constitution?

Any law that is inspired by the bible like thou shall not steal would not violate the constitution but a law banning taking the lord's name invain would violate the freedom of speech clause. Taking the lords name invain would be unconstitutional so any law proposed would still have to pass the rest of the constitution whether that law is sourced from the bible or our common sense.

 

[manifold]

I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, mani. I'll not be taking the bait from you, but I salute your capabilities - you, my friend, are a Master Baiter.

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean the question is bait.

Granted. But in the case of your question, against the back drop of the history of this planet, staged on the platform of today's political landscape, the answer is 'common sense'.

That's what makes your question appear to be bait for a pointless discussion of national defense starting with an assumption of a political world more perfect than the one we have.

Even my opening post doesn't have a wish to change the past, but an exhortation to learn from it and move forward with a little more political power resting closer to the average American by way of increased self determination for the 50 states.

If nothing else, giving the states the task of dealing with issues like gun rights, intoxication rights, medical rights, death rights, religious rights, sexual rights, marriage rights etc. - all framed upon the foundation of our original constitution - would give our children a future with a lot more different policies to analyze for what works and what doesn't, instead of having to implement a whole new bureaucracy on a national level to deal with the rule book required to satisfy all of the special interests, including the voters, that currently wield what passes for national political power in this country.

I understand your point, but I still maintain my original assertion that a collection of contiguous, self-governing states bound together by a common defense pact is not a sustainable model. No matter how well intentioned from the outset, over time one of two things will happen: Either the states will gradually cede power to the central governing authority, or the common defense pact will wither and die, leaving the states to defend themselves and quite likely fight amongst each other. The more the laws differ from one state to the next, the more tensions would arise, especially with the open state-to-state borders we enjoy today.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Maximus: Five thousand of my men are out there in the freezing mud. Three thousand of them are bloodied and cleaved. Two thousand will never leave this place. I will not believe that they fought and died for nothing.
Marcus Aurelius: And what would you believe?
Maximus: They fought for you and for Rome.
Marcus Aurelius: And what is Rome, Maximus?
Maximus: I've seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.
Marcus Aurelius: Yet you have never been there. You have not seen what it has become. I am dying, Maximus. When a man sees his end... he wants to know there was some purpose to his life. How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant...? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self? There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter.

 

[ihopehefails]

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean the question is bait.

Granted. But in the case of your question, against the back drop of the history of this planet, staged on the platform of today's political landscape, the answer is 'common sense'.

That's what makes your question appear to be bait for a pointless discussion of national defense starting with an assumption of a political world more perfect than the one we have.

Even my opening post doesn't have a wish to change the past, but an exhortation to learn from it and move forward with a little more political power resting closer to the average American by way of increased self determination for the 50 states.

If nothing else, giving the states the task of dealing with issues like gun rights, intoxication rights, medical rights, death rights, religious rights, sexual rights, marriage rights etc. - all framed upon the foundation of our original constitution - would give our children a future with a lot more different policies to analyze for what works and what doesn't, instead of having to implement a whole new bureaucracy on a national level to deal with the rule book required to satisfy all of the special interests, including the voters, that currently wield what passes for national political power in this country.

I understand your point, but I still maintain my original assertion that a collection of contiguous, self-governing states bound together by a common defense pact is not a sustainable model. No matter how well intentioned from the outset, over time one of two things will happen: Either the states will gradually cede power to the central governing authority, or the common defense pact will wither and die, leaving the states to defend themselves and quite likely fight amongst each other. The more the laws differ from one state to the next, the more tensions would arise, especially with the open state-to-state borders we enjoy today.

Why would you fight with another state if you are free to choose the laws you want to have without interference from another state's wishes? More fighting occurs when you try to enforce your will onto other people. It doesn't happen when you allow people to do their own thing.

No one is suggesting that we dissolve the union but for the federal government to operate within its own legal boundries of fighting foreign wars and handling all international affairs. Is that to much to ask?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

Each member of the community has made its choice and it is irrevocable. The time for dalliances has passed.

So based on a decision made by an ancestor, or actually a non-decision since the choice was NEVER independence or statehood for any territory, people living today should be denied their rights. How very convenient for a totalitarian movement.

 

[manifold]

Why would you fight with another state if you are free to choose the laws you want to have without interference from another state's wishes? More fighting occurs when you try to enforce your will onto other people. It doesn't happen when you allow people to do their own thing.

I can think of countless reasons.

But for starters, I'll just give you one. Pollution. One state doesn't police what gets dumped into a river and all sorts of toxic waste gets dumped and flows into the next state where they have strict laws.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Just because you don't have an answer doesn't mean the question is bait.

Granted. But in the case of your question, against the back drop of the history of this planet, staged on the platform of today's political landscape, the answer is 'common sense'.

That's what makes your question appear to be bait for a pointless discussion of national defense starting with an assumption of a political world more perfect than the one we have.

Even my opening post doesn't have a wish to change the past, but an exhortation to learn from it and move forward with a little more political power resting closer to the average American by way of increased self determination for the 50 states.

If nothing else, giving the states the task of dealing with issues like gun rights, intoxication rights, medical rights, death rights, religious rights, sexual rights, marriage rights etc. - all framed upon the foundation of our original constitution - would give our children a future with a lot more different policies to analyze for what works and what doesn't, instead of having to implement a whole new bureaucracy on a national level to deal with the rule book required to satisfy all of the special interests, including the voters, that currently wield what passes for national political power in this country.

I understand your point, but I still maintain my original assertion that a collection of contiguous, self-governing states bound together by a common defense pact is not a sustainable model. No matter how well intentioned from the outset, over time one of two things will happen: Either the states will gradually cede power to the central governing authority, or the common defense pact will wither and die, leaving the states to defend themselves and quite likely fight amongst each other. The more the laws differ from one state to the next, the more tensions would arise, especially with the open state-to-state borders we enjoy today.

Risking the open boarders we enjoy here is a very valid concern when discussing state's rights in our union. I wonder if you would be right in your 'one of two things...' scenario if the big fat assumption of this reorganization fantasy, being that it stayed within the political confines of the US Constitution, were made a hard rule of the game. Can the document be THAT good?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why would you fight with another state if you are free to choose the laws you want to have without interference from another state's wishes? More fighting occurs when you try to enforce your will onto other people. It doesn't happen when you allow people to do their own thing.

I can think of countless reasons.

But for starters, I'll just give you one. Pollution. One state doesn't police what gets dumped into a river and all sorts of toxic waste gets dumped and flows into the next state where they have strict laws.

This is where the central government is supposed to become worth the taxes they collect... settling disputes between the states.

Of course, this ASS-U-ME-s that the central government has as its mandate the protection of the general welfare of ALL the people and not just the special interests of the polluting state because generating pollution generates profits that can be used to influence the central government.

The crying shame of reality on the ground is that here and now, the federal government routinely protects the interests of polluters who are corporate citizens of one state while they damage the environment of another state.

Would increased states rights help solve the problem of decisions being made in a New Jersey boardroom that dump waste into the rivers of Idaho?

 

[manifold]

Why would you fight with another state if you are free to choose the laws you want to have without interference from another state's wishes? More fighting occurs when you try to enforce your will onto other people. It doesn't happen when you allow people to do their own thing.

I can think of countless reasons.

But for starters, I'll just give you one. Pollution. One state doesn't police what gets dumped into a river and all sorts of toxic waste gets dumped and flows into the next state where they have strict laws.

This is where the central government is supposed to become worth the taxes they collect... settling disputes between the states.

...and so begins the ceding of sovereignty.

That would be option 1.