State's rights, tyranny and the Federal Government

[theDoctorisIn]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

 

[PratchettFan]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

It has nothing to do with the government. If the state is in favor of their position, then they want state's rights. If the state isn't in favor, they want the feds to step in and change it. Happens on both sides.

 

[The Rabbi]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.
I had no problem with MA voting in Romneycare, requiring citizens to buy health insurance. I thought it was a stupid policy, but not illegal. The feds though have no such ability and I think Obamacare is illegal.

 

[Derideo_Te]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? Because the haters can use 'states rights' to enforce their hatred.

 

[The Rabbi]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

I believe states have the power to do that. I think it is wrong as policy. Doubtless the distinction eludes you. Because you're fucking stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

I believe states have the power to do that. I think it is wrong as policy. Doubtless the distinction eludes you. Because you're fucking stupid.

Not any longer. The 2d Amendment is now incorporated by the 14th into federal domain of authority.

 

[The Rabbi]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

I believe states have the power to do that. I think it is wrong as policy. Doubtless the distinction eludes you. Because you're fucking stupid.

Not any longer. The 2d Amendment is now incorporated by the 14th into federal domain of authority.

Nothing in the 2A or any Court opinion would render that illegal.
You're just a dolt, Jake.

 

[Derideo_Te]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

I believe states have the power to do that. I think it is wrong as policy. Doubtless the distinction eludes you. Because you're fucking stupid.

You just proved the OP's point!

And yes, you do lack the basic comprehension to understand that you did so.

 

[kaz]

state government overreach

What does that even mean?

 

[Stephanie]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

oh brother. the people in California voted down Homosexual marriage and you all had black robe justices step and OVERTURN their rights to vote on it in their own state. so you might like being RULED over but that isn't how our country used to work. now it's just mob rules

 

[Edgetho]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

Here ya go. Try reading this one of these days --

Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

 

[Stephanie]

Here is where this ruling is taking us. way to go you all are so, TOLERANT of other people who doesn't bow

George Takei: Clarence Thomas is a 'clown in blackface,' doesn't belong on Supreme Court

 

[eagle1462010]

The Gov't whether State or Federal are to represent the people............It is their job to support the will of the people.

Put it to the test with a Referendum..............as other countries do and see where the people stand on this and see how the people see this................

 

[Edgetho]

The Gov't whether State or Federal are to represent the people............It is their job to support the will of the people.

Put it to the test with a Referendum..............as other countries do and see where the people stand on this and see how the people see this................

Can't have that. Not when 5 douchebags in black robes are so much smarter and know so much better what's good for us than the MILLIONS of people that vote.

You're just stupid so sit back and let your betters run the Country.

You get the government you deserve. I voted for McCain and Romney. The Lying Cocksucker in Chief appointed Kagan and Sotomayor, do you think either Romney or McCain would have?

But hey...... If you listen to liberturdians -- They're all the same, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

I believe states have the power to do that. I think it is wrong as policy. Doubtless the distinction eludes you. Because you're fucking stupid.

Not any longer. The 2d Amendment is now incorporated by the 14th into federal domain of authority.

Nothing in the 2A or any Court opinion would render that illegal.
You're just a dolt, Jake.

It is now out of the states' hands. The 2dA belongs to the federal judiciary.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because of the 14th Amendment, the federal government not the states protects individual rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Here is where this ruling is taking us. way to go you all are so, TOLERANT of other people who doesn't bow

George Takei: Clarence Thomas is a 'clown in blackface,' doesn't belong on Supreme Court

Thomas disqualified himself as belonging on the bench when he was the only justice who wanted to hand over the powers of the Judiciary to the Executive branch.

He was outvoted 8 to 1 and that included rabid rightwingers like Scalia telling him that he was completely and utterly wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

We need the Convention of states to put this country back on the right track.........
And put the Fed back on a leash.

 

[rightwinger]

States rights always works out to be....We have a right to oppress our citizens