What Happened To States Rights?

[editec]

Empires cost too much money for any single state to support, folks.

Most of you worship the military but fail to see the connection between it and the encroachment of FEDERALISM.

It's rather ironic that the sons of the South who all claim to love STATES RIGHTS are so frequently found taking the FDERAL COIN as members of the FEDERAL military.

The HATE the federal government (indeerd the rest of the nation as far as I can tell) EXCEPT for when the FEDERAL EAGLE shits for them.

 

[American Horse]

Empires cost too much money for any single state to support, folks.

Most of you worship the military but fail to see the connection between it and the encroachment of FEDERALISM.

It's rather ironic that the sons of the South who all claim to love STATES RIGHTS are so frequently found taking the FDERAL COIN as members of the FEDERAL military.

The HATE the federal government (indeerd the rest of the nation as far as I can tell) EXCEPT for when the FEDERAL EAGLE shits for them.

Actually it's the usurpation of Federalism by a super National regime that we oppose. And mentioning the "sons of the south" goes to my comment in the first pargraph of my post just before yours. That is not wholly a red herring because it is an important caveat to states right's, I agree, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

I don't hate the Federal Government, and I think few here do, not-withstanding the rhetoric we all use to press home our points. The Federal government does well the things it was originally set up to do, which is to act as the unitized entity of the states and also to standardize systems which operate within the states, and much more relating to NECESSARY regulations to protect us.

The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution, and, mostly it is something it does well. It's a dangerous world, and our military has, at a not unbearable expense to us, made it possible for other democracies to focus their wealth on the improvement of their citizens life, making them more peaceful and valuable as trading partners in globally interdependent commerce.

If we are an empire, it is an "empire of trust" along the Roman Empire model (and its Pax Romana) because no state is forced to work with us or be subservient to us, or even to be our allies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Empires cost too much money for any single state to support, folks.

Most of you worship the military but fail to see the connection between it and the encroachment of FEDERALISM.

It's rather ironic that the sons of the South who all claim to love STATES RIGHTS are so frequently found taking the FDERAL COIN as members of the FEDERAL military.

The HATE the federal government (indeerd the rest of the nation as far as I can tell) EXCEPT for when the FEDERAL EAGLE shits for them.

Actually it's the usurpation of Federalism by a super National regime that we oppose. And mentioning the "sons of the south" goes to my comment in the first pargraph of my post just before yours. That is not wholly a red herring because it is an important caveat to states right's, I agree, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

I don't hate the Federal Government, and I think few here do, not-withstanding the rhetoric we all use to press home our points. The Federal government does well the things it was originally set up to do, which is to act as the unitized entity of the states and also to standardize systems which operate within the states, and much more relating to NECESSARY regulations to protect us.

The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution, and, mostly it is something it does well. It's a dangerous world, and our military has, at a not unbearable expense to us, made it possible for other democracies to focus their wealth on the improvement of their citizens life, making them more peaceful and valuable as trading partners in globally interdependent commerce.

If we are an empire, it is an "empire of trust" along the Roman Empire model (and its Pax Romana) because no state is forced to work with us or be subservient to us, or even to be our allies.

"The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution,..."

It might be instructive to consider what earlier Americans saw as the proper functions of government....

1. Israel Holly, evangelical pastor, wrote in 1765, that civil authorities had a very simple mandate: to defend people’s lives, liberty and property. Holly called religious liberty and “unalienable” right, an idea which originated with the “late religious commotion in the land” (the Great Awakening). Israel Holly, “A Word in Zion’s Behalf,” (1765), p. 5-7.

2. Pastor Elisha Williams, in Wethersfield, Connecticut, in “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants,” (1744), called up the writings of John Locke to show that government had limited civil purposes: preserving people’s lives, freedoms, and property. Any other purpose was tyranny.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Federal government says, "Here's some free money but you have to do as we say."
States say, "Give us that free money. We love you."
Federal government says, "Here is your free money. Now, fall in line and ignore the Constitution."
States say, "What is a Constitution."
Federal government says, "You're a good State."

And this is how the United States will march quickly to it's end...

 

[zzzz]

Empires cost too much money for any single state to support, folks.

Most of you worship the military but fail to see the connection between it and the encroachment of FEDERALISM.

It's rather ironic that the sons of the South who all claim to love STATES RIGHTS are so frequently found taking the FDERAL COIN as members of the FEDERAL military.

The HATE the federal government (indeerd the rest of the nation as far as I can tell) EXCEPT for when the FEDERAL EAGLE shits for them.

Actually it's the usurpation of Federalism by a super National regime that we oppose. And mentioning the "sons of the south" goes to my comment in the first pargraph of my post just before yours. That is not wholly a red herring because it is an important caveat to states right's, I agree, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

I don't hate the Federal Government, and I think few here do, not-withstanding the rhetoric we all use to press home our points. The Federal government does well the things it was originally set up to do, which is to act as the unitized entity of the states and also to standardize systems which operate within the states, and much more relating to NECESSARY regulations to protect us.

The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution, and, mostly it is something it does well. It's a dangerous world, and our military has, at a not unbearable expense to us, made it possible for other democracies to focus their wealth on the improvement of their citizens life, making them more peaceful and valuable as trading partners in globally interdependent commerce.

If we are an empire, it is an "empire of trust" along the Roman Empire model (and its Pax Romana) because no state is forced to work with us or be subservient to us, or even to be our allies.

"The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution,..."

It might be instructive to consider what earlier Americans saw as the proper functions of government....

1. Israel Holly, evangelical pastor, wrote in 1765, that civil authorities had a very simple mandate: to defend people’s lives, liberty and property. Holly called religious liberty and “unalienable” right, an idea which originated with the “late religious commotion in the land” (the Great Awakening). Israel Holly, “A Word in Zion’s Behalf,” (1765), p. 5-7.

2. Pastor Elisha Williams, in Wethersfield, Connecticut, in “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants,” (1744), called up the writings of John Locke to show that government had limited civil purposes: preserving people’s lives, freedoms, and property. Any other purpose was tyranny.

Yet these people lived in a different time. Do we not progress as a country through time or do we we stand still? Do we not have men and women today who are great thinkers and who have ideas on how the government should function? We must think for ourselves, not rely on outdated and molded ideas from the past. Yes some of them are good, and some have been surpassed by time and events. That is what makes the constitution a special thing. It can change and grow with time and it is the people who change it through their representatives and amendments.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually it's the usurpation of Federalism by a super National regime that we oppose. And mentioning the "sons of the south" goes to my comment in the first pargraph of my post just before yours. That is not wholly a red herring because it is an important caveat to states right's, I agree, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath-water.

I don't hate the Federal Government, and I think few here do, not-withstanding the rhetoric we all use to press home our points. The Federal government does well the things it was originally set up to do, which is to act as the unitized entity of the states and also to standardize systems which operate within the states, and much more relating to NECESSARY regulations to protect us.

The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution, and, mostly it is something it does well. It's a dangerous world, and our military has, at a not unbearable expense to us, made it possible for other democracies to focus their wealth on the improvement of their citizens life, making them more peaceful and valuable as trading partners in globally interdependent commerce.

If we are an empire, it is an "empire of trust" along the Roman Empire model (and its Pax Romana) because no state is forced to work with us or be subservient to us, or even to be our allies.

"The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution,..."

It might be instructive to consider what earlier Americans saw as the proper functions of government....

1. Israel Holly, evangelical pastor, wrote in 1765, that civil authorities had a very simple mandate: to defend people’s lives, liberty and property. Holly called religious liberty and “unalienable” right, an idea which originated with the “late religious commotion in the land” (the Great Awakening). Israel Holly, “A Word in Zion’s Behalf,” (1765), p. 5-7.

2. Pastor Elisha Williams, in Wethersfield, Connecticut, in “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants,” (1744), called up the writings of John Locke to show that government had limited civil purposes: preserving people’s lives, freedoms, and property. Any other purpose was tyranny.

Yet these people lived in a different time. Do we not progress as a country through time or do we we stand still? Do we not have men and women today who are great thinkers and who have ideas on how the government should function? We must think for ourselves, not rely on outdated and molded ideas from the past. Yes some of them are good, and some have been surpassed by time and events. That is what makes the constitution a special thing. It can change and grow with time and it is the people who change it through their representatives and amendments.

No, Z, what changes is the view of our 'leaders,' and your suggestion, which I read as a belief in a 'living' Constitution, is what allows us to have a government that reaches into every venue of our existence...
to tell you what words are no-no's
what light bulbs you can and cannot use...
what variety of toilet you can have....
what moral views the government deems acceptable...
what kind of medical insurance you can have...
etc.

OK with you?

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans talked of states rights in the 80's however except for gay marraige and other morality type of legislation they have given up on states rights.

 

[Sunni Man]

Republicans talked of states rights in the 80's however except for gay marraige and other morality type of legislation they have given up on states rights.

There aren't any Republicans anymore.

Just a pathetic herd of RINO's

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The military is a well defined function of the Federal government based on the constitution,..."

It might be instructive to consider what earlier Americans saw as the proper functions of government....

1. Israel Holly, evangelical pastor, wrote in 1765, that civil authorities had a very simple mandate: to defend people’s lives, liberty and property. Holly called religious liberty and “unalienable” right, an idea which originated with the “late religious commotion in the land” (the Great Awakening). Israel Holly, “A Word in Zion’s Behalf,” (1765), p. 5-7.

2. Pastor Elisha Williams, in Wethersfield, Connecticut, in “The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants,” (1744), called up the writings of John Locke to show that government had limited civil purposes: preserving people’s lives, freedoms, and property. Any other purpose was tyranny.

Yet these people lived in a different time. Do we not progress as a country through time or do we we stand still? Do we not have men and women today who are great thinkers and who have ideas on how the government should function? We must think for ourselves, not rely on outdated and molded ideas from the past. Yes some of them are good, and some have been surpassed by time and events. That is what makes the constitution a special thing. It can change and grow with time and it is the people who change it through their representatives and amendments.

No, Z, what changes is the view of our 'leaders,' and your suggestion, which I read as a belief in a 'living' Constitution, is what allows us to have a government that reaches into every venue of our existence...
to tell you what words are no-no's
what light bulbs you can and cannot use...
what variety of toilet you can have....
what moral views the government deems acceptable...
what kind of medical insurance you can have...
etc.

OK with you?

"...progress as a country through time or do we we stand still? Do we not have men and women today who are great thinkers..."

Seriously?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What happened to states rights? We became a nation, and the time to cross this nation dropped from months to hours, and the time to communicate from coast to coast, from weeks to instantly. The world became very much smaller through communication and modern technology. States essentially are no more useful as major units than counties were previously. Just a fact of life, a reality the Conservatives would love to ignore.

Which explains why the federally controlled education system works so well that our students are excelling in math and the sciences and routinely testing as the best in the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

States rights will be at an all time low by year end 2011-12.
Reason? The fed will bail out several states and will assume some supervisory roles because of it.
Just wait.

Perceptive.

Sadly this trend (of slowly making the states powerless by comparison to the FED, I mean) has been happening our entire lives.

Both the Dems and the Reps are behind it.

I'm afraid that started when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

The issue was largely put to rest when the south lost the civil war.

i'm okay with it. i've seen photos of george wallace blocking the doors of the University of Georgia and read the anti-abortion laws drafted in places like north dakota. thanks but no thanks.

The beauty of having different states doing different things is it allowed people to experiment. The sad part of the centralized federal government controlling everything is that everything gets worse. The fact that you are OK with that shows just how sad things have gotten, so bad that you do not even see the potentials involved in states being able to do something like education differently.

 

[JBeukema]

States rights will be at an all time low by year end 2011-12.
Reason? The fed will bail out several states and will assume some supervisory roles because of it.
Just wait.

Perceptive.

Sadly this trend (of slowly making the states powerless by comparison to the FED, I mean) has been happening our entire lives.

Both the Dems and the Reps are behind it.

I'm afraid that started when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

The issue was largely put to rest when the south lost the civil war.

i'm okay with it. i've seen photos of george wallace blocking the doors of the University of Georgia and read the anti-abortion laws drafted in places like north dakota. thanks but no thanks.

That cuts both ways. See, for instance, the Fugitive Slave Act and the interposition (AKA: nullification) by the States.

Or marijuana laws today.

 

[JBeukema]

Federal government says, "Here's some free money but you have to do as we say."
States say, "Give us that free money. We love you."
Federal government says, "Here is your free money. Now, fall in line and ignore the Constitution."
States say, "What is a Constitution."
Federal government says, "You're a good State."

And this is how the United States will march quickly to it's end...

 

[JBeukema]

what changes is the view of our 'leaders,'

What about the jackasses who keep electing them?

Over and over?


Attn: the American People: YOU ARE THE PROBLEM

 

[uscitizen]

I'm afraid that started when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

The issue was largely put to rest when the south lost the civil war.

i'm okay with it. i've seen photos of george wallace blocking the doors of the University of Georgia and read the anti-abortion laws drafted in places like north dakota. thanks but no thanks.

Zionist Jews don't like the idea of States Rights.

Because many states have a very tiny number of jewish citizens.

Thus most states wouldn't be forced to support Israel with large amounts of financial aid like the Federal government does.

Instead, the states would use the money for the benefit of the citizens of their state and not a foreign nation like Israel.

You are pushing beyond any resonable measure of reasonablness.

 

[uscitizen]

It is also more efficient/cheaper for lobbyists to just lobby the US congress for laws/regulations favorable to them vs the 50 state legislatures.
Think about it.