CDZ What is wrong with State Sovereignty?

[jwoodie]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

 

[Mike Dwight]

I personally threw my hands up in the air and need a legal commentator on Brown v Board of Education. Read the whole Justice Opinion, people say "extreme social activism" caused All 9 Justices together to decide, two things can never be equal, voiding the precedent case of 1 + 1 = 2. Two Churches can Never be Equal, and two Schools, and two government jobs.

 

[sartre play]

Some things every state has and will continue to do differently, Problem is are we not suppose to stand as the United states of America?

 

[ozro]

Some things every state has and will continue to do differently, Problem is are we not suppose to stand as the United states of America?

since the begining there has been an arguement, patriots on both side i hasten to add. I sum it up as thus:
the united STATES of America
or
the UNITED states of america

 

[progressive hunter]

Some things every state has and will continue to do differently, Problem is are we not suppose to stand as the United states of America?

the key word being STATES,,,
if it were your way the states wouldnt exist and we would have an all powerful government that could never be challenged,,,

 

[jwoodie]

Anybody out there able to string two complete sentences together?

 

[Mike Dwight]

Texas had State Sovereignty from the Texas Revolution of 1836 until the greedy Unionists Finally let them in the United States in a decade. This is the inspiration on the Bonnie Blue Flag's Star, in addition to the Covenanters who left the "Government" or "union" to aid all Scotland, England and Ireland to regulate religion for every state during the English Civil War against King Charles, and of course over-powerful demagogues like the President even today, goes against the original Thirteen Colonies, the Articles of Confederation, or even the replacing Constitution, where States Chose to come together for 100 years or more only to face crises. States and Federalists these days are in it together. The entire George Wallace 'idiot boxer judge politician' was pre-ordained by the 'religious guidance of eisenhower', to overturn Presbyterianism and have a fall-guy on the whole cause later with George Wallace.

 

[Toronado3800]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

We can't encourage ppl to identify as Mizzurans or Nevadans or whatever or else someday our Georgia is going to want its idependence over either some racist "us Georganianarians are better than u $!#$arians" crud or taxes. Humans have them problems historically.

In some ways the liberal Republican Govenor having Californians HAVE pulled America intonthe 20th Century with their push forbenvironment regulations but man, we gotta draw the line someplace.

I want my bank card to work in North AND South Dakota. Someday I may really NEED my car or god forbid health insurance to be valid in Tennessee.

For small experiments having 50 test tubes is probably ok. Maybe if states had numbers not names ppl would identify as.

Then again, when my kid asks why this state is named this or that we get to go read about some near extinct Native Tribe and learn about what happens to divided ppl.

 

[jwoodie]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

We can't encourage ppl to identify as Mizzurans or Nevadans or whatever or else someday our Georgia is going to want its idependence over either some racist "us Georganianarians are better than u $!#$arians" crud or taxes. Humans have them problems historically.

In some ways the liberal Republican Govenor having Californians HAVE pulled America intonthe 20th Century with their push forbenvironment regulations but man, we gotta draw the line someplace.

I want my bank card to work in North AND South Dakota. Someday I may really NEED my car or god forbid health insurance to be valid in Tennessee.

For small experiments having 50 test tubes is probably ok. Maybe if states had numbers not names ppl would identify as.

Then again, when my kid asks why this state is named this or that we get to go read about some near extinct Native Tribe and learn about what happens to divided ppl.

Do you think States should decide their own criminal statutes, speed limits, etc.?

 

[Toronado3800]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

We can't encourage ppl to identify as Mizzurans or Nevadans or whatever or else someday our Georgia is going to want its idependence over either some racist "us Georganianarians are better than u $!#$arians" crud or taxes. Humans have them problems historically.

In some ways the liberal Republican Govenor having Californians HAVE pulled America intonthe 20th Century with their push forbenvironment regulations but man, we gotta draw the line someplace.

I want my bank card to work in North AND South Dakota. Someday I may really NEED my car or god forbid health insurance to be valid in Tennessee.

For small experiments having 50 test tubes is probably ok. Maybe if states had numbers not names ppl would identify as.

Then again, when my kid asks why this state is named this or that we get to go read about some near extinct Native Tribe and learn about what happens to divided ppl.

Do you think States should decide their own criminal statutes, speed limits, etc.?

We have too much overlap with state and federal laws. Things should be more simple. Murder is always Murder.

Far as speed limits, I'll say within reason especially for highways. I like the standardization there. Maybe have Federal guidelines.

I'm not much of a States Rights guy. Maybe I read too many Lincoln stories back in the day. I find things I don't care about, if reps have 4 or 6 year terms, I could care less if Arkansas and Kansas have differing regulations. Things I care about, murder, my health insurance working there, I want to be against the law in both Carolinas. Seems a double standard.

Controlled burning in the east is generally less bad than in the arid west. Maybe different regulations there?

 

[Gornoodle]

State sovereignty is a rush to the bottom. Like when states decided to compete for banking money. A couple of states eliminated usury laws and laws that kept banks in line. They allowed no limits on banking fees and permitted terrible undecipherable contracts. Shortly every single bank opened an office in the states and used it to abuse customers across the nation. That is why credit cards are controlled in a couple of states.
States rights sound good until you learn what it is really about.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

States have the authority to enact measures consistent with Constitutional case law.

States do not have the authority to violate the rights and protected liberties of American citizens who happen to reside within a given state, however.

One’s rights and protected liberties are not subject to ‘majority rule’ – and whether one’s rights and protected liberties are acknowledged is not contingent upon his state of residence.

The right to move freely about the country is fundamental; and wherever a citizen might go, his rights and protected liberties go with him, immune from attack by the state.

The problem is that states have sought to use their ‘sovereignty’ to deny citizens their rights and protected liberties, in violation of the Constitution.

And make no mistake: if given the opportunity, many state lawmakers would again attempt to disadvantage minority citizens residing in their states through force of law; we see evidence of this where states have attempted to violate the voting rights of black Americans, the equal protection and due process rights of gay and transgender Americans, and the privacy rights of women.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

We can't encourage ppl to identify as Mizzurans or Nevadans or whatever or else someday our Georgia is going to want its idependence over either some racist "us Georganianarians are better than u $!#$arians" crud or taxes. Humans have them problems historically.

In some ways the liberal Republican Govenor having Californians HAVE pulled America intonthe 20th Century with their push forbenvironment regulations but man, we gotta draw the line someplace.

I want my bank card to work in North AND South Dakota. Someday I may really NEED my car or god forbid health insurance to be valid in Tennessee.

For small experiments having 50 test tubes is probably ok. Maybe if states had numbers not names ppl would identify as.

Then again, when my kid asks why this state is named this or that we get to go read about some near extinct Native Tribe and learn about what happens to divided ppl.

Do you think States should decide their own criminal statutes, speed limits, etc.?

Unfortunately far too many states attempt to address issues outside of their purview.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Meh. You all should call them Provinces! You guys forget what States Are! Right?! Oh yes I'm so Provincial around the Empire State, and your New York Yankees.And 90% of the couch potatoes successfully got their head spinning on this Yankee Argument, but, if the Blacks weren't there, you know what, from the President down, would be some other Ethics inquiry! The Blacks have Never been what mattered to Yankees, nor Civil Rights, and that wasn't Dixiecrats Ever Happy to discuss violating anybody's rights, and you stare past them for your issues, and that is perfectly clear to not be shouted down next to or anywhere near racism, which was always state choices. I'd Say when George Wallace was Governor what was it, 7 Times, no President can do that, and Lurleen Wallace Governed for him during his time off, no President can do that, they're limited to 2 terms, and actually hey George Wallace could be a tyrant too who knows or cares when the Alabama Constitution so specifically limits their powers to a figurehead. You can't change a lot of Tax laws without Constitutional Amendment in this State, that's why its the longest world Constitution. George Wallace often recited a version of "Dixieland in Polish" well, what about other States, what about Lucy Pickens' free Flag of Cuba, what about Texas, that just got free of Catholic Empire Santa Anna and Empire and the United States hold dictatorial powers over their entrance. What if it Were up to the States to decide, and what about South Korea, people Do Not Want in This United States of America like they might in These United States of America, to have a state of 50 Million people have free access, to have shared recognition and government, and the 99% favorable to USA country nowhere else in the world Country would Want it, and again they're not going to Get it, or its going to be under the Terms of a Federal Government.

Some past favorites of Mine then, Yellow Rose of Texas/Mississippi Woman Alabama Man. Oh Susanna. You Could Study how it is that this totally Flawed South Korean Government is invaded by Unionists and how they need to leave and get people back here to help out this political situation

You know, I got some wall art for you too over on the politics forum.
Political Cartoon

Well they sure didn't form States to be Racist, just in case some people are so far down there to a false equivalency. They had 13 Governors of 13 Colonies of 13 States and took a Very democratic vote of the humblest most Gentleman they could find, George Washington, all the way to Andrew Jackson and until Abraham Lincoln definitely were the product of the consent of state cooperation, the full extent of "government". These Inaugurals of 16 presidents Adressed a State of the Union and Confederacy. Check any of them, check all of them.

"Hail Columbia" consider is what the Union took to battle, its the United States Anthem! Unofficial whatever! Columbia is Lady America and George Washington is of fair leadership quality. It was made to introduce America's legitimacy to the European World and George Washington's return from Retirement around 1790. And the Bonnie Blue Flag copied its stanzas so heavily its an unfortunate travesty isn't it, to Change anthems!

Worse than that, is people denying Presbyterianism being the CAUSE of that Confederacy and the only one they Mentioned! Its the Established Religion of a government! That's why today's Presbyterians did that again with Eisenhower. Say One thing, that's what the fight is, and to the very systematic heart of our institutions, no it wasn't. You could look around Anglicans, Episcopalians, sure they're there and existant. But this was the God of Our Fathers from Jefferson Davis's secession or inaugural speeches, the Sovereign Character of States under Almighty God, the Providence of Stonewall Jackson's Way, so you wouldn't hardly get around camp without it, Thomas Jackson chose the Ministers Baptist and Methodist ministers in his army. And so by probably no coincidence the already begun globalization and chickening out in Britain and around the world just after the Crimean War no less. Another fallen Byzantium no Ottomans no less, and you can't attend a COnfederate Veteran parade in the 1900's without Greek Revival pillars, Corinthian Columns, sometimes the only decoration around.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

States have the authority to enact measures consistent with Constitutional case law.

States do not have the authority to violate the rights and protected liberties of American citizens who happen to reside within a given state, however.

One’s rights and protected liberties are not subject to ‘majority rule’ – and whether one’s rights and protected liberties are acknowledged is not contingent upon his state of residence.

The right to move freely about the country is fundamental; and wherever a citizen might go, his rights and protected liberties go with him, immune from attack by the state.

The problem is that states have sought to use their ‘sovereignty’ to deny citizens their rights and protected liberties, in violation of the Constitution.

And make no mistake: if given the opportunity, many state lawmakers would again attempt to disadvantage minority citizens residing in their states through force of law; we see evidence of this where states have attempted to violate the voting rights of black Americans, the equal protection and due process rights of gay and transgender Americans, and the privacy rights of women.

I could almost agree with you, but you only say it from a left wing perspective. You should have included the fact that states are abusing the power to infringe upon the Rights of Christians, gun owners, whites, tax protest groups, Tea Party type organizations, and constitutionalists along with civil libertarians.

I am FOR states rights, but the United States Supreme Court is allowing the states to use the power to circumvent the Constitution.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Slavery again, isn't it? Just come out with it that we had Indians or what havey ou brought in for labor, and the most awkward citizen attainment process known to man, because you're entirely not talking about Kentuckians kidnapping Michigan's, or any other Unheard of scenario of State changes that would currently inhibit your rights?

 

[jwoodie]

Libtards are ruining CA, NY, IL NJ, MA, etc. Why should they be able to ruin the other States?

 

[candycorn]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

Great, so you're okay with a state determining how to allocate it's electoral votes based on whatever it's own legislature passes then, right?

 

[candycorn]

he

What is so terrifying about letting people decide these things at a more local level? The Civil Rights Act is now over 50 years old. Does anyone (other than professional race baiters) really believe that a return to Jim Crow laws would be imminent without federal hegemony?

Why do some people insist on making others comply with their own beliefs?

States have the authority to enact measures consistent with Constitutional case law.

States do not have the authority to violate the rights and protected liberties of American citizens who happen to reside within a given state, however.

One’s rights and protected liberties are not subject to ‘majority rule’ – and whether one’s rights and protected liberties are acknowledged is not contingent upon his state of residence.

The right to move freely about the country is fundamental; and wherever a citizen might go, his rights and protected liberties go with him, immune from attack by the state.

The problem is that states have sought to use their ‘sovereignty’ to deny citizens their rights and protected liberties, in violation of the Constitution.

And make no mistake: if given the opportunity, many state lawmakers would again attempt to disadvantage minority citizens residing in their states through force of law; we see evidence of this where states have attempted to violate the voting rights of black Americans, the equal protection and due process rights of gay and transgender Americans, and the privacy rights of women.

I could almost agree with you, but you only say it from a left wing perspective. You should have included the fact that states are abusing the power to infringe upon the Rights of Christians, gun owners, whites, tax protest groups, Tea Party type organizations, and constitutionalists along with civil libertarians.

I am FOR states rights, but the United States Supreme Court is allowing the states to use the power to circumvent the Constitution.

Much like it's allowing the state of Ohio (so far) to circumvent a woman's right to privacy.

 

[Toronado3800]

Libtards are ruining CA, NY, IL NJ, MA, etc. Why should they be able to ruin the other States?

U name calling or did I miss the joke?

I would counter, what is a libtard these days? Someone who supports free trade? Its a very fluid situation.