Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
CDZ Why Not Let States Decide?
- Thread starter jwoodie
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Has anyone explained why we want government meddling in and controlling the private lives of consenting adults?
Do you realize that is an argument for abolishing civil marriage?
Didn't think so.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #23
A very poor argument by jwoodie that makes no sense.Has anyone explained why we want government meddling in and controlling the private lives of consenting adults?
Do you realize that is an argument for abolishing civil marriage? Didn't think so.
jwoodie, son, look at me: you have no business in other peoples' lives. Move along, nothing to see.
Citizens' civil rights are inalienable, immune from attack by the states, where the states have no authority to decide who will or will not have his civil rights.
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #26
Let's tell the right and left again, whether it be religious belief or marriage equality: citizens' civil liberties are immune to attacks by the states.
Yurt
Gold Member
We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.
what if we left loving v. virginia be decided by the states?
"Why Not Let States Decide?"
Because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men.
Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are his civil rights determined by 'majority rule.'
Because the United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men.
Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of their respective states subordinate to that, where one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor are his civil rights determined by 'majority rule.'
“Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.”
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment ensures the states afford the American citizens residing in the states their right to due process and equal protection of the law, prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a particular class of persons based solely on who they are:
“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [To seek to do so] violates the Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment.]” Romer v. Evans
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment ensures the states afford the American citizens residing in the states their right to due process and equal protection of the law, prohibiting the states from seeking to disadvantage a particular class of persons based solely on who they are:
“This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. [To seek to do so] violates the Equal Protection Clause [of the 14th Amendment.]” Romer v. Evans
“Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves?”
Nothing is 'being decided' at the 'Federal level,' the conflict is between the states and American citizens who reside within the states where the states are seeking to deny American citizens their fundamental rights – such as the right to privacy and the right to access state law citizens are eligible to participate in.
And when the states act in bad faith and deny American citizens their civil rights, citizens have no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court; indeed, the states have only themselves to blame when they willfully enact measures intended to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights and those measures are appropriate invalidated by the courts.
Nothing is 'being decided' at the 'Federal level,' the conflict is between the states and American citizens who reside within the states where the states are seeking to deny American citizens their fundamental rights – such as the right to privacy and the right to access state law citizens are eligible to participate in.
And when the states act in bad faith and deny American citizens their civil rights, citizens have no other choice than to seek relief in Federal court; indeed, the states have only themselves to blame when they willfully enact measures intended to deny American citizens their Constitutional rights and those measures are appropriate invalidated by the courts.
Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
Well, since the Fourteenth Amendment, is the one which states that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well as federal government, no clean debate can be had here
- Moderator
- #32
They don't get that government does not belong in our private lives. Not in our bedrooms, not in control of our most personal and private issues.
While you are correct, you are as much a hypocrite as they are.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
One competitive interpretation of what is or is not a fact concerning rights in America has nothing whatsoever to do with the so called Constitution or the Bill of Rights because the acknowledgement of rights predates the fraudulent so called RATification of the so called Constitution of 1787.
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
"... American citizens their Constitutional rights..."
Oh, wait, I have to go get my union lawyer to let me know when I may or may not have constitutional rights according to the same frauds who monopolize the use of aggressive violence upon any targeted victim they choose?
No thanks.
Jurists have helped set slaves free for some time now. Why does anyone think it is mandatory to ask some dictator for their opinion concerning rights dictated by some constitution written as a consequence of a demonstrable fraud?
Elizabeth Key Grinstead - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
When the criminals take over they say who is slave or not and they claim that the only defense you have is the one they price according to their payment plan.
That is offered so as to make sure everyone knows exactly who they are sending their "tax" money to; and helping cover up their crimes.
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
"It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
"... American citizens their Constitutional rights..."
Oh, wait, I have to go get my union lawyer to let me know when I may or may not have constitutional rights according to the same frauds who monopolize the use of aggressive violence upon any targeted victim they choose?
No thanks.
Jurists have helped set slaves free for some time now. Why does anyone think it is mandatory to ask some dictator for their opinion concerning rights dictated by some constitution written as a consequence of a demonstrable fraud?
Elizabeth Key Grinstead - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
When the criminals take over they say who is slave or not and they claim that the only defense you have is the one they price according to their payment plan.
That is offered so as to make sure everyone knows exactly who they are sending their "tax" money to; and helping cover up their crimes.
Last edited:
Asclepias
Diamond Member
No true All some state would have to do is bring back the Corwin Amendment and slavery would be legal in that state forever. Texas was the last state to attempt to bring it back and probably would be the first to legalize slavery. I wouldnt trust the redneck states that made up the loser confederate states with that type of power.We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"... slavery would be legal ..."
When the criminals take over they make whatever they do legal according to their exclusive criminal mindset. If other people are hoodwinked into believing such lies, then they certainly will get what they invest into soon enough.
17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free
Trial by jury, or trial by the country, is one competitive method by which free people can ensure that free people are free people. Giving any credit to the idea that criminals have the authority to make slavery legal is bound to bind people up into slavery.
When free people have enough of it they can return to trial by jury.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
A criminal is found aiding and abetting the criminals who run criminal versions of government, and then the accused is afforded a trial by the whole country of free people represented by randomly picked jurists. Due process of law is then a competitive method of finding the facts in any case of any accusation of wrongdoing, including the worst crimes possible, such as cases involving criminals taking over governments and those criminals prove that they are criminals when they begin claiming that they can legally enslave free people because they, and their fellow criminals, say so.
What is an example of a tyrannical edict?
"... slavery would be legal ..."
What is a competitive process by which false claims of authority are accurately discriminated from actual facts in any case?
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
" It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
The 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled may have shed some light on the so called legal slave trade:
Richard Henry Lee The Forgotten Founders
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”
When the criminals take over they make whatever they do legal according to their exclusive criminal mindset. If other people are hoodwinked into believing such lies, then they certainly will get what they invest into soon enough.
17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free
Trial by jury, or trial by the country, is one competitive method by which free people can ensure that free people are free people. Giving any credit to the idea that criminals have the authority to make slavery legal is bound to bind people up into slavery.
When free people have enough of it they can return to trial by jury.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
A criminal is found aiding and abetting the criminals who run criminal versions of government, and then the accused is afforded a trial by the whole country of free people represented by randomly picked jurists. Due process of law is then a competitive method of finding the facts in any case of any accusation of wrongdoing, including the worst crimes possible, such as cases involving criminals taking over governments and those criminals prove that they are criminals when they begin claiming that they can legally enslave free people because they, and their fellow criminals, say so.
What is an example of a tyrannical edict?
"... slavery would be legal ..."
What is a competitive process by which false claims of authority are accurately discriminated from actual facts in any case?
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
" It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
The 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled may have shed some light on the so called legal slave trade:
Richard Henry Lee The Forgotten Founders
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”
Asclepias
Diamond Member
"... slavery would be legal ..."
When the criminals take over they make whatever they do legal according to their exclusive criminal mindset. If other people are hoodwinked into believing such lies, then they certainly will get what they invest into soon enough.
17C American Women 1650s Virginia Court Records - Elizabeth Key - Slave or Free
Trial by jury, or trial by the country, is one competitive method by which free people can ensure that free people are free people. Giving any credit to the idea that criminals have the authority to make slavery legal is bound to bind people up into slavery.
When free people have enough of it they can return to trial by jury.
RESPUBLICA v. CARLISLE 1 U.S. 35 1778 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
A criminal is found aiding and abetting the criminals who run criminal versions of government, and then the accused is afforded a trial by the whole country of free people represented by randomly picked jurists. Due process of law is then a competitive method of finding the facts in any case of any accusation of wrongdoing, including the worst crimes possible, such as cases involving criminals taking over governments and those criminals prove that they are criminals when they begin claiming that they can legally enslave free people because they, and their fellow criminals, say so.
What is an example of a tyrannical edict?
"... slavery would be legal ..."
What is a competitive process by which false claims of authority are accurately discriminated from actual facts in any case?
RESPUBLICA v. SHAFFER 1 U.S. 236 1788 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
" It is a matter well known, and well understood, that by the laws of our country, every question which affects a man's life, reputation, or property, must be tried by twelve of his peers; and that their unanimous verdict is, alone, competent to determine the fact in issue."
The 6th President of the United States in Congress Assembled may have shed some light on the so called legal slave trade:
Richard Henry Lee The Forgotten Founders
“to lay so heavy a duty on the importation of slaves as effectually to put an end to that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony of Virginia.”
You typed all that but neglected to read the Corwin Amendment. I dont know you and dont want to come off as harsh but you seem to be foolish for not doing so before you posted that long winded post. It was already was approved by congress and now only requires ratification by all states except for the 3 that already ratified it. Ohio, Maryland and Illinois. Texas tried to do it very recently some years ago. If states had their own power what would stop them since technically slavery is still legal?
Corwin Amendment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congresson March 2, 1861 and submitted to the state legislatures for ratification.[1] Senator William H. Seward of New Yorkintroduced the amendment in the Senate and Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several measures considered by Congress in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to entice border slave states to stay.[2] Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from abolition or interference by Congress.["
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"If states had their own power what would stop them since technically slavery is still legal?"
I do not get fooled by the claim that authority over people comes from a fictional entity such as the legal fiction known as a state, if you do, then that may explain why my words fail to communicate to you.
As for your claims that slavery is legal, or any other claim that slavery is legal, as far as I am concerned the fact of the matter would be determined by the slave agreeing to being a slave, and then that may constitute legality in that case. So...find me a slave that says OK, yes, I want to be a slave, and then sure, there is where slavery is legal; unless someone else finds evidence that the confession was extracted under duress, torture, fraud, or some other criminal means; Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind.
I can certainly agree with you, wholeheartedly, that if you want to be a legal slave, then as far as I am concerned you can go looking for a master, and my guess is you will find one, and they you and your master can live happily every after in legalized slavery of your own making.
I'll have no part of it.
I do not get fooled by the claim that authority over people comes from a fictional entity such as the legal fiction known as a state, if you do, then that may explain why my words fail to communicate to you.
As for your claims that slavery is legal, or any other claim that slavery is legal, as far as I am concerned the fact of the matter would be determined by the slave agreeing to being a slave, and then that may constitute legality in that case. So...find me a slave that says OK, yes, I want to be a slave, and then sure, there is where slavery is legal; unless someone else finds evidence that the confession was extracted under duress, torture, fraud, or some other criminal means; Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind.
I can certainly agree with you, wholeheartedly, that if you want to be a legal slave, then as far as I am concerned you can go looking for a master, and my guess is you will find one, and they you and your master can live happily every after in legalized slavery of your own making.
I'll have no part of it.
Asclepias
Diamond Member
Why dont you read the OP then my first post and get back to me. It was a hypothetical question regarding if states had the power to decide instead of the feds."If states had their own power what would stop them since technically slavery is still legal?"
I do not get fooled by the claim that authority over people comes from a fictional entity such as the legal fiction known as a state, if you do, then that may explain why my words fail to communicate to you.
As for your claims that slavery is legal, or any other claim that slavery is legal, as far as I am concerned the fact of the matter would be determined by the slave agreeing to being a slave, and then that may constitute legality in that case. So...find me a slave that says OK, yes, I want to be a slave, and then sure, there is where slavery is legal; unless someone else finds evidence that the confession was extracted under duress, torture, fraud, or some other criminal means; Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind.
I can certainly agree with you, wholeheartedly, that if you want to be a legal slave, then as far as I am concerned you can go looking for a master, and my guess is you will find one, and they you and your master can live happily every after in legalized slavery of your own making.
I'll have no part of it.
Depends on the issue. When it comes to matters of liberty, the feds should be there to protect it's citizens from state based tyranny.We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own.
Josf
Active Member
- Apr 20, 2015
- 379
- 21
- 26
"Why dont you read the OP then my first post and get back to me. It was a hypothetical question regarding if states had the power to decide instead of the feds."
OP:
"We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
"I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own."
States (legal fictions) cannot decide, therefore people in those geographical areas where the idea of a legal fiction must decide for the State, since, as a matter of demonstrable fact, States cannot decide.
So the question is then a question concerning whose decision (an individual living, breathing, human being) is the decision that matters to anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any case.
A. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as a State (at least 50 in number).
B. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The United States of America (one in number).
C. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The Federal Reserve (one in number).
D. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The World Bank (one in number).
Which decisions were considered as the decisions worthy of concern according to the OP?
"...for which there is no consensus..."
If the idea is to give all authority to a fictitious entity, or many fictitious entities instead of one dominant fictitious entity, so as then to obey any order - no matter how criminal the order - and obey that order from that single (or those many) fictitious entities without question, then that hook, line, and sinker swallowed whole by any individual, anywhere, anytime, is their business, and not my business, because I do not agree with, and I do not share such a ridiculous, an destructive, idea.
I read the OP, I'm getting back to you (Asclepias), and it appears to me as if you may (or may not) share the idea that a fictitious entity can issue legal orders that must be obeyed without question. I don't share that idea, if that is the idea you share. The idea I share, and the idea I agree with, and the idea that drives me to volunteer as a jurist in trial by jury, is the idea that every single ordere issued by every single individual in any place at any time can be questioned by the one receiving the order to obey, and there is a process called due process of law that works effectively in defense of every innocent victim who ever is faced with the individual decision to obey, or not obey, what they truly believe to be a criminal order issued by a criminal, especially when the criminal issuing the criminal order is claiming to be a lawful authority.
That my dear friends in Liberty is what a Declaration of Independence was about, and a decision was made decisively in favor of rule of law instead of blind obedience to fiction without question.
OP:
"We have many contentious issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage) for which there is no consensus. Why must they all be decided at the Federal level? Why not let States decide for themselves? Please leave out the moral arguments on both sides; there are just as many people who come to opposite conclusions. Also, the 13th and 14th Amendments specifically dealt with the end of slavery and the civil war, so don't bother with applying them to current issues.
"I just want to know why you think the States shouldn't be allowed to decide these issues on their own."
States (legal fictions) cannot decide, therefore people in those geographical areas where the idea of a legal fiction must decide for the State, since, as a matter of demonstrable fact, States cannot decide.
So the question is then a question concerning whose decision (an individual living, breathing, human being) is the decision that matters to anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any case.
A. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as a State (at least 50 in number).
B. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The United States of America (one in number).
C. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The Federal Reserve (one in number).
D. A decision made by someone in the legal fiction known as The World Bank (one in number).
Which decisions were considered as the decisions worthy of concern according to the OP?
"...for which there is no consensus..."
If the idea is to give all authority to a fictitious entity, or many fictitious entities instead of one dominant fictitious entity, so as then to obey any order - no matter how criminal the order - and obey that order from that single (or those many) fictitious entities without question, then that hook, line, and sinker swallowed whole by any individual, anywhere, anytime, is their business, and not my business, because I do not agree with, and I do not share such a ridiculous, an destructive, idea.
I read the OP, I'm getting back to you (Asclepias), and it appears to me as if you may (or may not) share the idea that a fictitious entity can issue legal orders that must be obeyed without question. I don't share that idea, if that is the idea you share. The idea I share, and the idea I agree with, and the idea that drives me to volunteer as a jurist in trial by jury, is the idea that every single ordere issued by every single individual in any place at any time can be questioned by the one receiving the order to obey, and there is a process called due process of law that works effectively in defense of every innocent victim who ever is faced with the individual decision to obey, or not obey, what they truly believe to be a criminal order issued by a criminal, especially when the criminal issuing the criminal order is claiming to be a lawful authority.
That my dear friends in Liberty is what a Declaration of Independence was about, and a decision was made decisively in favor of rule of law instead of blind obedience to fiction without question.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 259
- Views
- 5K
- Replies
- 648
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 127
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 89
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-