Right wingers are ALL for states' rights.......except......

[bendog]

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

There is an issue of whether a gummit can take property from one owner so as to allow another owner to build something on it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

How does having to present an easily obtainable ID quash voting rights?

Gee, I don't know....Why not ask this guy?

Pennsylvania GOP Leader: Voter ID Will Help Romney Win State ...

How about you answer the question and stop with the link-a-palooza?

Because he's an idiot.

 

[Indeependent]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

I think States Rights are bullshit.
Either we’re a nation or we’re not.

 

[CryptoNinja]

According to the Interior Department's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), state waters extend three miles off a state's "submerged lands boundary" in most cases, and beyond that boundary, the federal government can put oceanic area up for lease. After a particularly devastating oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara in 1969, Congress amended the rules that permit federal leasing of the outer continental shelf, requiring "a detailed environmental review before any major or controversial federal action" and creating the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which allows states to review any federal action that could affect their coasts.

According to Holly Doremus, a professor of environmental regulation at UC Berkeley Law, the CZMA would be key to any state's challenge of a federal lease off its shoreline. Under that Act, states have the right to demand that federal actions be consistent with state plans, which can disqualify certain leases from the auction block.

Trump proposed a massive expansion of offshore drilling—what can states do?

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

Ahh that must be it, NOT, learn a thing or two about English common law. The sovereign is sovereign and is ALSO the magistrate. Are you saying that the people are the magistrate?

 

[Siete]

Trump has no economic savvy. Changing state laws can, and will cripple states to a point of collapse. Why even bother voting and expressing the will of the people if some pissant dictator piece of shit president reverses their decision on how to run their state.

**** his fat old ass.

 

[martybegan]

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

There is an issue of whether a gummit can take property from one owner so as to allow another owner to build something on it.

Yes, that was never the intent, it was for public use projects, not to let some developer get property on the cheap.

Another symptom of courts who feel like legislating instead of adjudicating.

 

[nat4900]

I agree that many on the right are hypocrites.

Are you for state's rights?

Yes, I am........With one proviso....

Federal money should be allocated per capita only......There's too much federal allocations going to states that do a very poor job with those funds. Too much education and HC federal funding go to states that usually vote AGAINST those federal programs.

 

[martybegan]

Considering left wing wackos like you have turned Environmental Impact Studies into nothing more than blocking tools your deference to State "plans" is comical.

Review mean "review", not deny without cause because of politics.

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

Ahh that must be it, NOT, learn a thing or two about English common law. The sovereign is sovereign and is ALSO the magistrate. Are you saying that the people are the magistrate?

I'm saying the States and Nat doth protest too much.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

A woman's right to choose Federally mandated
Voting rights Federally mandated
Legalization of Marijuana Interstate commerce
Drilling off-shore Federally controlled areas
Pipelines (Keystone?) Interstate commerce

You folks want an all powerful federal government, you got it, quit bitching.


.

 

[bendog]

Well, except when it comes to:

A woman's right to choose
Voting rights
Legalization of Marijuana
Drilling off-shore
Pipelines (Keystone?)

(add your own "exceptions"...........)

I think States Rights are bullshit.
Either we’re a nation or we’re not.

State's rights became an unfortunate term. Reagan ushered it in when he kicked off his 1980 campaign in Neshoba County Mississippi, using that term, where three civil rights workers were murdered by the Klan, and state juries didn't convict.

But there are issues of federalism. Marriage was generally an issue left for states, but then states denied equal treatment on race and then sexual orientation. So, perversely (-: state's rights became a tool to deny individual rights.

 

[CryptoNinja]

States rights has always been the refuge of refusing people equal treatment.

 

[bendog]

Why can't we deny without cause? What cause do we need to let anyone do anything on our land?

Government is sovereign.

If you think people are sovereign to to Somalia. Build your super stores there.

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

There is an issue of whether a gummit can take property from one owner so as to allow another owner to build something on it.

Yes, that was never the intent, it was for public use projects, not to let some developer get property on the cheap.

Another symptom of courts who feel like legislating instead of adjudicating.

But the gop Justices were all for it. So was Breyer if I recall "rightly." That crazy guy Souter was against it. I sorta liked him.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, I am........With one proviso....

Federal money should be allocated per capita only......There's too much federal allocations going to states that do a very poor job with those funds. Too much education and HC federal funding go to states that usually vote AGAINST those federal programs.

So, federal funding should be contingent on how a state votes?

 

[CryptoNinja]

Yes, I am........With one proviso....

Federal money should be allocated per capita only......There's too much federal allocations going to states that do a very poor job with those funds. Too much education and HC federal funding go to states that usually vote AGAINST those federal programs.

So, federal funding should be contingent on how a state votes?

If a State wants to be "free" then it shouldn't ask for Federal money.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But the gop Justices were all for it. So was Breyer if I recall "rightly." That crazy guy Souter was against it. I sorta liked him

You are correct. And alleged conservative Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion, if I recall correctly. That was the Hawaii case, no?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If a State wants to be "free" then it shouldn't ask for Federal money.

Is the Fed Gov going to give that income tax money back to the citizens of that state?

 

[nat4900]

So, federal funding should be contingent on how a state votes?

Actually, YES........It'd be a bit hypocritical to call for SHRINKING the federal government and treasury, while DEMANDING federal money from that same treasury, don't you think?

 

[OKTexas]

A lot of people on the right support state level regulation.

DO REPUBLICANS STILL BELIEVE IN STATES' RIGHTS? SESSIONS' MARIJUANA POLICY IS ULTIMATE TEST

Do Republicans still believe in states' rights? Sessions' marijuana policy is ultimate test

He would be using powers you commiecrats insisted he have, quit bitching.


.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Actually, YES........It'd be a bit hypocritical to call for SHRINKING the federal government and treasury, while DEMANDING federal money from that same treasury, don't you think?

It would, except that money has already been taken from the citizens of that state in the form of taxes. It's no different that forcing me to pay into and participate in a Ponzi scheme retirement program, then calling me a hypocrite when I take my shitty payout after being forced to pay in for so ******* long.

 

[martybegan]

The PEOPLE are sovereign, and outside the 3 mile limit the people delegated regulation of waterways to the feds.

No they aren't. If they were then eminent domain could not exist.

The people delegated eminent domain powers to the governments via the Federal and State Constitutions.

There is an issue of whether a gummit can take property from one owner so as to allow another owner to build something on it.

Yes, that was never the intent, it was for public use projects, not to let some developer get property on the cheap.

Another symptom of courts who feel like legislating instead of adjudicating.

But the gop Justices were all for it. So was Breyer if I recall "rightly." That crazy guy Souter was against it. I sorta liked him.

Bad decisions can come from anyone.