States Rights / States Wronged.

[Joe Steel]

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

I find it interesting that Joe Steel is arguing against the individual self-determination. I thought liberals were all for people being free to make their own choices? Guess they mean if their choices reflect theirs.

The discussion is of states not individuals.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

I find it interesting that Joe Steel is arguing against the individual self-determination. I thought liberals were all for people being free to make their own choices? Guess they mean if their choices reflect theirs.

No, liberals are told what to think, not how to think for themselves. That's why you see little evidence of individualism in the liberal mind.

You know CG, it is another humble opinion of this average Joe that it's those kinds of blanket generalization statements that are a major part of what's wrong with the political discussion here in America.

Have you no better argument than "You're just stupid"?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

Each member of the community has made its choice and it is irrevocable. The time for dalliances has passed.

Bullshit! Only a fool closes his mind to change for the sake of time. If you believe that political choices should be etched in concrete then the status quo has already won your heart.

 

[manifold]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

It was a pipe-dream to begin with. Either the common defense is ineffectual (a la the United Nations) or the individual sovereignty of the member states goes by by (a la the United States of America). The co-existence of both is not sustainable.

 

[editec]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

Your faith that State governments will insure your freedom, while the Feds insure your slavery seems sort of niave.

But I certainly agree that if the FEDS didn't impose itself on the states, the quality of life in different states would be wildly different.

Do you suppose that Blacks in Alabama would be able to vote there, yet, were it not for the FEDS?

And do you think you could legally even own a gun in your home in Massachusetts, if not for the Second Amendment?

I think, despite the obvious problems that I quite agree can come from having a strong Federal government, we are, on the whole, better off being a Republic comprised of States, than a Federation of nations sharing nothing more than a mutual defence pact.

It is also clear to me that the Floundering Fathers also subscribed to that theory, since it was their decision to end the federation of states that was failing the States and the nation, and create this Republic we have today.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Hate to disagree with you however there is a majority who thinks that you are wrong.

There's a majority that believes alot of things. This nation was not founded upon christian principles and most of the founding fathers were secular humanists and freemasons. If you look up what high level freemasons believe, it certainly ain't christianity. The majority and yourself can "think" whatever they want but if they can't back the shit up with facts it makes no difference.

You can't "think" things into existance. Just like in a nation with a constitution that protects individual liberties and freedoms you can't force your BS religious values down someone else's throats. The constitution was framed that way, to protect religious rights. The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established "state religion" they're own groups would be persecuted, and one groups religious ideas and "morals" would be forced upon the nation.

I guess what I was taught in school about puritans at plymouth rock trying to escape religious persicution because of their <insert non-christian religion in here> was wrong.

Uuuh... no, your somewhere in the ballpark there. Never suggested that people didn't come from Europe to escape persecution because of their religious beliefs, quakers, puritans, catholics, calvinists, baptists, methodists, weslyans all did. All the more reason like I said: "The groups that came here feared that if one religion held political power or if there was an established 'state religion' they're own groups would be persecuted". Many of them learned pretty well what happens when you have an established "state religion".

 

[uptownlivin90]

For the record personally agree with your POV.

Now you have seen the hogwash that has pervaded the country of late and earlier, the fact is that the Christian card gets pulled too often at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons. Bush gave them traction in his speeches and it has always been an undercurrent in policy.

Exactly, it's an undercurrent that shouldn't be there, and we need people who understand that to be voted into office. I'm personally a non-practicing seventh-day adventist.... I'm not in with mainstream christianity for the most part even though I consider myself to be deeply religious and devouted to my beliefs and my God. There's some things I believe though and some values that I have that conflict with "mainstream" christian values and right-wing christian values. I get kind of pissed when I hear people try to fofrce their "Values" on to others using the government. It seems kind of lazy at the least to me. Using the government to force your lifestyle on people rather then spending the time to try to convince them that it's actually the "right way".

I think christian fascism is America's greatest inside enemy right now, and has been for a while. Thank God it's not to the extreme that Islamofascism exists in nations like Saudi Arabia, but I have a feeling there are those in this nation who would have it that way. Thank God for the constitution.

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

 

[johnrocks]

I thanked you for that OP however I want to take it a step farther, not only have we seemed to have abandoned the 10th Amendment and ceded a lot of the States powers to the Federal govt. but we have completely ignored the 9th Amendment, government at any level can be a tyrannical power and the 9th states.....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Smoking a joint in the privacy of one's own home or having gay sex between consenting adults should not even be brought to a vote, as Jefferson said ....

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

There ARE lines, however. For me, my neighbor smoking a joint may be cool, but what if 75% of my neighbors want to punish people for giving cocain to children and having sex with them? Can We The People be trusted to employ the concept of 'government'? Should We be trusted?

Drugs being sold to children is happening now and using cocaine is as illegal as murder, let a person snort a line as long as his arm in the privacy of his home but if he violates responsible conducts such as selling to minors or using with minors, throw his ass in prison.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Strength and happiness are to be found in a community of equals bound together by their dedication to the common good and general welfare and willing to crush every threat to their union even if the threat is internal. The members of the community are subjects not sovereigns. The owe allegiance to the community and violate their duty at their great peril.

Ahhhh, how like a liberal. You define what happiness is for everyone. How very arrogant, and how very stupid. How about allowing others to define happiness for themselves, instead of you telling them what does or does not equate to 'happiness'?

He's no liberal. He's a Marxist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The entire first amendment was designed to protect the expression of religion and any application of it that restricts the expression of religion is misusing its purpose. That includes the expression of religion in the public sphere and even if you did not believe that then check the first amendment where it says 'free speech'. Surely religious expression is covered there.

Constitutional and American history disagree with you, ihef.

 

[AVG-JOE]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

It was a pipe-dream to begin with. Either the common defense is ineffectual (a la the United Nations) or the individual sovereignty of the member states goes by by (a la the United States of America). The co-existence of both is not sustainable.

Why not?

If the above statement is true then humanity is either too stupid to co-exist, too stubborn to co-exist, or some fatal combination of the two.

I, a resident board atheist, refuse to believe that. Am I being naive? Can I trust you all not to destroy the only place your children are physically capable of calling 'home', or are we simply doomed to self destruction?

 

[Toronado3800]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

Didn't the Greeks try this independent state thing and the Romans came over and whooped their buts at and after the lesser known Thermopylae battle

 

[AVG-JOE]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

Your faith that State governments will insure your freedom, while the Feds insure your slavery seems sort of niave.

But I certainly agree that if the FEDS didn't impose itself on the states, the quality of life in different states would be wildly different.

Do you suppose that Blacks in Alabama would be able to vote there, yet, were it not for the FEDS?

And do you think you could legally even own a gun in your home in Massachusetts, if not for the Second Amendment?

I think, despite the obvious problems that I quite agree can come from having a strong Federal government, we are, on the whole, better off being a Republic comprised of States, than a Federation of nations sharing nothing more than a mutual defence pact.

It is also clear to me that the Floundering Fathers also subscribed to that theory, since it was their decision to end the federation of states that was failing the States and the nation, and create this Republic we have today.

Yes, I do. Because any state infringing on the rights of any of its citizens would look ridiculous on today's world stage.

Sure, this planet has a history very deserving of "Majority Rule" needing to be *****-slapped back into some semblance of fairness, almost as much as it's history of "Minority Rule" needing to be *****-slapped down off their golden thrones.

Are we ready, as a species, to look out for our own interests, in narrowly defined communities, without resorting to war to settle disputes over resources?

I don't know.... that's what I'm asking here.

Perhaps not. If the rule of 75 were applied today, I'd bet that no state is 75% ready to stop the sale of guns with in their borders. If applied in the future, I can see wide ranging gun restrictions applied by the different states and even the counties with in them. Wouldn't it be better if a rancher in Wyoming did not have to lobby for gun control that seemed reasonable to him and his neighbors with both his own representative in government and a bunch of liberal pansies? As it is now he has to lobby his own CongressCritter and the representative elected by a mother of two dead teenagers in Chicago and her neighbors.

Doesn't it make sense to decide policy on some of these heavy issues a bit more locally?

Perhaps We, The People are ready to evolve to the next level. The only thing guaranteed about when we are ready is that it will feel painfully wonderful, like childbirth.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I thanked you for that OP however I want to take it a step farther, not only have we seemed to have abandoned the 10th Amendment and ceded a lot of the States powers to the Federal govt. but we have completely ignored the 9th Amendment, government at any level can be a tyrannical power and the 9th states.....

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Smoking a joint in the privacy of one's own home or having gay sex between consenting adults should not even be brought to a vote, as Jefferson said ....

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine".

There ARE lines, however. For me, my neighbor smoking a joint may be cool, but what if 75% of my neighbors want to punish people for giving cocain to children and having sex with them? Can We The People be trusted to employ the concept of 'government'? Should We be trusted?

Drugs being sold to children is happening now and using cocaine is as illegal as murder, let a person snort a line as long as his arm in the privacy of his home but if he violates responsible conducts such as selling to minors or using with minors, throw his ass in prison.

We CAN agree!

This is why I have hope.

Well, this and manifold's Avatars.​

 

[manifold]

In the humble opinion of this average Joe, the greatest casualty of the American Civil War was the death of the concept of free states bound together by common defense in favor of one big state called 'America'.

Would life be different here if The Peoples of The Great States of California, Texas, Florida, Rhode Island, etc had the same freedom of self determination as do The Peoples of The Great States of Cuba, The Bahamas, Japan, France and Iran do?

What difference should it make to The People of Missouri if The People of California want to legally smoke pot, enjoy gay sex and have abortion pretty much on demand?

If 75% of The People of The Great State of North Carolina want to set up a Nativity Scene on the front lawn of their capitol building, do the rest of us have the right to tell them that they can't?

We will never be free until we are "Many States (Nations) under (insert your preferred Deity here), bound together by common defense.

It was a pipe-dream to begin with. Either the common defense is ineffectual (a la the United Nations) or the individual sovereignty of the member states goes by by (a la the United States of America). The co-existence of both is not sustainable.

Why not?

If the above statement is true then humanity is either too stupid to co-exist, too stubborn to co-exist, or some fatal combination of the two.

I, a resident board atheist, refuse to believe that. Am I being naive? Can I trust you all not to destroy the only place your children are physically capable of calling 'home', or are we simply doomed to self destruction?

If you believe that coexistence is not a concern, why the need for a common defense at all?

 

[ihopehefails]

Exactly, it's an undercurrent that shouldn't be there, and we need people who understand that to be voted into office. I'm personally a non-practicing seventh-day adventist.... I'm not in with mainstream christianity for the most part even though I consider myself to be deeply religious and devouted to my beliefs and my God. There's some things I believe though and some values that I have that conflict with "mainstream" christian values and right-wing christian values. I get kind of pissed when I hear people try to fofrce their "Values" on to others using the government. It seems kind of lazy at the least to me. Using the government to force your lifestyle on people rather then spending the time to try to convince them that it's actually the "right way".

I think christian fascism is America's greatest inside enemy right now, and has been for a while. Thank God it's not to the extreme that Islamofascism exists in nations like Saudi Arabia, but I have a feeling there are those in this nation who would have it that way. Thank God for the constitution.

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

Has that law forbid you from attending a church, your own choice about what you believe, or restricted you from practicing your own religion? It has not because despite this law being founded on a judeo-christian belief it still has not forbid other faiths from being establlished in this country. That is what the first amendment was designed to do. To protect people's right to form a religion on their own.

 

[ihopehefails]

The entire first amendment was designed to protect the expression of religion and any application of it that restricts the expression of religion is misusing its purpose. That includes the expression of religion in the public sphere and even if you did not believe that then check the first amendment where it says 'free speech'. Surely religious expression is covered there.

Constitutional and American history disagree with you, ihef.

It says 'the free excecise of' so it was designed to protect the free excecise of a religion in this country so any application that inhibits someone's ability to practice their religion is violating the spirit of the amendment.

 

[ihopehefails]

Exactly, it's an undercurrent that shouldn't be there, and we need people who understand that to be voted into office. I'm personally a non-practicing seventh-day adventist.... I'm not in with mainstream christianity for the most part even though I consider myself to be deeply religious and devouted to my beliefs and my God. There's some things I believe though and some values that I have that conflict with "mainstream" christian values and right-wing christian values. I get kind of pissed when I hear people try to fofrce their "Values" on to others using the government. It seems kind of lazy at the least to me. Using the government to force your lifestyle on people rather then spending the time to try to convince them that it's actually the "right way".

I think christian fascism is America's greatest inside enemy right now, and has been for a while. Thank God it's not to the extreme that Islamofascism exists in nations like Saudi Arabia, but I have a feeling there are those in this nation who would have it that way. Thank God for the constitution.

I have yet to see one law that has been passed that has forced anyone to participate in any kind of religious cermony or forces someone to give up their religion for another one. There is not one so your right to practice your religion was always safe.

-Rastafarians.
-State marriage being defined as whatever the state wants it to be restricts churches rights to define marriage based on their religious beliefs.

Anytime you begin "legislating morality" and what people do in the privacy of their own home and lives you risk restricting other's beliefs.

PLUS, we are not and will never be a christian nation. We don't have a state religion. We've gone back and forth in that direction before, but gladly we've never taken a full step towards it. Which is why, yeah you've probably never seen any of that happen before. Keep letting the wackos push for a "christian nation" though.

"Never suggested that people didn't come from Europe to escape persecution because of their religious beliefs, quakers, puritans, catholics, calvinists, baptists, methodists, weslyans"

On one hand you say that we were never a christian nation then say that the people who came here and eventually composed the populations religious beliefs were all of the christian faith. Wouldn't that make us a christian nation simply because the people who compose the population are christian?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The entire first amendment was designed to protect the expression of religion and any application of it that restricts the expression of religion is misusing its purpose. That includes the expression of religion in the public sphere and even if you did not believe that then check the first amendment where it says 'free speech'. Surely religious expression is covered there.

Constitutional and American history disagree with you, ihef.

It says 'the free excecise of' so it was designed to protect the free excecise of a religion in this country so any application that inhibits someone's ability to practice their religion is violating the spirit of the amendment.

Not according to those whose opinions count on this matter. I understand that you disagree.

The Treaty of Tripoli 1797 specifically held out to the world that the U.S. was in no way to be considered a Christian nation.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It was a pipe-dream to begin with. Either the common defense is ineffectual (a la the United Nations) or the individual sovereignty of the member states goes by by (a la the United States of America). The co-existence of both is not sustainable.

Why not?

If the above statement is true then humanity is either too stupid to co-exist, too stubborn to co-exist, or some fatal combination of the two.

I, a resident board atheist, refuse to believe that. Am I being naive? Can I trust you all not to destroy the only place your children are physically capable of calling 'home', or are we simply doomed to self destruction?

If you believe that coexistence is not a concern, why the need for a common defense at all?

I refuse to believe that you are that stupid, mani. I'll not be taking the bait from you, but I salute your capabilities - you, my friend, are a Master Baiter.