CDZ The Federal Problem Regarding Social Issues

[jwoodie]

Contrary to its stated intention, federally imposed uniformity on issues that were once reserved for the States to decide has actually caused greater disunity within our country. One reason for this is that one part of our population, by virtue of obtaining a legislative or judicial majority, becomes able to impose its values on the rest of the population under the guise of some assumed moral authority. As a result of this "winner-takes-all" approach, the "losers" feel completely disenfranchised from legitimate debate.

There are very few moral absolutes that require such obeisance to a particular point of view, and they should be spelled out in unequivocal terms in our Constitution. Why can't we agree to disagree on other issues and let the democratic process work out the details in each State? Most of us would be a lot more accepting if we were allowed to participate in the decision.

 

[martybegan]

Contrary to its stated intention, federally imposed uniformity on issues that were once reserved for the States to decide has actually caused greater disunity within our country. One reason for this is that one part of our population, by virtue of obtaining a legislative or judicial majority, becomes able to impose its values on the rest of the population under the guise of some assumed moral authority. As a result of this "winner-takes-all" approach, the "losers" feel completely disenfranchised from legitimate debate.

There are very few moral absolutes that require such obeisance to a particular point of view, and they should be spelled out in unequivocal terms in our Constitution. Why can't we agree to disagree on other issues and let the democratic process work out the details in each State? Most of us would be a lot more accepting if we were allowed to participate in the decision.

Part of it stems from the "I want it now" mentality of the type of people that push for these things. They don't want to build a consensus on something, they want to impose their views, and trust time and pressure to bend people to their wills.

To me its less of an issue of Federal Legislation (which is indeed still an issue) and more of federal adjudication. Our current courts claim to be interpreting law, but more often than not on social issues they are creating law.

 

[Josf]

This is odd. The stated purpose of the so called federal government since 1787 has been a false stated purpose, also known as a fraud, and therefore this concept of claiming that the stated purpose is in any way not what is was advertised as the stated purpose merely reinforces the facts as the facts existed in 1787, today, and on into the future. The actual voluntary union of independent states was between 1776 and 1787, which exemplified how a federation does work, as a free market supermarket for free market shoppers seeking the highest quality mutual defense association, at the lowest cost.

So why the misstep with the topic question?

 

[jwoodie]

This is odd. The stated purpose of the so called federal government since 1787 has been a false stated purpose, also known as a fraud, and therefore this concept of claiming that the stated purpose is in any way not what is was advertised as the stated purpose merely reinforces the facts as the facts existed in 1787, today, and on into the future. The actual voluntary union of independent states was between 1776 and 1787, which exemplified how a federation does work, as a free market supermarket for free market shoppers seeking the highest quality mutual defense association, at the lowest cost.

So why the misstep with the topic question?

That is why I used the term "federal" instead of "federalism."

 

[Josf]

So as not to add to my possible confusion then, it may be a good idea to borrow an federal explanation from another source, and then the meaning of federal can be looked at, and either agreed upon, or improved, or rejected, in some useful way; again to avoid further confusion on my part - please consider:

Start Quote:_______________________________________________________________________________
Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee's economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.

Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee's meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.
End Quote:_________________________________________________________________________________

That author employs (chose) the word federalism, so which meanings do you intend to convey when you use the two words federal and federalism?

To me there are two opposite definitions for each word as such:

True meaning of Federal: Voluntary Union of Mutual Defense Associations where people in competitive defense associations, or States, either pay into, or do not pay into, invest into, or not invest into, a collective FUND used for Mutual Defense of the innocent people from the guilty people in each State.

True meaning of Federalism: The idea and effective actions inspired by the idea of voluntarily combining defensive power into one voluntary union involving many independent and competitive defense associations whereby the competition is to inspire people to find the highest quality and lowest cost competitor among the competitors seeking to supply effective defense of the innocent victims from the guilty criminals in every case possible, and afforded to everyone except those who decide not to voluntarily agree to the process that is agreed upon in each competitive mutual defense association.

False meaning of Federal: Criminals claim to be working toward federation yet their actions prove beyond reasonable doubt that they perpetrate that specific fraud which then covers up many more crimes they perpetrate under the color of law.

False meaning of Federalism: The idea and the effective actions inspired by the idea that the best way to get away with any crime imaginable is to convince the victims that the criminals are there to protect and serve the innocent victims.

I hope that the above can in some way clear up any further confusions on my end, or elsewhere.

Quote Source:
Reclaiming the American Revolution The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy William Watkins 9781403963031 Amazon.com Books

 

[KokomoJojo]

Contrary to its stated intention, federally imposed uniformity on issues that were once reserved for the States to decide has actually caused greater disunity within our country. One reason for this is that one part of our population, by virtue of obtaining a legislative or judicial majority, becomes able to impose its values on the rest of the population under the guise of some assumed moral authority. As a result of this "winner-takes-all" approach, the "losers" feel completely disenfranchised from legitimate debate.

There are very few moral absolutes that require such obeisance to a particular point of view, and they should be spelled out in unequivocal terms in our Constitution. Why can't we agree to disagree on other issues and let the democratic process work out the details in each State? Most of us would be a lot more accepting if we were allowed to participate in the decision.

no where near as much as the State imposed uniformity on issues that were once reserved for Individuals.

 

[KokomoJojo]

This is odd. The stated purpose of the so called federal government since 1787 has been a false stated purpose, also known as a fraud, and therefore this concept of claiming that the stated purpose is in any way not what is was advertised as the stated purpose merely reinforces the facts as the facts existed in 1787, today, and on into the future. The actual voluntary union of independent states was between 1776 and 1787, which exemplified how a federation does work, as a free market supermarket for free market shoppers seeking the highest quality mutual defense association, at the lowest cost.

So why the misstep with the topic question?

Um yeh...
This country was and always will be a commercial venture. It used to be called the united colonies of america before the confederation facelift declaring they will be 'good pals covenant' now under the new name the united [e]States of america all for one one for all union contract constitution.

The federal government ruling the whole country since it is supposedly the contract between the states for the states, which I suppose is why the have the 1st through 5th especially in the event the another state is guilty of suppressing the rights of a neighboring state to freedom of RELIGION and the EXERCIZE thereof.... or trial by jury, or the right to its personal papers.

You can thank marshall and his pals for the initial rulings in favor of that loonacy.

LMAO

 

[Josf]

You can thank marshall and his pals for the initial rulings in favor of that loonacy.LMAO

The criminals went right to work even before the agreed upon (agreement based upon fraud is understood to be null and void btw) Bill of Rights were entered into STATUTE, as the criminals enacted (proclaimed) and enforced The Judiciary Act of 1789, thus declaring the end to trial by jury, precisely as was explained by the 6th President of the United State in Congress Assembled, Richard Henry Lee, when he spoke out in defense of innocent people, AGAINST that criminal take over in 1787 and onward.

So Marshall came along much later to add to the criminal order to pay, an order that must be obeyed without question, or else the targeted victims are then made to pay even more.

As to a commercial venture, if you are speaking about counterfeit commerce, then perhaps you are speaking about criminals enforcing criminal versions of so called commerce, is that the case; something along the lines of UCC?



The federal government is often confused with a gang of criminals posing as a federal government, so why the misstep?