• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nullification for Texas? Will it work?

Captain America said:
I used to boink a chick from Canandagua (sp?.) Not too bad... ;)
Click to expand...
That's Canandaigua, New York. Exit 44 off Interstate 90 and you go straight down Route 332 along the main drag. Some very nice scenery around Bristol Mountain, Canadaigua and Honeoye Lakes in that region too. I used to deliver liquor in that area on Fridays.
 
Last edited:
Bassman said:
Actually no it isn't. Article X of the Bill Of Rights make this abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

Ummm... The Bill of Rights have no articles... They're each individual amendments.

Bassman said:
As it should be. the Federal Government was never meant to be a strong centralized power.
Click to expand...

That's not what Alexander Hamilton argued.

Bassman said:
Oh brother, playing the race card again! Typical!
Click to expand...

Yeah, because lynchings and cross-burnings are SO passe...
 
samsmart said:
Ummm... The Bill of Rights have no articles... They're each individual amendments.
Click to expand...
Point being, the Fenderal Government was never meant to have strong centralized powers. Only dictatorial regimes have that.



That's not what Alexander Hamilton argued.
Click to expand...
Yet the rest of the founders argued for strong states' rights.



Yeah, because lynchings and cross-burnings are SO passe...
Click to expand...
Strawman! What we are seeing now, is forced "sensitivity" upon Americans to atone for all of the sins the USA "apparently" committed since her inception! Pathetic Liberal crap once again!
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
I am just pulling your leg, Plus, it is a typo I had fixed the grammar thing, and then I had then noticed the worser spelling error. I need to type out all my post out in word, before I post them.
Click to expand...

Firefox has a built in spell checker ;) Grammar Nazi Aprooved!


No wait....that's not write.
 
Bassman said:
Point being, the Fenderal Government was never meant to have strong centralized powers. Only dictatorial regimes have that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Somalia, where there's no centralized government, is doing SO much better compared to the United States.

Bassman said:
Yet the rest of the founders argued for strong states' rights.
Click to expand...

Which they tried under the Articles of Confederation. Which failed. Which caused Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison to draft the Constitution.

Bassman said:
Strawman! What we are seeing now, is forced "sensitivity" upon Americans to atone for all of the sins the USA "apparently" committed since her inception! Pathetic Liberal crap once again!
Click to expand...

(possibly disturbing image below)
lynching.jpg

You're right. Why have any sensitivity to other people when instead we can hang people just because?
 
First of all you're quoting incorrectly the quotes that I quoted. Now, to address your grievances.

samsmart said:
It is up to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of laws and amendments.
Click to expand...

They are the final word on U.S. Constitutionality, but as the past has proven they aren't infallible.

samsmart said:
Yeah, because when the federal government doesn't do what I want (even when it's democratically elected) I should have the right to just ignore them anyways.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, when the States don't do as the Federal Government desires, is it OK for them to deny what the States want? See: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law"]National Speed Limit of 55 mph[/ame] (Yes, I know it's a wiki).[/quote] We are a UNION of STATES. The States should hold the most power (within constitutional bounds) when dealing within their borders. The Federal Government is more for Foreign Policy and Interstate Commerce, that which it makes little sense to have 50 States do independently.

samsmart said:
Yeah, well, you should have treated African-Americans better if you wanted to keep your sovereignty.
Click to expand...

What African Americans did I treat poorly? Or was that a general "You" as if to say you're lumping me in with some group of people?

samsmart said:
Since you didn't, the citizens are allowed to use the federal government to be a check against corrupt state governments to provide freedoms and opportunities for ALL Americans.
Click to expand...

There's that you again...Popular to contrary belief™, I never held office during the time period when African Americans were oppressed, and I surely do not hold it now, nor have I notified my elected representatives to support such legislation. And the Citizens are the ones in charge of preventing Corruption themselves, not through more government simply because it is higher up on the legislative 'food chain', which by the way, is just as corrupt itself. But that's just the nature of the beast.
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
:rofl



Firefox, I don't think has a Grammar checker. However, I think it just has a spelling checker.
Click to expand...

I do my own grammar checking ;) but it's nice to have spelling for some words a simple mouse-click away. Otherwise I just type as close as I can get to the correct spelling in Google and click SEARCH.


That usually does the track.
 
EpicDude86 said:
They are the final word on U.S. Constitutionality, but as the past has proven they aren't infallible.
Click to expand...

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." - Winston Churchill

EpicDude86 said:
On the flip side, when the States don't do as the Federal Government desires, is it OK for them to deny what the States want? See: National Speed Limit of 55 mph (Yes, I know it's a wiki). We are a UNION of STATES. The States should hold the most power (within constitutional bounds) when dealing within their borders. The Federal Government is more for Foreign Policy and Interstate Commerce, that which it makes little sense to have 50 States do independently.
Click to expand...

Originally, the federal government was more for foreign policy and interstate commerce. However, originally, the only people who could vote were determined by the states, which was usually propertied landowners. The United States has changed and evolved a great deal since then.

One way in which the U.S. has evolved is that the federal government enforces laws to prohibit oppression done via state governments. For example, it was the federal government that ended segregation. While you claim that the state governments are supposed to prevent oppression by the federal government, I'm making the claim that the federal government is supposed to prevent oppression by the state governments.

EpicDude86 said:
What African Americans did I treat poorly? Or was that a general "You" as if to say you're lumping me in with some group of people?
Click to expand...

That was a more general "you." I don't know you personally. But I do know how African-Americans and other minorities have been treated in the South. I know because I've lived there.

EpicDude86 said:
There's that you again...Popular to contrary belief™, I never held office during the time period when African Americans were oppressed, and I surely do not hold it now, nor have I notified my elected representatives to support such legislation. And the Citizens are the ones in charge of preventing Corruption themselves, not through more government simply because it is higher up on the legislative 'food chain', which by the way, is just as corrupt itself. But that's just the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you personally have never held office nor support such legislation. But I believe that the federal government does have the right to ensure that African-Americans, and all other social groups, be they based on gender, ethnicity, or religion, have their rights protected against any discrimination or oppression that could be perpetuated by state or local governments.

While you personally do not support such legislation, there ARE people who would, and it's up to the federal government to protect everybody else against them.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." - Winston Churchill
Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make here? No offense, I just don't see any major connection...

samsmart said:
While you claim that the state governments are supposed to prevent oppression by the federal government, I'm making the claim that the federal government is supposed to prevent oppression by the state governments.
Click to expand...

Monitoring corruption should be done by the smaller units, the States, so that they keep in check the actions of the Federal Government. It seems a little silly that the Federal Government, which is not as intimate or in tune with the wants of the populations as the State governments and their local governments, steps in to make decisions for the States. However, this SHOULD be the case in matters pertaining to the constitutionality of a State's actions as they are bound to the U.S. Constitution just like the Federal Government is (This is where the Supreme Court comes in.)

:)
 
EpicDude86 said:
What point are you trying to make here? No offense, I just don't see any major connection...
Click to expand...

My point was that of course the Supreme Court isn't infallible but I think it's an error to believe that the individual states would be a better check on constitutionality.

EpicDude86 said:
Monitoring corruption should be done by the smaller units, the States, so that they keep in check the actions of the Federal Government. It seems a little silly that the Federal Government, which is not as intimate or in tune with the wants of the populations as the State governments and their local governments, steps in to make decisions for the States. However, this SHOULD be the case in matters pertaining to the constitutionality of a State's actions as they are bound to the U.S. Constitution just like the Federal Government is (This is where the Supreme Court comes in.)

:)
Click to expand...

Actually, there is evidence that state governments are MORE corrupt than the federal government is. This is because the federal government is watched over by everyone else, as their decisions affect the entire country. However, state politics only affect their state, and so people don't pay as much attention to state governments.

And while the federal government isn't as intimate or in tune with he wants of state and local populations, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows the federal government to provide for all Americans despite local prejudices. This why Satanists are free to practice their religion, atheists are free to have nothing to do with religion, and interracial relationships and marriages are allowed to occur despite local and regional taboos against those things. The federal government is above all that.
 
samsmart said:
My point was that of course the Supreme Court isn't infallible but I think it's an error to believe that the individual states would be a better check on constitutionality.



Actually, there is evidence that state governments are MORE corrupt than the federal government is. This is because the federal government is watched over by everyone else, as their decisions affect the entire country. However, state politics only affect their state, and so people don't pay as much attention to state governments.
Click to expand...

I can believe that, at least for a state like Texas.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzmGNatLOps"]YouTube- TEXAS VOTING FRAUD ON VIDEO[/ame]
 
samsmart said:
My point was that of course the Supreme Court isn't infallible but I think it's an error to believe that the individual states would be a better check on constitutionality.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, I was saying that Constitutionality is left up to the Supreme Court but we have to trust that they're correct or they're just as bad.


samsmart said:
Actually, there is evidence that state governments are MORE corrupt than the federal government is. This is because the federal government is watched over by everyone else, as their decisions affect the entire country. However, state politics only affect their state, and so people don't pay as much attention to state governments.
Click to expand...

I can understand that, given more media attention to the Federal Level and people not living where other local news comes to them easily, and while lower levels could possibly have been more corrupt in the past (Like Robber Barons and such) it is my understanding that most unchecked and unpunished corruption goes on at the Federal level.

samsmart said:
And while the federal government isn't as intimate or in tune with he wants of state and local populations, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows the federal government to provide for all Americans despite local prejudices. This why Satanists are free to practice their religion, atheists are free to have nothing to do with religion, and interracial relationships and marriages are allowed to occur despite local and regional taboos against those things. The federal government is above all that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, once again, If it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution I can see the Feds getting involved, but things like a National Speed Limit, Abortion, and Homosexual Marriage (mostly things that can be decided on a local level and vary largely from state to state.) Should be left to the States. That way entire regions aren't forced to abide by things that are believed by a different region across the country. And normally most everyone comes around to what is considered "right" anyways and it becomes commonly accepted everywhere.
 
CriticalThought said:
Could Texas just secede already? The GOP would be utterly screwed if they lost that state and frankly I wouldn't miss it that much. They can then re elect Bush to be their President and go to war with every oil rich nation in the world. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Man, I'm ready---pull tha plug already.
 
EpicDude86 said:
Oh OK, I was saying that Constitutionality is left up to the Supreme Court but we have to trust that they're correct or they're just as bad.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. There are a ton of decisions that the Supreme Court has made that I don't think are correct. But I do see the need for them to be the final authority on issues. I also see how they provide a better source of stability in our nation.

EpicDude86 said:
I can understand that, given more media attention to the Federal Level and people not living where other local news comes to them easily, and while lower levels could possibly have been more corrupt in the past (Like Robber Barons and such) it is my understanding that most unchecked and unpunished corruption goes on at the Federal level.
Click to expand...

That could be the case, as there are many agencies of the federal government that corruption can happen and their corruption has more far-reaching effects than that on a state level. However, I don't think that limiting the federal government will get rid of that corruption; instead, it'll just migrate to the state governments. But I'd rather be able to track the corruption of one federal government than track the corruption of 50 state governments.

EpicDude86 said:
Yeah, once again, If it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution I can see the Feds getting involved, but things like a National Speed Limit, Abortion, and Homosexual Marriage (mostly things that can be decided on a local level and vary largely from state to state.) Should be left to the States. That way entire regions aren't forced to abide by things that are believed by a different region across the country. And normally most everyone comes around to what is considered "right" anyways and it becomes commonly accepted everywhere.
Click to expand...

But the problem with that is that modern advances in transportation and communication means that regions cannot isolate themselves from the local cultures of other states.

For example, people can easily go from one state to another state to get an abortion by hopping on a plane. Homosexuals that marry in one state can easily travel to another state where it's illegal. The national speed limit was an attempt to reduce fuel consumption nation-wide during an energy crisis.

This is why many issues can no longer be relegated to just the states. Transportation among the states is too easy to make it feasible.
 
Toothpicvic said:
Just a teabagger's wet dreams.
Click to expand...
You need to take your sexual fantasies to the sex forum. You haven't seen the public get upset yet, but they are going to accept the socialist program from the federal govt without a fight.
 
samsmart said:
My point was that of course the Supreme Court isn't infallible but I think it's an error to believe that the individual states would be a better check on constitutionality.



Actually, there is evidence that state governments are MORE corrupt than the federal government is. This is because the federal government is watched over by everyone else, as their decisions affect the entire country. However, state politics only affect their state, and so people don't pay as much attention to state governments.

And while the federal government isn't as intimate or in tune with he wants of state and local populations, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows the federal government to provide for all Americans despite local prejudices. This why Satanists are free to practice their religion, atheists are free to have nothing to do with religion, and interracial relationships and marriages are allowed to occur despite local and regional taboos against those things. The federal government is above all that.
Click to expand...
You see this is what liberals don't understand. The federal govt isn't supposed to PROVIDE anything to the people. It is supposed to protect the people liberties.
 
American said:
You see this is what liberals don't understand. The federal govt isn't supposed to PROVIDE anything to the people. It is supposed to protect the people liberties.
Click to expand...

Fine. The federal government is supposed to protect American's liberties from the state governments. I stand corrected.
 
Here is something to ponder. The rest of the states are broke and Texas is running a budget surplus that exceeded 8 billion dollors in 2008. The 2009 -2010 budget will be tighter however the state will still have a surplus. While Blue states such as California, Michigan, and New York are beyond broke.
 
Last edited:
SgtRock said:
Here is something to ponder. The rest of the states are broke and Texas is running a budget surplus that exceeded 8 billion dollors in 2008. The 2009 -2010 budget will be tighter however the state will still have a surplus. While Blue states such as California, Michigan, and New York are beyond broke.
Click to expand...

Well, since Mexico has taken over much of the manufacturing jobs from Michigan and New York and Texas benefits the most from free trade to Mexico, it's no wonder that Texas is able to build up a surplus from sweat shop labor at the expense of the rest of the country. California's economy has just been mismanaged and they have to deal with their illegal immigration problem.

However, I still don't see where that gives Texas the right to nullify federal laws. Everything you've mentioned is based on what the state governments have done - not the federal government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom