View Poll Results: State's Rights

Voters
41. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes - full state autonomy.

    8 19.51%
  • Yes - most laws decided at state level

    21 51.22%
  • Neutral - leave as-is, nothing is wrong with system.

    9 21.95%
  • No - most laws decided at federal level.

    14 34.15%
  • No - all laws decided at federal level.

    9 21.95%
  • Other - explain please.

    16 39.02%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

  1. #21
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DashingAmerican View Post
    Ok, the way I see it, states should hold almost sole jurisdiciton. I also feel that anything major the citizens themselves should vote on. (i.e. If a state or federal government wants to change gun law in any way then the citizens of that state, or country if it's a change to federal restrictions, should be allowed to vote on it.)

    That being said, the marriage thing should be on a much smaller level. People with marriage licenses should not be forced to marry anybody at all. Say, a Baptist church should not be forced to marry a gay couple. Though, it should be readily available for anyone to be married at a courthouse or town hall.
    I think you may be operating under some misunderstanding.

    Currently, no church or minister is forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

    And to my knowledge, no church or minister is going to be.

    Such would be a blatant violation of the constitution.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #22
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Federal government should only make laws in areas authorized by the Constitution... nothing more...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  3. #23
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    Federal government should only make laws in areas authorized by the Constitution... nothing more...
    Now that is a dumb statement.. The constitution is the law of the land.. Exectly where doesn't the constitution apply?? Where exactly doesn't the constitution authorize it's application??

    Perhaps you should do some research and nothing more.. Just a thought..

  4. #24
    Civil Libertarian
    DashingAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Last Seen
    08-31-17 @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,357

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I think you may be operating under some misunderstanding.

    Currently, no church or minister is forced to perform marriage ceremonies.

    And to my knowledge, no church or minister is going to be.

    Such would be a blatant violation of the constitution.
    I know. I was just making examples.
    If you strike me down, I'll become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

  5. #25
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    Now that is a dumb statement.. The constitution is the law of the land.. Exectly where doesn't the constitution apply?? Where exactly doesn't the constitution authorize it's application??

    Perhaps you should do some research and nothing more.. Just a thought..
    There are multiple ways in which the constitution has and will be interpreted.

    Some include the thought that unless an action is authorized specifically in the constitution, the federal gov is not allowed to get involved.

    Some tend towards the opposite - that if an action is not specifically prohibited, it's allowed.

    Even specific clauses have different interpretations depending on who you ask - like the 2nd Amendment for example.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  6. #26
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by DashingAmerican View Post
    I know. I was just making examples.
    ....Meh...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #27
    Educator DemonMyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Seattle WA.
    Last Seen
    02-11-13 @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    727

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    I voted other because this isn't really a simply issue.. For the most part all states can make their own laws and govern the people that live within them.. However, no state can violate the constitutional rights of the people within it's boarders.. No state can ban people from peaceful protest.. Or violate their freedom of speach..

    The federal government has the right and the power to dictate laws based on the constitution.. For instance the SCOTUS striking down the sodomy laws during the Bush years.. Descrimination is a violation of the constitution and no law can be made that descriminates against the people.. Gay marriage is an issue of descrimination and it technically it is legal and constitutional.. It is sad that we will need a SCOTUS ruling to tell some states the plainly obvious..

    States can govern.. But the civil rights of the people is guarded by the federal government..

  8. #28
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    I think that it absolutely depends on the issue.

    One that most do not mention and that seems to tick people off, is education. I would love to see a federal set of standards (not NCLB) that sets a minimum for what courses students need to graduate and ensures that students moving between states are given full credit for their classes from other schools and given some way to ensure that they can be waived from certain rules or have some online system setup as a fallback to allow students who do need to move around (due mainly because of a parent's need to move for a job or other reason) a chance to actually graduate if they deserve to do so no matter where they come from or move to.

    I bring this up because I did have a brother who was forced to get a GED because my mother moved during his senior year of high school and he was unable to enroll in the new state's high school because local policy was no one could enroll into their school after reaching the age of 19. He had failed one grade (in elementary school and he is dyslexic) and his birthday is in the middle of the school year. Things like this are pretty rare, but they do happen. This can negatively affect a young person's life from the start for something that is a technicality that the student had little control over.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #29
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by roguenuke View Post
    I think that it absolutely depends on the issue.

    One that most do not mention and that seems to tick people off, is education. I would love to see a federal set of standards (not NCLB) that sets a minimum for what courses students need to graduate and ensures that students moving between states are given full credit for their classes from other schools and given some way to ensure that they can be waived from certain rules or have some online system setup as a fallback to allow students who do need to move around (due mainly because of a parent's need to move for a job or other reason) a chance to actually graduate if they deserve to do so no matter where they come from or move to.

    I bring this up because I did have a brother who was forced to get a GED because my mother moved during his senior year of high school and he was unable to enroll in the new state's high school because local policy was no one could enroll into their school after reaching the age of 19. He had failed one grade (in elementary school and he is dyslexic) and his birthday is in the middle of the school year. Things like this are pretty rare, but they do happen. This can negatively affect a young person's life from the start for something that is a technicality that the student had little control over.
    At the same time, I think one of the issues in today's public schools (and perhaps some private?) is a tendency to teach everyone as if they were identical, or nearly so - those who do not or cannot meet that template end up in detention, expelled, on various drugs, etc.

    I think that the majority of those problem children could be taught if the instruction procedure were fitted to their individual needs.

    IMO, a 1 : 1 instructor : student relationship would be optimal, because maximum tailoring of individual instruction could be achieved that way - this is not reasonable, I suppose, but it seems the optimal way.

    In my mind, working to capitalize on an individual's strengths and shore up their weaknesses is the proper way to teach.

    Meh.

    I could probably go on for quite awhile about all the issues I see with the public education system - how it can be improved, etc.

    But I'm no expert.

    So perhaps I am incorrect.

    -------------------

    Nevertheless, I think that our public education system is THE key issue.

    Of primary importance over any and all others.

    Terrorism? Secondary.

    Debt? Secondary.

    Plague? Secondary.

    Worldwide nuclear war? Secondary.

    EVERYTHING is less important.





    As you can tell, somewhat of a pet issue.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  10. #30
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    At the same time, I think one of the issues in today's public schools (and perhaps some private?) is a tendency to teach everyone as if they were identical, or nearly so - those who do not or cannot meet that template end up in detention, expelled, on various drugs, etc.

    I think that the majority of those problem children could be taught if the instruction procedure were fitted to their individual needs.

    IMO, a 1 : 1 instructor : student relationship would be optimal, because maximum tailoring of individual instruction could be achieved that way - this is not reasonable, I suppose, but it seems the optimal way.

    In my mind, working to capitalize on an individual's strengths and shore up their weaknesses is the proper way to teach.

    Meh.

    I could probably go on for quite awhile about all the issues I see with the public education system - how it can be improved, etc.

    But I'm no expert.

    So perhaps I am incorrect.

    -------------------

    Nevertheless, I think that our public education system is THE key issue.

    Of primary importance over any and all others.

    Terrorism? Secondary.

    Debt? Secondary.

    Plague? Secondary.

    Worldwide nuclear war? Secondary.

    EVERYTHING is less important.





    As you can tell, somewhat of a pet issue.
    Agree completely. This is why we should have states working with federal government on this issue. What I envision is a plan where the federal government sets down certain ground rules, such as this is the minimum classes that a person needs to graduate, period. Everything else is extra, but they should be required to have that extra, just not specifically based on each individual school/district 's available courses. Without making exceptions, schools are screwing over some kids, who probably know as much if not more than many of those graduating, just due to their poor circumstances and the school not willing to do a small amount of extra work to make such an exception.

    States/districts should not be limited by equal protection to the point where it is harmful. For example, there was the area in KY where they had their schools set up in a way where the students picked the school they wanted to go to within the district, because each school offered different programs and setups that really got the students into the right school for their needs. It had to change because one student didn't get into his first choice school initially (he actually got in before the school year started due to an opening coming available) and his mother filed suit on discrimination because the schools did not take race of the students into account in the decision for where the students went and a couple of the schools were unequal in amounts/percentages based on race. The rest of the district suffered because we seem to have lost all common sense when it comes to making decisions for schools.

    I would love to see each school district diversified in a way that allows students to have options on how they are taught to better fit their educational needs.

    There should also be federal alternatives available for students who are having some clash with their school where they can get a good education.

    One of the things that is actually in a trial period right now in certain states/districts (I'm pretty sure some WA districts are trying this) is online high school. If done correctly, this could be a great way to help some students, both some groups of problem students and some smarter students who feel that normal public high school moves at a slower pace than they want to go.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •