View Poll Results: State's Rights

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 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 43 of 43

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

  1. #41

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-06-15 @ 07:52 AM

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

    I voted other. I support adhering to the Constitution, all of it, including the 14th. The state's and municipalities should do most of the work and the feds should only step in to protect against violations of the 14th. I would like to see a repeal of the 17th amendment as it has had a negative impact on the balance of power between the states and the feds, but other than that... My position is not in support of "as is", but "as intended."

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    07-29-11 @ 01:28 PM

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

    When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

    For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

    Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.
    I think we forget that these are not rights given to us be the goverment these are rights that the goverment are not allowed to impede upon. We give the power to the goverment not the other way around. Many have forgotten that.

  3. #43
    Sporadic insanity normal.

    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:26 AM

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DemonMyst View Post
    This isn't about interpretation.. This is about where it applies or doesn't apply.. Not everything has to be mentioned in the constitution for it to apply.. Those that claim it does are simply a little short on brains.. You have the right to bear arms.. That does not mean that everyone has a right to a nuke silo in their back yard.. Nor does it mean they should have automatic weapons or assault rifles.. Should the constitution actually list every type of weapon past, present, and future that people are allowed to have?? Can common sense prevail here?? The first amendment implies a separating of church and state.. Do we really need the words to know that it is there?? The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.. Even homosexuals.. So why can't they get married?? Does not marriage law count as a law?? Does not the 1st amendment limit the discussion to non religious arguments??

    The problem that conservatives have is that they want to use the argument that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.. The constitution is a living document and is written in such a way that implication is very important.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.. Single shot muskets rifles were the weapon of the day.. So there is no argument by your terms to make the claim that pistols, assault rifles or anything that isn't a single shot musket are included in the constitution.. Conservatives will use that logic in attempt to limit the power of the government.. See the Obama health plan.. Then deny that very argument when applied to the 2nd amendment..

    There really isn't a difference of interpretation.. Just a difference on how you want to twist what it says for your own cause..

    Gay marriage is legal nationwide.. The 1st amendment denies the religious their right to force their views onto others... The 14th amendment applies all laws equally to everyone... Which includes marriage laws. There is no argument... There is no debate... As it is all written, that is all fact... Now convince the religious that their views don't matter?? Like I said... Twist it as much as they can for their own cause or purpose.

    Gun rights.. Same thing.. While the constitution doesn't say what kind of arms a civilian may keep.. There is no logical way to make the assumption that assault rifles or any other automatic or semiautomatic weapon is included... Despite what the NRA says, they don't have any constitutional basis for their claims... The single shot musket was the weapon of the day... There is the weapon you have right to bear... I am sure many will argue with that logic...

    Is that the same logic to say that the mandate is illegal because the constitution doesn't say the government has that power?? So which is it?? If the constitution doesn't say something it is legal when it comes to guns and illegal when it comes to the mandate?? Talk about hypocritical..
    I think you being are somewhat disingenuous when you focus on “Conservatives” in your statement.

    I would say that all of the multiple ideologies have at some point changed something or supported a position which it could be argued violated the constitution.

    I’ve heard people state their opinion that the following systems/programs (among others) violate the spirit and/or the letter of the constitution:
    • Federal Reserve.
    • Federal standards and controls on education.
    • Social Security.
    • Medicare/whatever other related programs.
    • Gun control.
    • More recently, the pseudo-UHC legislation.
    Many of those arguments would be supported (as I understand it) by your statement that “…they want to use the argument that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.”

    As to your statement about interpretation – twisting the words to fit your position is precisely and exactly the same thing as interpretation, IMO.

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

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

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