• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion only: Gun rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Marijuana, State Rights

Which of these topics are relevant and important to our project?

  • Gun rights, explain

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • Abortion, explain

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Gay marriage, explain

    Votes: 7 29.2%
  • Marijuana, explain

    Votes: 9 37.5%
  • State Rights, explain

    Votes: 15 62.5%
  • Trayvon Martin, explain

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • None of these, explain

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • All of these, explain

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Other, explain

    Votes: 3 12.5%

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
I voted for the chronic. The government should not be able to regulate a plant and on the wider issue, I oppose the government facilitating rent-seeking beyond physical objects (no intellectual property rights protections)
 
Sorry, we're one country, you know, E pluribus unum and junk, not fifty fiefdoms I for one have no desire to resurrect feudalism, civil rights are bestowed upon each person in this country, and everyone should be able to enforce their rights against the states. Through the federal courts.

So we put you down for a national government with complete power to order the people to do whatever those in government want them to do. Or not do. Such people either want unlimited power or they do not trust the people to make good decisions when they are allowed to govern themselves.
 
It is really telling that you consider civil rights to be a federal restriction, remember big brother says freedom is slavery

I trust people blessed with liberty to make far better choices for themselves than I trust any government to make those choices for them.
 
Rights should be assumed and only entered into if there are restrictions. The right to bear arms should be federally protected. Leave the specifics up to the states - which would define how to protect such as to require registration or not, to allow interstate travel or not, and states can choose to recognize other states registrations or licenses. The fees for these registrations, travel or license would go to the state and a % of that would go to the federal government. This would allocate funds to continued protection, changes to the law (future) as well as education and outreach about firearms as well as import/export of firearms. What will or will not be included as a firearm allowable by the Fed and protected must be defined.

Obviously, since I defer to states and the federal government would allow the states to dictate their own laws and methodology, The fed will protect the states but a mutual agreement between those states and the fed must exist. As well, who will have final say (the fed) but under what circumstances? If we say "all" circumstances we set the stage for yet another large federal bureaucracy which requires lots of money and lots of people.
 
The way I see it, I cannot see how any rights granted by our current constitution with the amendments as it is right now would not transfer to this new constitution we draft.

So whatever constitution we draft is essentially going to be adding/specifying certain existing rights so as to create less confusion.

Therefor, abortion would definitely be a good discussion (since I would see that as part of a right that would be separate of privacy but a right none the less) that is very important.
 
Well we will adamantly disagree on that point as I think the federal government has been far more guilty of overreach in that regard than have most of the states.

More importantly, if the laws of a state become intolerable for its citizens, the citizens are much more able to deal with it constructively and/or move to a state with better laws. With federal laws, there is no escape and no place to go where you can better govern yourself short of giving up your country.

Actually, it was the states that have had a bad history of ripping peoples' rights to shreds.
 
So we put you down for a national government with complete power to order the people to do whatever those in government want them to do. Or not do. Such people either want unlimited power or they do not trust the people to make good decisions when they are allowed to govern themselves.

whether it's federal, state, county or city, it's still some govt. setting the rules.

and as Luftwaffe says, the states have a bad history of ignoring people's rights.
 
Is this a theoretical government? Because if so, I'd like to talk about allocation of funds as well.
 
Let us please not fall into the abyss of ignorance that led us to this endeavor. There is no such things as GUN RIGHTS since guns are inanimate objects and objects do NOT possess rights. People have rights. The entire phrase is dishonest and serves to create the false belief that guns have been elevated beyond other objects in our land to some status where they actually have rights.

Please folks - lets clear the slate on this right now.
 
Let us please not fall into the abyss of ignorance that led us to this endeavor. There is no such things as GUN RIGHTS since guns are inanimate objects and objects do NOT possess rights. People have rights. The entire phrase is dishonest and serves to create the false belief that guns have been elevated beyond other objects in our land to some status where they actually have rights.

Please folks - lets clear the slate on this right now.

You are correct, guns have no rights, one has the right to bear arms, although typing an entire phrase for polling purposes can be rather cumbersome.:)

May I suggest, since we seem to be a bit hung up on states rights, to address the purpose of the 10th Amendment next?
 
You are correct, guns have no rights, one has the right to bear arms, although typing an entire phrase for polling purposes can be rather cumbersome.:)

May I suggest, since we seem to be a bit hung up on states rights, to address the purpose of the 10th Amendment next?

I agree.

Regarding STATES RIGHTS: the USA of 2014 is NOT the USA of 1776. Today a person is often born in Massachusetts, spends part of their childhood in Connecticut and New York, goes to college in Michigan, does grad work in Ohio, takes a job in Texas and marries a person originally from California with their own travels to match. That couple then lives in three different states over the next thirty years as they change jobs residing in New Mexico, Colorado and Alabama. They retire to Florida only to sour on the climate after several years and end up spending their final years in South Carolina. One dies and the other goes to Oregon to live with their adult children.

That is the reality of the 21st century America we live in. The concept of a state as a individual place with its own culture and population and government is as old fashioned and out of date as the tri-cornered hat and knee breeches.
 
I agree.

Regarding STATES RIGHTS: the USA of 2014 is NOT the USA of 1776. Today a person is often born in Massachusetts, spends part of their childhood in Connecticut and New York, goes to college in Michigan, does grad work in Ohio, takes a job in Texas and marries a person originally from California with their own travels to match. That couple then lives in three different states over the next thirty years as they change jobs residing in New Mexico, Colorado and Alabama. They retire to Florida only to sour on the climate after several years and end up spending their final years in South Carolina. One dies and the other goes to Oregon to live with their adult children.

That is the reality of the 21st century America we live in. The concept of a state as a individual place with its own culture and population and government is as old fashioned and out of date as the tri-cornered hat and knee breeches.

And if you've been to those sates you'd know that they all do have their own culture and government, as it should be. One point of states rights is to decentralize government so that it doesn't become powerful enough to take our liberty. Another is so states can compete with each other to provide us with more efficient and better government.
 
And if you've been to those sates you'd know that they all do have their own culture and government, as it should be. One point of states rights is to decentralize government so that it doesn't become powerful enough to take our liberty. Another is so states can compete with each other to provide us with more efficient and better government.

Lets make sure that states do not screw each other and the people of their states. There should be a national prohibition against the insanity of tax abatements or tax free rides to seduce a business from moving to one state to a different state only to do it again down the line to a different state. Every company should pay its way in taxes and we should prohibit the type of robbing Peter to pay Paul that happens all the time. Michigan lost its furniture industry to North Carolina because of deals like this and it makes no sense to the nation to simply see a company or group of companies lower its tax bill while no real benefit reaches the nation as a whole.
 
Actually, it was the states that have had a bad history of ripping peoples' rights to shreds.

So let the people in those states deal with those states, but do not presume to dictate to the people what they see as their rights to be. A one-size-fits-all government that would presume to dictate to the people what rights they will and will not have is a government that can do anything it wants to anybody. Almost certainly, a free people will organize some societies that you find distasteful, perhaps even evil. But other people might find the society that is to your liking just as distasteful or even evil.

It still comes down to whether you want a king to order society and presumably save the people from themselves--that is a Biblical concept by the way--or whether you trust a free people to govern themselves. Those who govern themselves will make mistakes, get it wrong, screw it up, and fall short in much trial and error, but history has shown that a people left to themselves will find a balance and create a society that is pleasing and satisfying to all within it.

But if you have a bad king, the people are screwed and there isn't much they can do about it short of violence.
 
I think the current Constitution was pretty well thought out. Some of the wording could be more precise, but the intent is pretty clear when we look at the Federalist papers and some of the written communication of especially James Madison. I'd ague that our problems don't come from the wording and intent of the Constitution but an honest interpretation of that wording and intent. And I don't see that we can depend on maintaining an honest interpretation of any agreement, no matter how well written. Lawyers and others hell bent on making the words mean what they want to mean will find a way.

That is the problem.
Although I think our present Constitution is excellent, I was hoping that we DPers would be able to clarify some of the arcane/obtuse wording.
I now think that whatever we agree to will be subject to interpretation---same as our current Constitution.
Maybe that's what the founders intended.:shrug:
This is still an interesting exercise, though.
 
That is the problem.
Although I think our present Constitution is excellent, I was hoping that we DPers would be able to clarify some of the arcane/obtuse wording.
I now think that whatever we agree to will be subject to interpretation---same as our current Constitution.
Maybe that's what the founders intended.:shrug:
This is still an interesting exercise, though.

I think the Founders were of one mind to create a nation in which the people would have their rights secured and then would be left alone to live their lives as they saw fit. The Constitution was carefully constructed to allow for a federal government with sufficient authority to allow the various states to function as one nation while maximizing the liberty of the people so that they would govern themselves rather than be governed. This required strict limits on federal powers while being careful not to put the government in a straight jacket so that it would be unable to carry out the responsibilities given to it.

I think the existing Constitution is a remarkable document too and is brilliant in concept. For the most part it has accomplished what it was intended to do. I see our task with a new and better Constitution is to restore the original intent to the original and make it more difficult for opportunistic politicians, lawyers, and activists to interpret it in self-serving ways.
 
Are any of the topics important and relevant to our undertaking of creating a Constitution for the United States of America?

If so, which ones? and Why?

Gun Rights
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Marijuana
State Rights
Trayvon Martin

This is an anonymous poll.
A new constitution sould adress marriage per-se, not focus in only on gays.
 
A new constitution sould adress marriage per-se, not focus in only on gays.

And I don't see marriage laws of any kind being the prerogative of the federal government.
 
And I don't see marriage laws of any kind being the prerogative of the federal government.
Well, I do, and would like to make those arguments and have it put to a vote.
 
Marijuana falls into vice laws. Things like drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc should not be regulated by the authorities. Consenting adults free to walk around should be given the latitude that they can make their own decisions in regards to their personal affairs -- what they do to themselves is strictly their business. 'Cause the way things go today is this formula: Police learn So-and-So are doing drug + Police want to save the person from drug addiction and dependency (among other motivations) + Police perform a no-knock raid, kill the person's dogs and then kills the person when they defend themselves. So the death squads to clean our streets up from drugs has not only been a $1,000,000,000,000+ failure but drugs are more wide-spread today then they ever have been before. Prohibition of alcohol had the same disastrous result.
 
So we put you down for a national government with complete power to order the people to do whatever those in government want them to do. Or not do. Such people either want unlimited power or they do not trust the people to make good decisions when they are allowed to govern themselves.

Accusing other posters of wanting unlimited power and not trusting "the people" simply because they have a sincere difference of opinion with you is not only getting old, but is also not in keeping with the tone we want to promote in this forum
 
And I don't see marriage laws of any kind being the prerogative of the federal government.

Marriage is a contract and the enforcement of contracts is something that even minarchists agree is a legitimate interest of govt.
 
Well, I do, and would like to make those arguments and have it put to a vote.

You can start a thread on it in this forum and we can discuss!
 
Accusing other posters of wanting unlimited power and not trusting "the people" simply because they have a sincere difference of opinion with you is not only getting old, but is also not in keeping with the tone we want to promote in this forum

Sorry. I try not to be contentious but do bristle a bit when I am accused of wanting a return to fiefdom when I have been arguing against that very thing with every means I can think of. I trust that you admonished the member I was responding to as well?
 
Marriage is a contract and the enforcement of contracts is something that even minarchists agree is a legitimate interest of govt.

I did not argue that it is not a legitimate interest of government. I argued that it should not be an issue for federal government to deal with.
 
Back
Top Bottom