• 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 .

vasuderatorrent

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2013
Messages
6,112
Reaction score
987
Location
(none)
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Communist
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.
 
States rights I personally think is a big item of discussion; there were reasons to give a lot of rights to the states before - travel distance, just to get everyone to agree, slavery - that no longer apply. And certainly we have many more things crossing state lines that we did in 1700s.

In terms of gun rights - I voted for that just because it is in our current US constitution but, in my opinion, it was a badly written amendment.

Things like marriage, abortion, etc. I would think would be more covered under privacy and equal protection laws rather than needing to be spelled out specifically. I'm not sure guns even need to be spelled out specifically -again, it was addressing a very particular situation that doesn't apply anymore.

those are my thoughts.
 
I picked the maryjane one. Since alcohol, and tobacco legality is monitored by the Fed, I figure the herb should be too.
 
I picked the maryjane one. Since alcohol, and tobacco legality is monitored by the Fed, I figure the herb should be too.

I don't have a problem with pot being monitored by the feds; but are alcohol and tobacco specifically mentioned in the constitution?
 
I don't have a problem with pot being monitored by the feds; but are alcohol and tobacco specifically mentioned in the constitution?

Wasn't alcohol the 19th and 21st amendments, or close to that?
 
If we decide on a list of enumerated rights such as guns, religion, freedom of speech, as is contained in the existing Constitution, then almost anything could be included. But the most important thing, in my opinion, is to ensure that only specific powers are assigned to the Federal government and that it will be limited to those assigned powers. All the rest will be left up to the states to decide as the people of each state see fit. (Once we complete a Constitution of the United States of America, it might be fun to create a mythical state that we would all be citizens of, and write a state constitution for that to compliment the new federal constitution.
 
All of these issues may be important to address. The easiest way to address some of them is how we handle existing case law. Four example does our new constitution supersede all current understanding of it as interpreted by our Supreme Court? If yes then row V Wade it would be implicitly repealed thereby necessitating in abortion amendment in our new constitution. Gun rights is looking to be partially contentious as well. BTW I call dibs on writing that amendment..... Lol
 
If we decide on a list of enumerated rights such as guns, religion, freedom of speech, as is contained in the existing Constitution, then almost anything could be included. But the most important thing, in my opinion, is to ensure that only specific powers are assigned to the Federal government and that it will be limited to those assigned powers. All the rest will be left up to the states to decide as the people of each state see fit. (Once we complete a Constitution of the United States of America, it might be fun to create a mythical state that we would all be citizens of, and write a state constitution for that to compliment the new federal constitution.

The problem is in my opinion, that throughout history and to this very day, States where certain rights are less popular have no problem restricting rights. States rights has been used as a codeword to justify slavery, Jim Crow segregation, absurd voting restrictions, absurd gun laws, absolutely insane abuses of police search and seizure powers,
There needs to be clear and concise federal rights recognized
 
All of these issues may be important to address. The easiest way to address some of them is how we handle existing case law. Four example does our new constitution supersede all current understanding of it as interpreted by our Supreme Court? If yes then row V Wade it would be implicitly repealed thereby necessitating in abortion amendment in our new constitution. Gun rights is looking to be partially contentious as well. BTW I call dibs on writing that amendment..... Lol

rights should exist without any action. only abrogation of rights require inclusion in the document
 
State and marijuana issues speak the loudest to me. In my opinion, the Federal Government should only be concerned with the protection of the borders, and national security. The laws we abide by day to day should be decided by the states.

I know that may get annoying while traveling, and I am sure there would be leniency of law enforcement - at least I would hope.

I'm not sure of the implication of this, but I'm pondering the idea that we give states the ability to deficit spend with the central bank of the US, assuming we keep the same economical structure, which I am willing to bet that is the case. I'm not going to explain it fully, but I believe deficit spending has been beneficial to our society, a tool of The Treasury and The Fed. What would happen if we allowed states to do the same thing? Because currently states have to stay in budget - they can't print. I do not understand the implications of this idea yet, I have to think about it, but I'm just throwing it out there to be discussed.

Marijuana should be legal. The only reason why it isn't illegal is because of the prison lobby.
 
If I had my way, most issues would not be handled by the federal government one way or the other. (Although I am not opposed to a Bill of Rights applying to the states, it would really have to be thought out.) Guns, marijuana, marriage, etc. would be state level issues. So states rights has a role, obviously, though I prefer to say state powers. Abortion would normally be out of the feds hands as well, except I think a national right to life is something that needs to be considered because it is fundamental.
 
Are any of the topics important and relevant to our undertaking of creating a Constitution for the United States of America
No one on this website is creating a new constitution.
 
Gun rights, Abortion, Gay marriage, Marijuana, State Rights, others because they're important.
 
The problem is in my opinion, that throughout history and to this very day, States where certain rights are less popular have no problem restricting rights. States rights has been used as a codeword to justify slavery, Jim Crow segregation, absurd voting restrictions, absurd gun laws, absolutely insane abuses of police search and seizure powers,
There needs to be clear and concise federal rights recognized

As have federal powers been used to justify slavery, Jim Crow segregation, absurd voting laws, absurd gun laws, and way overreaching abuse of search and seizure powers. So the question for you is, do you want to deal with that at the state level where it can be manageable? Or do you wish to confer on a federal government sufficient power to do anything it wants to anybody?
 
State and marijuana issues speak the loudest to me. In my opinion, the Federal Government should only be concerned with the protection of the borders, and national security. The laws we abide by day to day should be decided by the states.

I know that may get annoying while traveling, and I am sure there would be leniency of law enforcement - at least I would hope.

Where is the line on day by day issues?
I agree, federal reach should be limited, but it is also very convenient, traveling being one, as you mentioned.
Marriage should certainly be recognized on a federal level.
Guns rights..a legally obtained weapon and clean back ground check should be recognized t/o the US.
Why should women have to flock to certain States to obtain a legal abortion?
MJ>>> see alcohol. Lets face it, we have some stupid laws on state level. I am not sure how much those laws should be expanded upon. Not being able to buy booze on Sunday being one (not to mention dry counties). What, you can't get just as drunk when you buy alcohol on Saturday?
 
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.
 
The problem is in my opinion, that throughout history and to this very day, States where certain rights are less popular have no problem restricting rights. States rights has been used as a codeword to justify slavery, Jim Crow segregation, absurd voting restrictions, absurd gun laws, absolutely insane abuses of police search and seizure powers,
There needs to be clear and concise federal rights recognized

I agree. "States rights" aren't pretty, in many cases.
 
As have federal powers been used to justify slavery, Jim Crow segregation, absurd voting laws, absurd gun laws, and way overreaching abuse of search and seizure powers. So the question for you is, do you want to deal with that at the state level where it can be manageable? Or do you wish to confer on a federal government sufficient power to do anything it wants to anybody?

No, I suggest enumeration of civil rights and giving the federal government power to enforce civil rights, the Feds don't get everything perfect either, still doesn't mean we should let states do whatever thy want with no checks and balances.
 
No, I suggest enumeration of civil rights and giving the federal government power to enforce civil rights, the Feds don't get everything perfect either, still doesn't mean we should let states do whatever thy want with no checks and balances.

The only checks and balances the federal government should impose on any state is to prevent the various states from doing material or economic harm to each other. In other words Texas can't declare any kind of 'war' on New Mexico, etc. and one state cannot pollute the air or water shared with other states with impunity, etc. Otherwise why should we assume that those in federal office are more noble or better qualified to determine what is best for the people of Texas or New Mexico than the governments those people choose for their states?
 
The only checks and balances the federal government should impose on any state is to prevent the various states from doing material or economic harm to each other. In other words Texas can't declare any kind of 'war' on New Mexico, etc. and one state cannot pollute the air or water shared with other states with impunity, etc. Otherwise why should we assume that those in federal office are more noble or better qualified to determine what is best for the people of Texas or New Mexico than the governments those people choose for their states?

Because history has shown us that states will discriminate against groups of people; for whatever reason - probably the federal courts - the federal govt has been less likely to.
 
Because history has shown us that states will discriminate against groups of people; for whatever reason - probably the federal courts - the federal govt has been less likely to.

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.
 
The only checks and balances the federal government should impose on any state is to prevent the various states from doing material or economic harm to each other. In other words Texas can't declare any kind of 'war' on New Mexico, etc. and one state cannot pollute the air or water shared with other states with impunity, etc. Otherwise why should we assume that those in federal office are more noble or better qualified to determine what is best for the people of Texas or New Mexico than the governments those people choose for their states?

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.
 
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.
It is really telling that you consider civil rights to be a federal restriction, remember big brother says freedom is slavery
 
Jump in. Share your opinions.

29A said:
My ideas are important too.
AGENT J said:
My ideas are important too.
Amandi said:
My ideas are important too.
americanwoman said:
My ideas are important too.
APACHERAT said:
My ideas are important too.
azgreg said:
My ideas are important too.
BrewerBob said:
My ideas are important too.
Buck Ewer said:
My ideas are important too.
Chantal said:
My ideas are important too.
chromium said:
My ideas are important too.
Citizen.Seven said:
My ideas are important too.
CycloneWanderer said:
My ideas are important too.
DaveFagan said:
My ideas are important too.
Declan said:
My ideas are important too.
DifferentDrummr said:
My ideas are important too.
Geoist said:
My ideas are important too.
Grand Mal said:
My ideas are important too.
grip said:
My ideas are important too.
hallam said:
My ideas are important too.
Hamster Buddha said:
My ideas are important too.
Hatuey said:
My ideas are important too.
haymarket said:
My ideas are important too.
iliveonramen said:
My ideas are important too.
imagep said:
My ideas are important too.
Kal'Stang said:
My ideas are important too.
Korimyr the Rat said:
My ideas are important too.
Kushinator said:
My ideas are important too.
Luftwaffe said:
My ideas are important too.
mak2 said:
My ideas are important too.
ModerateGOP said:
My ideas are important too.
Moot said:
My ideas are important too.
Navy Pride said:
My ideas are important too.
NIMBY said:
My ideas are important too.
Ockham said:
My ideas are important too.
Paleocon said:
My ideas are important too.
Poiuy said:
My ideas are important too.
Psychoclown said:
My ideas are important too.
rabbitcaebannog said:
My ideas are important too.
radioman said:
My ideas are important too.
RedAkston said:
My ideas are important too.
rjay said:
My ideas are important too.
roguenuke said:
My ideas are important too.
sookster said:
My ideas are important too.
Superfly said:
My ideas are important too.
TeleKat said:
My ideas are important too.
The Mark said:
My ideas are important too.
TheDemSocialist said:
My ideas are important too.
Threegoofs said:
My ideas are important too.
TurtleDude said:
My ideas are important too.
Unitedwestand13 said:
My ideas are important too.
Unrepresented said:
My ideas are important too.
Visbek said:
My ideas are important too.
whysoserious said:
My ideas are important too.
Wiggen said:
My ideas are important too.
Your Star said:
My ideas are important too.
 
Back
Top Bottom