The W
Views: 100031241
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
25.10.07 0702
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - States Rights?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
(1215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (10 total)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 176/2704
EXP: 8931533
For next: 57286

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#1 Posted on 21.11.03 0834.19
Reposted on: 21.11.10 0834.53
First, this is not a thread about same sex marriage or or why people are gay. That thread was closed for obvious reasons. This is about conservatives and their claim of valuing state's rights.

Our "esteemed" Senator Sam Brownback (R) Kansas, is proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. My question isn't about that. Here's my query, "I thought Conservatives were for the Federal government sticking to the duties as outlined in the constitution and for allowing states to determine such things?" Seem to me that conservatives would want the feds to stay out of this.
Promote this thread!
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 353/641
EXP: 1104822
For next: 52304

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3703 days
Last activity: 3362 days
#2 Posted on 21.11.03 0915.07
Reposted on: 21.11.10 0915.29
This seems like the silly gmaes that childern play with their parents.

Mommy says no, so you go ask your dad who might say yes.

Even tho it would seem like a conservative would not want Federal interjection, I think they will bend the rules a bit to get what they want.

Sounds like smart politics actually.
Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
Level: 131

Posts: 1848/5216
EXP: 25767148
For next: 657542

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 5 hours
#3 Posted on 21.11.03 1645.26
Reposted on: 21.11.10 1645.32
That could be argued that the Sen. is trying to bring the church into the state. That would cause a whole new debate...
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 88

Posts: 1513/2108
EXP: 6617143
For next: 33547

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 days
#4 Posted on 21.11.03 2156.49
Reposted on: 21.11.10 2157.39
"States Rights" is a convenient excuse both parties use when it suits them. Similar to "we need to balance the budget."

It's not just same-sex marriage. Medical Marajuana is probably the most notable use of conservatives abandoning their "States Rights" rhetoric.

Me? It's a different time than 1789, when you need to travel a week on horseback to reach another state. Now, I can get to probably every state in the Union in less than 24 hours right now if I wanted to, and talk to anyone in every one. States are an outdated concept.

I'd be for a similar system with 5 or 6 "regions" with the greater powers than States currently hold, and a loose Federal system (which is a lot closer to the model envisioned in the Constitution than what we have now also). Or I'd also be for a government of no States, and Municipalities and the Federal government splitting the rights and powers. But what we have now kind of sucks. States are too large to be an efficient Democratic insturment, and too small to be an effective Representative Republican insturment. And to top it all off, the boundaries mostly have no reflection of demographic of philosophical or land-use divisions in our society.
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 534/3394
EXP: 13487117
For next: 33426

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 12 hours
Last activity: 56 min.
AIM:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 22.11.03 2234.29
Reposted on: 22.11.10 2234.51
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    First, this is not a thread about same sex marriage or or why people are gay. That thread was closed for obvious reasons. This is about conservatives and their claim of valuing state's rights.

    Our "esteemed" Senator Sam Brownback (R) Kansas, is proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. My question isn't about that. Here's my query, "I thought Conservatives were for the Federal government sticking to the duties as outlined in the constitution and for allowing states to determine such things?" Seem to me that conservatives would want the feds to stay out of this.


Gotta agree with everyone else.This is a states rights issue and the Senator should get out. Of course, if there WERE a constitutional amendment (which must be ratified by the states), then it isn't a states rights issue anymore because the states cede that over to the federal government.

Oh, yeah, it's how the constitution works. Darn that process. We've had stupid amendments actually go out for ratification before (see ERA). This one will never pass.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 182/2704
EXP: 8931533
For next: 57286

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#6 Posted on 22.11.03 2339.18
Reposted on: 22.11.10 2339.21
    Originally posted by AWArulz
      Originally posted by DrDirt
      First, this is not a thread about same sex marriage or or why people are gay. That thread was closed for obvious reasons. This is about conservatives and their claim of valuing state's rights.

      Our "esteemed" Senator Sam Brownback (R) Kansas, is proposing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. My question isn't about that. Here's my query, "I thought Conservatives were for the Federal government sticking to the duties as outlined in the constitution and for allowing states to determine such things?" Seem to me that conservatives would want the feds to stay out of this.


    Gotta agree with everyone else.This is a states rights issue and the Senator should get out. Of course, if there WERE a constitutional amendment (which must be ratified by the states), then it isn't a states rights issue anymore because the states cede that over to the federal government.

    Oh, yeah, it's how the constitution works. Darn that process. We've had stupid amendments actually go out for ratification before (see ERA). This one will never pass.


AWA, granted that if it becomes part of the constitution it makes the point moot. My thinkng is that it should never get to that point because it doesn't belong in there to begin with. I don't see it passing but i see it as a distraction from other issues that should be addresses.

Moe, the medical maijuana issue is the perfect example. Researchers have stated that if the feds hadn't ben so paranoid on the issue, by now research would have developed a good inhaler that would deliver the desired THC effects without having to smoke pot. Along those lines, our drug paranoia has prevented research on industrial hemp, which is not pot, a crop with a lot of uses from paper to clothing tha farmers could be grwoing profitably.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1452/1759
EXP: 4930976
For next: 61894

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 24.11.03 0238.28
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0239.00
Well, I think that States are far from an outdated concept- in fact, I think they more essential today. Sure travel time is a lot faster, but population is the key. Democracy works better on a smaller scale, and state and local governments are supposed to be a way for local areas to handle local issues. Putting more and more issues in the hands of bigger governments dillutes the power of the people. Keep the role of the federal government as it is outlined in the constitution, and let the states handle the rest. That would make me perfectly happy.

As a Republican, I dont necessarily agree with everything Republicans in power are doing now. Prescription drugs, for one, is a terrible idea. If government really wants to make drugs more available to more people, there are a ton of things they can do other than just giving them away - that is taking the easy and popular way out. Medical Marijuana is a toughy- I think that maybe it is within the rights of the federal government to ban certain drugs- even though I do not agree with the stance they are taking on the pot issue.

Same-sex marriage? The government has no buisness getting involved in marriage in the first place. The only reason this is an issue is that the government has its fingers stuck too deep in normal marriage anyway. Marriage and government should have nothing to do with one another - at all. I would prefer to have the government recognizing marriage as a contract- nothing more. If you can legally enter into a contract, you can legally get married. Beyond that- the government should but out.

(edited by Pool-Boy on 24.11.03 0039)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2490/4700
EXP: 21588287
For next: 248375

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1271 days
Last activity: 1068 days
#8 Posted on 24.11.03 0603.31
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0603.42
I've pretty much got to go with everyone else on the State's Rights Issue. The amendment takes care of that. Unfortunately, both parties have pissed all over the 10th Amendment so readily in recent years as almost to render it moot.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 187/2704
EXP: 8931533
For next: 57286

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 18 hours
#9 Posted on 24.11.03 0854.45
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0857.09
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    Well, I think that States are far from an outdated concept- in fact, I think they more essential today. Sure travel time is a lot faster, but population is the key. Democracy works better on a smaller scale, and state and local governments are supposed to be a way for local areas to handle local issues. Putting more and more issues in the hands of bigger governments dillutes the power of the people. Keep the role of the federal government as it is outlined in the constitution, and let the states handle the rest. That would make me perfectly happy.

    As a Republican, I dont necessarily agree with everything Republicans in power are doing now. Prescription drugs, for one, is a terrible idea. If government really wants to make drugs more available to more people, there are a ton of things they can do other than just giving them away - that is taking the easy and popular way out. Medical Marijuana is a toughy- I think that maybe it is within the rights of the federal government to ban certain drugs- even though I do not agree with the stance they are taking on the pot issue.

    Same-sex marriage? The government has no buisness getting involved in marriage in the first place. The only reason this is an issue is that the government has its fingers stuck too deep in normal marriage anyway. Marriage and government should have nothing to do with one another - at all. I would prefer to have the government recognizing marriage as a contract- nothing more. If you can legally enter into a contract, you can legally get married. Beyond that- the government should but out.

    (edited by Pool-Boy on 24.11.03 0039)


Pool-Boy. A question. Until Brownback brought this up, what if any role did the federal Gov. play in marriage outside of the tax issue(s)? And there all they did is screw us married types with the tax rates.

You are right about the dilution of our input but does it really matter? I mean it does but look how apathetic people are for the most part with local issues and elections. Local governments and isuues have profound effects on our lives but most don't give a rat's behind. The trouble in all this isn't the government but our lack of involvement as citizens. If we were as involved as the Enron's of the world, things would be a lot better.

edit typos

(edited by DrDirt on 24.11.03 0856)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1453/1759
EXP: 4930976
For next: 61894

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1317 days
Last activity: 83 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#10 Posted on 24.11.03 1100.21
Reposted on: 24.11.10 1100.25
Personally, I think low voter turnout is not a huge problem... while I believe in Democracy I don't believe every yahoo SHOULD be voting. I would rather the more important local issues be handled by the people willing to take the time to research the issue than an average Joe who doesn't know a State Controller from the thing on his X-Box.

And it could be argued that the Feds involvement in State issues is part of the reason for voter apathy towards local issues.

On the marriage topic- the tax issue is the most visible of the fed's involvement- but things like Social Security, and other benefits are also involved.

Why does the government even need to change the tax rates based on if you are married or not? Maybe for children- but doesn't a "dependent" exemption cover that?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a marriage contract. Especially in this day and age with a high divorce rate. If people are going to split up all the time, might as well get the conditions and reprocussions of that split down on paper in advance. Would be better for any kids involved.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: The difference between Iraq and North Korea
Next thread: IRS Investigating the NEA
Previous thread: Wait...I thought the Democrats were the party of Tolerance
(1215 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - States Rights?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.23 seconds.