How do you guys feel about states rights? Personally, i am against it because i think that this is one country and not 50, so i don't think it's fair that the law is different for some people than it is for others.
You don't support the right of people to determine the laws where they live? And you support the right of people that live 2000 miles away from you to make laws for where you live that affect your way of life?
It would take forever for the govt to deal with every single law especially ones that only apply to specific regions.
Some things need to be decided on a national level (slavery, sufferage). For others (marijuana decriminalization, speed limits), states are capable of deciding for themselves.
Here we go... Federal government is terrible. Too centralized and a lot of room for abuse. State government is a little better. Not as centralized and not as much room for abuse. Local government (counties and municipalities) are even better. No where near as much room for abuse. Individual government (where the individual is responsible for himself) is the best. There is no room for abuse, because no one has the "legal" ability to control other peoples actions. There is only you, and you are responsible for what you do.
i don't really think it matters if you live in South Carolina or North Dakota. we all live in the same country, so in my opinion we should all have the same laws, rights, and privileges. I see your point though, but i just think its not right. The first twelve years of my live i lived in germany, which is obviously much smaller than the U.S., so maybe that's why is feel this way.
I believe in the idea of State's rights, to the point where it defies the authority of the federal government. I think we've done a fair job of this until recently. Many weasels wish to corrupt our ideas of the Federal Government, and make it into an instrument of tyranny against the wishes of everyone.
State's Rights are a genius concept, if you really think about it. Forget all the propaganda you learned in Government Brainwashing Cente... Schools. State's Rights operate on an extremely Democratic principal (Which is why I laugh when so-called 'Social Democrats' are almost unequivocally opposed to State's Rights), giving people the power to reward and punish their states for acting irresponsibly. Let's take California for example. California is on the verge of bankruptcy and default, it's spending at an alarming rate, and I'm sure a 12 year old could balance a budget better than California could. Under the premise of State's Rights, Californians would have 49 other states to chose from, if they didn't like what California was doing. They would Democratically be able to tell California that they didn't like what they were doing, by taking themselves out of the State (Tax revenue). The other thing about State's Rights, is like what someone said earlier--do you really want a Bureaucrat in Washington making laws for you? Your State Government knows you better than a Bureaucrat in Washington ever could. Your Mayors and your Governors know their Demographic better than some idiot in Washington ever could. Most people have a knee-jerk reaction to State's Rights, because they think it's the last defense for a racist, but this couldn't be farther from the truth. It's like the 5th Amendment, everyone thinks only the guilty use the 5th Amendment, but in reality, the 5th Amendment is more effective at protecting THE INNOCENT than the guilty. Does anyone have any legitimate complaints against State's Rights?
The problem with centralizing power is it becomes corrupt. They pass laws that benefit only special interests and hurt everybody in the union. We are the United States, not United State, for this reason. If the US was a confederacy, kind of like the EU, we'd have progressed a lot more by now.
you need to do some research into why states right were so important to our founding fathers. truth! well said i agree...aw shit thats 3 times today kylesa....lol.. yaeh they've done just wonderful .......lol....
Some things must be imposed on a national level, as has been said. Slavery, anti-discrimination (race, gender, sexuality, appearance etc) laws, worker protection and foreign policy all must be implimented on a national level. But I agree very much that breaking down the power to the state, to the municipality, is the only way to protect the freedom of the inidividual while allowing the country to get on with it's own business. After all, the municipality is far more relevant to the average person than the state capital or national capital city etc...
I really don't see how Dinks post is trolling. I put it to you, good sir, that YOU be trollin' by making allegations of trolling where there appears to be no trolling going down
Repealing the DOMA isn't good enough for Stewart and his Federalist audience, they want marriage to be defined by the Federal government. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-27-2011/happy-gays @4:10 This whole thing could easily be solved by mentioning the 14th amendment, but instead they would rather ignore the Constitution all together.
That kind of undermines the ideals of the founding of this country. We all have the same basic rights laid out by the constitution. The 10th amendment guarentees states' rights. You say you grew up in Germany which is in the European Union, which basically strips all member countries of soverignity.
I don't see how a state will be any less effective at taking an individual's rights than the fed. The "voting with your feet" will just lead to even more segregation im
Lol i love Stewart and Colbert. They tell more truth than the other media networks on tv, and theyre funny. Gay marraige should be allowed nation wide i think. Holy matrimony? not so much for gays, but government marriage why not. theres gays in every state and they deserve equal rights, IMO. otherwise a state could say "a mariage is between a white male and a younger white female" federal definition: "legal binding between two people in love". thats not a good definition but you get my drift. i could be swayed to think differently though. Most other things should be left to the states, i think.
Well, countries used to be refered to as states. So I think each state should be thought of as a mini country of sorts that are united by these basic laws known as the constiitution. In a truly free country you are gonna have a broad range of thoughts, beliefs, ideas, ect. and a one size fits all approach is idiotic.