The argument isn't which President is stealing more rights or doing more harm to America.

The argument ... wait, there is no argument.

The fact is I can say "haha I told you so."

So can anyone who purports States' Rights.

This is what happens when you have a central government, the "lesser of two evils."

If you bozos would stop wanting to see your ideologies expressed nationally, maybe we could put the Feds back in their Constitutional cage where they belong, and we wouldn't have to be arguing which President is "worse" because the Presidents wouldn't be able to trounce upon States' Rights to make their own laws as they see fit.

Nor the Legislature, or the worst...the Judiciary.

This is the part where I'd say "neener neener neener I told you so."

If not for the fact that this is such a grave and serious problem that if we don't deal with it, will be passed on to our children until our system self-destructs because central governments are "self-eroding."

You need to stop hating it when the opposing ideology is expressed nationally and liking it when YOUR ideology is expressed nationally.

That is hypocritical.

Ideologies should be expressed through the States only, the Federal Government was constructed to regulate defense, foriegn politics and trade and little more.

As is, it will only trounce upon your rights.

So I say again, the argument is not which President is better or worse, but that the Federal Government should not have the power in the first place to decide the life-style of any State.

Massachussettes should be as happy with their Gay-marriages as Nevada should be happy with their illegalizing such marriages.

Alabama should be fine with their religious preferences as California is with their lack of such preferences.

This was what the Union was all about!

So stop clouding the real issue with your stupid self-interests. If you don't like laws of your State, change it or move, but when the Feds decide who "wins" someone always will lose, and in the game of life, that loss is unbearable.

I was going to bring this up here cause I thought it more appropriate. There is also the problem of states becoming more homogenous in the mixture of ideals and political views. This occurs as people move between states and ignorance largely. But the longer we keep with the 14th, the worse the problem gets as people do not move to a certain state because they represent their views more appropriately. They move because of jobs and other opportunity. But that isn't to say that some states and cities express their views openly in defiance of the federal govs wishes. For example, cities stating they will not aid with Patriot Act investigations.

But as time progresses, the more this defiance will dissolve.

That is correct Jamuhn, it was so strong in 1860 that the election of a President from a party that was against certain rights of certain States, sparked a war that killed 640,000.

Just last year as the 10 Commandments issues unfolded in Alabama, that State's Rights were blatantly oppressed more than they were being in 1860, and not a single person died as a result.

Many might say this is a sign we are "evolving" for the better.

But it is actually a sign that The United States is dying, and soon we will follow the path of Rome. Centralization does that.

if not for federal power, we would still have slavery in some states. i realize this isn't a full-formed argument but.. i think the issue can be somewhat contentious...

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
if not for federal power, we would still have slavery in some states. i realize this isn't a full-formed argument but.. i think the issue can be somewhat contentious...

-koji K.

Lol Yeah but if those Slaves didnt like the Law they could just move states LOL!!!

I think the 13th amendment was passed before the civil war, allowing for the slaves to be free. There are more issues to the war then slaves, and the issue of slavery was expanded in the 14th to take away the rights of the states.

Here is a great link for everyone : www.usconstitution.net... I use it for reference in political debates , helps make my oppinion clear .( I have no oppinion on this thread , just thought it would help)

O Wait , yes I do have an oppinion on this one . It stems from the 2nd ammendment , and the right to bear WHATEVER kind of arms you choose .

I was convinced by a buddie in the mud pit that even though I don't like automatic weapons , grenade launchers , and howitzers in the hands of non-military persons , that the constitution did not distinguish the type of arms a person can have , and any American should be able to have them .

It also says that all states are considered "free states" and their local malitia was to be fortified in case the need to be called upon for national defence .

The government that was originaly supposed guarantee our rights to liberty has imposed WAY to much power over the freedom of individual states , and their rights to a local government .

Government should start at the bottom , and work its way up , not the other way around .

BTW freemason , you sound like a Libertarian ? Good ideas , just not enough of the masses voting that way yet.

Originally posted by koji_K
if not for federal power, we would still have slavery in some states. i realize this isn't a full-formed argument but.. i think the issue can be somewhat contentious...

-koji K.

This is completely ignorant of the truth, everyone knew that by 1850 slavery was finished, the South was no longer trying to preserve slavery, only figuring out how to adapt with out it. What they could not tollerate was the constant attacks that were getting worse and worse against them by Northerners.

"Lol Yeah but if those Slaves didnt like the Law they could just move states LOL!!!"

Slaves were not Citizens, everyone today is a Citizen, are you telling me some Citizens are going to willingly allow a vote to just make them "slaves"?

Get real.

oddtodd that's not fully the case either, early after the ratification the issue of the right to bear arms was settled as meaning "military weapons".

Thus you technically have no rights to guns without a military purpose, hand-guns, sawed-off shot-guns are two examples that the Supreme Court decided in favor of this definition.

Also you can not bear artillery, bearing arms means the equivalent to "shoulder", it was expressly infantry weapons that all people have the right to.

Oh and oddtodd I am not a Libertarian for one reason alone, I don't agree that people should have the autonomy to do whatever they want.

Other than that I have debated much with several Libertarian friends of mine, and I even was able to convince them that having MORE Nuclear weapons was better than less

That's quite a feat, but my argument was that with more nukes we wouldn't need a conventional army so large, because we'd never be attacked conventionally, thus we could withdraw forces from around the world and just prepare to fight the "end war" if anyone wanted to mess with us.

Basically go to a "I won't bother you if you don't bother me" thing.

It's not fully rational and doesn't quite work in today's world, but it was a better alternative than cutting military forces across the boards and I showed those libertarians why

The United States is about your individual constitutional rights, and your natural rights as outlined in the founding document entitiled the Declaration of Independence.

It is not about "States rights," any number of carpetbagging so called representatives of each state. Hey I would like to say "States right are great," but the corruption and lack of service runs so deep everywhere I and many other people can actually feel it. When the general feeling about government is total grunge, then how can anyone be happy to go along with it? These States are holding enough to fund themselves with zero taxes, and who knows what the federal CFRs amount.

You are entitled to a residual income from the sum of all taxes collected and invested, not taxation and belly aching about short funds. The States are incredibly wealthy. The United States has many more trillions in reserve while it attempts to destroy the common human being, who could flower with just a modicum of what they owe you for generations of taxation and investment.

States rights you say?

Well just one thing about that, what about people?

Originally posted by Freemason

oddtodd that's not fully the case either, early after the ratification the issue of the right to bear arms was settled as meaning "military weapons".

Thus you technically have no rights to guns without a military purpose, hand-guns, sawed-off shot-guns are two examples that the Supreme Court decided in favor of this definition.

Also you can not bear artillery, bearing arms means the equivalent to "shoulder", it was expressly infantry weapons that all people have the right to.

I think I was misunderstood , I was talking about military weapons in this case , and the 2nd Ammendment doesnt specify the type of arms . I will send a link , be right back .

Where did you find the "expressly infantry weapons " , and "to shoulder" definitions ? Just curious , been doing alot of research for my other conversation , and found no definition like you have stated .