General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am sick and tired of hearing the "leave it up to the states" argument
That RoPaulsive's supporters sing. So we leave states like Alabama, Mississippi, our Texas an others behind in civil rights etc just cuz the "federal government" (OoO scary) is bad?
"Well then you can move"
No shithead I can't, and neither can many other working Americans unless I want to become a street kid. Like I can just magically afford and physically be able to just uproot my life and travel hundreds of miles to magically find a magical job that magically pays the same or more?
Do you really want Rick Perry to decide everything and not have any national constitutional or other legal precident ensuring you your rights?
And these fools think they are progressive- they are brainwashed- almost religious in their Paulove. The Paulites are really starting to irritate me.
mopinko
(69,815 posts)it is not and never can be a form of government. it is, by definition, the opposite of government.
Lawlbringer
(550 posts)that Ron Paul and his son are so hot in the pants about becoming President just so they can strip away all of the responsibilities of the office.
I'm going to make this my goal at work. I want to become manager of my department and then transfer all of my subordinates to other areas.
phasma ex machina
(2,328 posts)"What's happening in my country is also happening in your country. You don't even know it, but you're the Indians of the 21st Century, and that's very sad."
~ Russell Means, Indian Activist and Facilitator of the newly created Independent Republic of Lakota
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been." Barack Obama
http://www.outinjersey.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1334 bama-harkens-backs-to-slavery-with-qstates-rightsq-for-same-sex-marriage&catid=39:first-post&Itemid=73
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)other than that, yeah, I'm feelin' ya, 100%.
niyad
(112,448 posts)then, that one's rights do not depend on geographical lines?
Edweird
(8,570 posts)justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)the Constitution with all their states rights talk where does that leave the Constitution? What they always seem to ignore is that the Constitution made room for the amendments that so many of these folks hate. The founders say the need that the Constitution be a breathable document so when things in the future changed, the document could change with them. IMO, a lot of these folks aren't necessarily states rights advocates but folks who want to see progress (equal rights, civil rights) rolled back and if they live in a state that's willing to roll those advances back, all the better for them.
think
(11,641 posts)I believe in states rights but civil rights should ALWAYS trump states rights and be protected at the national level. Republicans including Ron Paul would allow states to strip basic civil rights just as they are currently doing.
Rachel Maddow did a super job a couple of nights ago of pointing out RP's hypocrisy in regards to Liberty and states rights in regards to abortion here:
RP's stances on many issues regarding military spending, being anti imperialist, repealing the patriot act, and fight for end to the war on drugs are encouraging for the debate within the Republican party. These right wing bastards are just chomping at the bit to attack Iran and many are probably actively working to make it a reality.
But at the end of the day Ron Paul is just another right winger whose anti abortion views smack squarely of hypocrisy as they are in direct opposition to his "libertarian" ideals.
States rights are being trumpeted by both sides though for very different reasons and in the end this could make for a very sad patch work of states laws where what is sane and legal in one state in regards to an issue will make you a criminal in the next state as it is currently with medical marijuana laws.
This is why I believe we need to have a constitutional convention and work to secure ALL civil rights at the national level.
I'm not a constitutional scholar and basically expressing myself so please feel free to correct me in my line of thinking if it is unworkable or in some way out of touch or absurd.
dawg
(10,610 posts)I'm not talking about the Southern rebellion. I'm talking about the Articles of Confederation.
We are either one nation or we aren't. The states need less discretion in the way they individually screw things up - not more.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)So, you want every state to be the way you want it to be (or the people in your state want it to be), and not the way the people in that other state want it to be? Isn't that sorta undemocratic? As long as what that other state's people want to do is within the bounds of the Federal Constitution, why should people in other states have a say in what they do?
Just raising the question.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)Things like education, environmental protection, gay and civil rights, constitutional protections, consumer protection, yadda yadda - these things should be guaranteed at a minimum at the national level- not restricted by- if states wish to go further in the venture of freedom they should be able to do so. The Paulites argue that NOTHING done on a national level is a good thing. Who cares if Rick Perry decides to end public education? Those kids should just move to California!
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Education and Environmental Protection, to give just two of your examples, are not mentioned, covered, constrained, or guaranteed by the Fed Constitution. By what authority do you declare that they should be guaranteed at the National level, rather than by the people in the states. Just because you think it's a good idea? What if the people in the other states don't think it's a good idea? They don't know what's good for them? Make them do it your way anyway?
Would you want the people in Texas or Kansas deciding what the Federal standards and protections are for the teaching of creationism for the whole country?
I guess as long as everyone does what I think is right it would be good to have it a national standard.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)So yes- fuck'em if they feel differently- by your standard you are allowing true democracy without guaranteeing protection for the minority. I really don't give a shit if people don't want their tax dollars to pay for other people's kids to go to school, or they think pollution is a myth- not because I know what is good for them- it may in fact be bad for them on a personal level- but it is good for the overall society we are a part of.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)It's as I thought. You are quite willing to impose your idea of fundamental human rights and what is good for society upon others regardless of how the majority of another society (state) may feel about it. Kinda like the Taliban.
Thank you for your comments.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)But that doesn't mean it doesn't have it's failings
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)If folks in one state think Black people are not human beings, and deserve to be treated like livestock, and people in another state do, is that ok? The reasons why States rights tend to be under questions is that this country used that idea to do EXACTLY THAT. There does not need to some standard definition of what someone's right as as a HUMAN BEING, not just a Texan or New Yorker.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)There was a disagreement about that, but it was resolved. Equal treatment under the law is already covered. But things like marriage, education, land use, and gun laws were left to the states for a reason. They are not covered by the powers in the Constitution, but are constrained by the Bill of Rights and later amendments.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I'm not sure what's worse, making up shit that you want to be in the Constitution, or just ignoring it.
Whatever. I'm done. My 49ers won and I'm having a nice glass of bourbon. Good evening.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)On a side not that was one of the best football games I've ever seen
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)I've been a 49ers fan since 1977 when I moved to CA. Got to experience the Montana/Young/Rice/Lott/Walsh dynasties of the 80's and 90's. I moved to Texas in '97 and didn't get to watch them much, and it was a long, long dry spell, but things are lookin' pretty good again (finally!)
Last night's game reminded me a lot of Joe (Cool) Montana and his last minute comebacks.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)And had no like/dislike for either team (although I am a huge Akers fan so I was kinda pulling for 49ers)- found myself rooting for both teams jumping up and down shouting and bartop slapping (something usually reserved for my Rangers or Cardinals- last years MLB season was a wet dream for me). I have a feeling that game will be talked about for years
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)If that is what you want to call the war that cost thousands of lives, go ahead. The fact is, you cannot have equal treatment under the law without guaranteeing things like equal access to education, equal marriage rights and other things.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)DOMA? It's a bad law, we should leave it up to the states to decide their own policy.
Medical Marajuana? It should be up to the states to decide and not the government's place to interfere.
Something where the Feds have the policy I like? Fuck the states, it's a federal issue.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)The problem I have is that the laws in each state overlap, meaning, each state has some laws you like and some laws you disagree with. So, what do you do, pick the least offensive state?
(Then bringing in Dragon's original arguement that you can't pick up and move to the state that you want because you can't get a job with equal pay. One way is to go to college in the state you want to live in and start your career there.)
I believe that either fewer laws need to be written that restrict people's freedom to choose their own lifestyle. When people get to say thet "you" can't live the life you want because "my beliefs" don't allow it - I think that's wrong. My belief is that pro-choice is best way to design laws. You get to choose your life and I get to choose mine.
What's the difference between one group saying the rest of our society needs to follow their rules and a dictatorship. We need to allow for differing beliefs under the law.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Contrary to what some around here insinuate about me, I agree with you.
However, I cannot see how you credibly distinguish Paul in these matters from the equally odious other Republican candidates. The main differences between them and Paul are cases in which Paul is decidedly better, and in which a debate needs to be opened up. Given the choices on the Republican side, if we are to have a preference, he's the best for two reasons: 1) He'll lose. 2) His presence will force national discussion of empire, drug war, the assault on constitutional rights, and banking bailouts, all of which is essential.
Do you really prefer Romney - who could actually win? And who is about a thousand times likelier to start a big war soon as he's in office?
think
(11,641 posts)some issues of merit being discussed on the Republican side of things. Also because RP is running as a republican it has been much harder for them to bash him as they would if a Dem was coming out on those issues.
Can you imagine of Obama would try to end the war on drugs and say he would pardon all non violent drug offenders? Many nonviolent offenders have been declared felons and can't vote!
The Republicans would go absolutely ballistic on Obama or any Dem that came out with these type of stands on any of these issues. Where as with Paul they have to sit there and listen as debate after debate as he brings these issues up.
I am hoping that RP will have a significant impact on these issues within the republican party as it will make it easier for Obama to move to the left in regards to cutting military spending, ending wars, ending the drug war which is a war on people, and repealing the unpatriot act.
JMO...
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Romney has the nomination (and he might win in November).
Obama and Romney debate who will be tougher with Iran.
Paul has the nomination (and he will lose in November).
Obama and Paul debate on proposals to scale back the empire and end the drug war. The Republican is the one introducing the drug war proposal, so you have the "Only Nixon can go to China" effect. The dam breaks, allowing national debate on this issue.
And he will lose.
So I'm very puzzled by all those who act as though Paul is the worst in a Republican field routinely full of right-wing states-rights deregulation fanatics.
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)My problem is these neo-liberal-libertarian 18-20somethings that seem to just not grasp how bad some of Paul's policies are. They will not disagree with any position of his- and defend every part of him like acolytes.
think
(11,641 posts)as their voice in the fight. This is just a matter of fact.
I really don't see even the most ardent of Paul supporters relating well to the other clowns on the republican side and will either stay home, get behind a 3rd party candidate, or vote Obama. Ya, there will be the true racist fuck sticks and hard core Repubs that will vote for any of the other sleaze bags just because they either hate Obama and / or truly believe in ALL Paul's crazy right wing views but I think these are the minority of Paul's supporters.
Ending the military insanity, ending the war on drugs, and repealing the unpatriot act are the core values behind RP's popularity. Most are willing to overlook the rest of his craziness because these stances are real, very important to them personally, and very sane.
I could be wrong but that's what I am seeing.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I do believe that. The problem, I submit, is the unwillingness of anyone within the bipartisan consensus politics to stand against the drug war, although it is insane and murderous, or the empire, although it is counterproductive to American interests and murderous. If what you say is a threat, Obama could easily counter it by moving toward reform in both these areas. A Paul candidacy would create that pressure; a Romney candidacy, again, would mean the two major party nominees are taking turns demonizing Iran and waving the flag.
still_one
(91,969 posts)same theme
What is so infuriating is that the wonderful MSM doesn't call it what it is
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)There is nothing wrong with states' rights provided that fundemental civil liberties are not infringed.
think
(11,641 posts)superpatriotman
(6,232 posts)I don't trust them running a foot race, let alone a huge bureaucracy.
States rights. Pfft!
bhikkhu
(10,708 posts)I appreciate that there are some interesting perspectives in libertarianism, but without knowing the history it just winds up being more stupid crap in the water - so I would agree with tthe OP.
Most people would do better with the idea that there is a "right size" for government, at any given time. Back in the post-revolution days the government was too small and too powerless to compete with the more centralized neighbors, and it proved to be an economic failure. Then as now if people can't work, can't earn a living, and can't pay their bills, things get ugly pretty quick.
I think anyone who argues for a smaller government that leaves economics (in particular) up to the states or "the market" should take a look at how that failed after the revolution, and also take a look at how the big-government centralized-decisionmaking of China (for instance) has eaten our lunch at the global marketplace for the last couple of decades. Same dynamic, different century.
former9thward
(31,808 posts)Should the federal government be allowed to stamp out clinics when states have passed laws allowing them?
Dragonbreathp9d
(2,542 posts)I think the federal gov should ensure a base of freedoms- if states want to take them further that's fine
former9thward
(31,808 posts)If the federal government has the power to enforce a single standard on the many issues you list then they will have the power on all issues whether you like them or not. You can't have it both ways -- at least in the real world.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)And "Fuck Leave it Up to The States" should also include:
*Equal Rights and Equal Protections for EVERYONE. NO Exceptions.
*Health Insurance (National Program with a National Risk Pool and National bargaining Power)
*Protections for LABOR
*Blanket Uniform Corporate Taxes (No "Sweetheart" Tax deals for locating CorpoHQ in a particular state.)
*Fair Competition Protections for locally owned businesses
(Protections from out-of-state Big Boxes)
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
William769
(55,124 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)A state that can have Jim Crow laws and no regulation.
The reason the states lost power in the 60s was those southern states insisting on segregation. Had Alabama obeyed the law, the National Guard would not have been sent in.
A lot of what they complain about came about directly due to their intransigent insistence on injustice.