States' Rights

[Al B. Sure!]

JohnT:

don't forget that Sava is also a drug user and probably a sex fiend...


Mr. Fun:

But like I said... local gov't works better. furthermore, a local gov't can protect local issues. It is conceivable that a non-federlist national gov't would be dominated by people on the east coast and passing laws that would be extremely detrimental to people out in Montana and Wyoming. State's rights perserves their right to have a voice in their governing.

a national gov't would also hamper the rights of minority groups, especially minority groups who are clustered in certain specific areas. Mexican-Americans who make up a considerable percentage of the population of California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas can have significant influence on the laws of those states... on a national level, however, Mexicans would be unrepresented. The same could be said of other groups.

once again, Mr.Fun, you seem to be only in favour of racist policies without even knowing it...


thanks

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
JohnT:

don't forget that Sava is also a drug user and probably a sex fiend...

That reads like libel to me.

[JohnT]

The drug use Sava admitted to in the "what drugs do you take" thread... I don't know about the "sex fiend" reference.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
If I had my way, there wouldn't even be states We're one country dammit! It's stupid to keep using old historical borders. I think there should be an elimination of states and a complete reorganization of the way our country is defined; internally.

I am not unsympthetic to these views.

[Dr Strangelove]

Have you noticed how efficient the Europeans are at nabbing terrorists? I think it may be because each country has an integrated police system. Here in the US terrorists and criminals easily make use of the lack of integration of the various sate and local police to evade detaection.

[Sava]

THat's okay, I don't care what a Nazi and a silly troll think of me. JohnT, you seriously need some help man if you're going to get all pissed at me I wonder how you handle real challenges in life if you can hardly handle someone poking fun at you.

I skimmed over your little rant, sorry, you're not important enough for me to actually take the time to read that crap... hahaha

I live in Schaumburg, BTW, my parents live in Naperville... actually, I have a girl that tells me she loves me every night, usually about 3 or 4 times (depending on how tired I get during the day.

I don't really care to enrich the lives of other people; remember, I'm an 4sshole.

Anyways, I never said I don't insult people, in fact, I'm pretty darn good at it. But you're certainly aren't worth getting restricted over. I think I'll just continue to agitate you. And as much as you'll argue otherwise, if you actually spend time telling me how dumb I am, or how much of an asswipe I am, then you've proved my case about having no life.

Anyways... states rights..

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah, well that's valid, but saying you didn't support states' right today... as well as the rest of your posts, seemed to show that you believe today's states' rights was all about racism.

Imran has stated that one of my arguments is valid.

But yeah, now I finally made myself clear -- I was referring to the historical patterns of how states' rights emerged among Southern leaders, not in our contemporary society.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
JohnT:

don't forget that Sava is also a drug user and probably a sex fiend...

The problem is he doesn't use enough drugs, otherwise his trolls would be far more interesting...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Well, Sava, you're going to have a bit more of a life for the next few days, until you learn to stop insulting people for the hell of it.

See ya around.

And Speer - you chill with the insults to, or you'll join him.

[cavebear]

Actually, the whole claim of "State's Rights" is constitutionally invalid. Most of the foundations for the concept claimed to be seen in the Constitution work only if taken out of context (i.e., as "one-liners").

For example, the claim that the parties to the Constitution entered as sovereign States was not even seen as valid by the *Anti-Federalists*. The states were never individually sovereign. They did not sign individual treaties with the British, they never ceased functioning as part of the Continental Congress during the revolution nor were they sovereign during the Articles of Confederation, and there was no point between the Articles and the Constitution.

The fight the states *did* make was for state-level influence over the National government versus individual-level influence. The Congress was then the top branch of government (and still is, BTW), and under the Articles, congressmen were merely creatures of the states governors/legislatures. The congressmen were instructed how to vote by the state government, they were paid by the state government, and they could be recalled/replaced at will by the state government.

Under the Constitution, congressmen were chosen by voters, were independent in terms of salary and agenda, and could only be recalled by voter actions. The state *governments* lost their direct control over national representatives.

THAT"S what the "states rights" argument was all about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, the whole claim of "State's Rights" is constitutionally invalid.

Once again:

*cough*10th Amendment

Under the Constitution, congressmen were chosen by voters, were independent in terms of salary and agenda, and could only be recalled by voter actions. The state *governments* lost their direct control over national representatives.

Only in the House, when the Constitution was first enacted. It wasn't until the 1910s where the Senate was elected by the 'people'.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by cavebear
Actually, the whole claim of "State's Rights" is constitutionally invalid. Most of the foundations for the concept claimed to be seen in the Constitution work only if taken out of context (i.e., as "one-liners").

Why does no one ever tell me when amendments are repealed!?!?!

[Capt Dizle]

I get amused at people who want to separate religion from politics, but want to legislate morality to extent of war.

Whether or not slavery was moral or immoral was not relevent to the issues of the War of Northern Agression. The result of the war was the enslavery of the States by the Federal Government. At the point of a bayonet.

Someday the UN or some similar organization will grow in power and a country or group of countries will attempt to leave the organization and will be warred upon. It's an issue of power, not morality.

Lincoln was clear on the issue. The war was fought over Union. He said that if he could keep the Union with slavery he would do it.

When you invade and attempt to impose your will upon others by force it's called aggression. How nice to be able use a MORAL issue to cover up the truth.

With Iraq, the difference is that America does not intend to conquer Iraq and force them into our nation.

Land of the free? Not on this side of Mason Dixon.

[MichaeltheGreat]

cavebear:

Each of the original signatory states to the Constitution were sovereign and had full authority to act independentlyexcept as to those matters delegated by them to the Continental Congress, or to the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution.

The Continental Congress had no binding authority to do anything, and no compulsory authority whatsoever over any individual colony, and until ratification of the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress (very carefully, so as to make treason at least a nominally triable issue of fact ) stated clearly that each colony represented were in fact colonies of the crown.

From the Declaration of Independence onward, the former colonies functioned as independent states which appointed representatives to a Continental Congress to negotiate matters of mutual interest to the states. This process clearly respected the sovereignty of the states, as each state's legislature determined in it's discretion how much or how little direct authority to give it's delegates to the Continental Congress, and those delegates often voted (or failed to vote) upon express instructions of their respective legislatures.

The Articles of Confederation were approved in November, 1777, but the ninth state (Maryland) did not ratify until March, 1781, at which time the Articles of Confederation became legally effective.

Your non-sovereignty "argument" is killed, buried, and had a mass said over it by the bare language of the Articles of Confederation itself:

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.
The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

"The United States of America".
II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III.
The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Plain enough for you?

Now Mr Fun, it's your turn.

You really need to work on your anti-southern trolls, because the linguistic and logical sloppiness doesn't even make them much of a challenge.

You mention "legitimate states rights arguments" and "states right's arguments" and your relative degree of respect or whatever for them. Let's talk about "legitimate air arguments" and "air arguments" instead, shall we? Those terms make just as much sense. State's rights in the US historical perspective is not an abstract concept or philosophy. It is an absolute fact.

The states met as independent entities, and chose what powers to delegate to a limited government between themselves, and further chose that that government had no more authority than that granted by the states. The structure of the common government was agreed to by the states, and the limitations on a state's powers with respect to other states were also agreed to by the states.

The sovereignty issue is clear, and as the states were sovereign, the independent existence of their legal "rights" as sovereign states is also clear. There are no "states rights arguments." There are only states rights retained by the states, and former states rights delegated to the Federal government, or waived.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
I get amused at people who want to separate religion from politics, but want to legislate morality to extent of war.

Whether or not slavery was moral or immoral was not relevent to the issues of the War of Northern Agression. The result of the war was the enslavery of the States by the Federal Government. At the point of a bayonet.

Someday the UN or some similar organization will grow in power and a country or group of countries will attempt to leave the organization and will be warred upon. It's an issue of power, not morality.

Lincoln was clear on the issue. The war was fought over Union. He said that if he could keep the Union with slavery he would do it.

When you invade and attempt to impose your will upon others by force it's called aggression. How nice to be able use a MORAL issue to cover up the truth.

Right on, brother Jimmy.

With Iraq, the difference is that America does not intend to conquer Iraq and force them into our nation.

The US just intends to conquer them, then allow them to pick a range of candidates we consider friendly enough to our interests. Do you honest-to-God think we're going to let them run for office a Shiite fundamentalist party who wants an alliance with Iran, for example?