Alito confirmed!

[chequita guevara]

Well, 13 of them are. The other 37 were added by the first 13 under rules they set up.

Anyway, most people don't think of themselves is Nebraskans first and Americans second. If we aren't going to act like a single country, we shouldn't be a single country.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


#1, cuz I want businessmen telling what to do even less. At least the government is elected.

#2, the ultimate goal of communism is an anarchist society.

I wouldn't say anarchist... although definitely much smaller scale then the current states.. (probably on the order of a few hundred or thousand people).

Jon Miller

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Well, 13 of them are. The other 37 were added by the first 13 under rules they set up.

Anyway, most people don't think of themselves is Nebraskans first and Americans second. If we aren't going to act like a single country, we shouldn't be a single country.

We can certainly act like a single country in the fact that we have one currency, one foriegn policy, etc...

That does not predlude the notion of State's rights...nor the premise that local people should determine how local people live. I really don't feel like I should have a say how someone in Oregon should live their life...and I don't think they should have a say how I live mine in Tennessee.

[Ben Kenobi]

States are distinct political entities that banded together to form a federal system. People tend to forget this and think it is all just one big system. It is actually a combination of 50 different systems operating under a federal umbrella.

Granted. Living in another federalist country we have a similar situation, though the powers enumerated to the provinces don't quite match the states.

Notwithstanding the rights of states to make certain laws, there are some laws which apply to all states. For example, laws on slavery. Previously the law was that each state could decide for itself whether to be slave or free, and now, we recognise that personhood does not depend on the shade of your skin.

I can also see the argument for marriage, which has never been a power alotted to the states. Why should the states be given the right to decide over marriage, when the federal government has explicitly said that they are the ones to decide?

[Ben Kenobi]

In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), the Supreme Court upheld the Morril Act, stating that polygamy has always been “odious” among the Northern and Western nations of Europe, and from “the earliest history of
England polygamy has been treated as an offense against society.” Id. at 164.

The court noted “it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.”

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am familiar with Reynolds. I also know if the issue were brought up today before the Supreme Court, that decision would probably be struck down and be declared an issue for the states. Marriage is NOT in the province of the federal government.

You also realize that the Morill Act disincorporated the Mormon Church and restricted its ownership of property, right?

[PLATO]

Not to mention that 1878 was a time when the federal government was busy trampling State's rights in the aftermath of the civil war and Grant had just left the Presidency after two terms.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
That does not predlude the notion of State's rights...nor the premise that local people should determine how local people live.

The problem with "states' rights" is it's the states that have the rights, not the people of those states. That's the way it works in our system. Historically, we have needed far more protection from local governments than we have from the Feds. The reason the Feds are ascendant today is because the states were so oppressive. I don't want to go back to those dark days.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by PLATO
That does not predlude the notion of State's rights...nor the premise that local people should determine how local people live.

The problem with "states' rights" is it's the states that have the rights, not the people of those states. That's the way it works in our system. Historically, we have needed far more protection from local governments than we have from the Feds. The reason the Feds are ascendant today is because the states were so oppressive. I don't want to go back to those dark days.

Che hit the nail on the head. \