Alito confirmed!

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's democracy (or democratic republic if you will). Millions of people wanted Kerry to be President, but hey, they lost. Millions of people wanted the Democrats to be in charge in the Congress when voting in the '04 elections... but hey, wasn't to be.

[DinoDoc]

Out of curiosity, might someone be able to find a breakdown on how education is funded? I'm specifically looking for how much money the Feds provides vs how much a State (pick one) coughs up.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Out of curiosity, might someone be able to find a breakdown on how education is funded? I'm specifically looking for how much money the Feds provides vs how much a State (pick one) coughs up.

I think I can. Give me a few minutes.

EDIT: Or not. The accounting is too weird. Most states I could find claim to get around 10-15% of their funding for education from the feds, but their actually dollar amounts don't match the Fed's numbers.

[Sikander]

Rufus is correct about federal education spending, it's been in that range for a long time.

[PLATO]

The point is not to roll back education anywhere. That is certainly not what was implied. The point is that if States desire a certain level of education spending that they should invest in it themeselves and not have a hand out to the federal government. Why would you make that investment if the feds are going to make up the difference?

Also, nowhere do I suggest that the federal government be dismatled. I merely suggest that it play the role it was originally intended to and that the States play the role they were originally intended to.

[Ben Kenobi]

I favor Massachusetts and Mississipi being able to do what they want on a range of issues, from gay marriage to abortion.

The trouble with this position is twofold.

First of all, what if Utah wanted to allow Mormons to practice polygamy? If the federal government indeed has no role in regulating marriage in the United States, how could they prevent Utah from recognising polygamy? Would you support Utah being able to do whatever they want with marriage?

As for abortion, you would get situations where an unborn child would be a person in one state, and not a person in another. Would it be a crime to carry a child across the state lines to have an abortion, on the grounds that this child was considered to be a person in one state and not another? It's the Missouri Compromise all over again.

[Ben Kenobi]

The Federal government has no such right. The State Governments, however, do. They tend to delegate this authority even lower to the County or Parish Government.

Asked the wrong question. Is it the right of the federal government in the US to recognise marriage between one man and one woman? This is the argument used against Utah to force them to ban polygamy in order to admit them into the union. If the decision on what was considered to be a marriage and what was not was left to the states, then you get the situations where folks in one state move to another to attempt to get their 'marriage' approved there.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First of all, what if Utah wanted to allow Mormons to practice polygamy? If the federal government indeed has no role in regulating marriage in the United States, how could they prevent Utah from recognising polygamy? Would you support Utah being able to do whatever they want with marriage?

What's wrong with that? I mean it really doesn't cause any harm outside the state (as other states can choose not to recognize polygamous marriage as against state policy).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

First of all, what if Utah wanted to allow Mormons to practice polygamy? If the federal government indeed has no role in regulating marriage in the United States, how could they prevent Utah from recognising polygamy? Would you support Utah being able to do whatever they want with marriage?

What's wrong with that? I mean it really doesn't cause any harm outside the state (as other states can choose not to recognize polygamous marriage as against state policy).

I agree with you Imran, but as Marriages are also financial unions by law in many ways, would the non-recognition violate the commerce clause?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by PLATO
I agree with you Imran, but as Marriages are also financial unions by law in many ways, would the non-recognition violate the commerce clause?

Nope. Marriages don't inherantly have to be linked together financially (except when one spouse dies). Maybe you are thinking Full Faith and Credit, in which case public policy can override it. There have been plenty of examples where a state would not recognize a marriage in another state because of incest issues (allowed in one state, not in the other), for instance.

[SpencerH]

The best part of the Alito confirmation (and I watched almost all if not all of it) has been watching the dems make complete and utter asses of themselves. Kennedy was so pathetic he was hilarious!

[Ben Kenobi]

What's wrong with that? I mean it really doesn't cause any harm outside the state (as other states can choose not to recognize polygamous marriage as against state policy).

Sure that would work, if people stayed in Utah and never moved.

Suppose you got married in Utah, and had several wives. What happens when you all move to another state and want to have spousal benefits? That's the conflict I see, and one of the reasons why I think that having one law for the entire country is very important.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sure that would work, if people stayed in Utah and never moved.

Suppose you got married in Utah, and had several wives. What happens when you all move to another state and want to have spousal benefits? That's the conflict I see, and one of the reasons why I think that having one law for the entire country is very important.

Well that's very easy, if you move and the state you move to objects to polygamy on public policy grounds, you can't get those benefits.

And having variations like this (allowing polygamy in Utah, homosexual marriages in Massachusetts) is exactly why I think one law for the entire country would be a horrible idea.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Then why on earth are you a communist?

#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.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Sure that would work, if people stayed in Utah and never moved.

Suppose you got married in Utah, and had several wives. What happens when you all move to another state and want to have spousal benefits? That's the conflict I see, and one of the reasons why I think that having one law for the entire country is very important.

And what if they moved to a different Country? Should the same law apply there?

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.