Welcome to PatsFans.com

Enough with states rights

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Apr 23, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    States rights. It's the problem, isn't it? And has been for a long time. History shows us that the reason minorities support Democrats is because they believe in the federal government. It was states rights that allowed the oppression of immigrants, Jews, blacks, gays, and so on. It's states rights that Ronald Reagan campaigned on when he launched his presidential campaign in Philadelphia, MS, only known as the place where three civil rights workers were murdered. Now what happened in Arizona is states' rights run amok again. It always ends in disaster.

    Not only that, especially with newspapers dying, no one really pays attention to the states. I think every state in the nation is terribly corrupt. There are so many patronage jobs, favors, local loyalties, and petty coverups. If states were subjected to the kind of scrutiny the federal government is subjected to, every state government would collapse in shame. The fact is thanks to federal transparency laws and all the attention given the federal government, it has no choice but to be quite honest, even when we disagree with it. I think our system overall works great with big central government, and that's not only thanks to its employees, its thanks to the opposition parties, the media, the special interests groups, and everyone else who is keeping an eye on it.

    One doesn't have to always agree with the government, but if you have to have government, then let it be a government that's constantly scrutinized than one that flies under the radar. The Arizona state government in my opinion just made a fool of itself, strengthened the Democrats, and will ultimately lose even with our current Supreme Court.
     
  2. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah! Enough with that pesky U.S. Constitution!

    Hey, while we're doing away with States' Rights, does that mean you support doing away with gay marriage in the states that have legalized it? Or do you only oppose states' rights when a state does something you disagree with?

    EDIT: By the way, if you think being tough on illegal immigration strengthens the democrats, then bring it on. This is one issue that could carry the republicans to whatever office they want.
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2010
  3. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    I think gay marriage is provided under the Constitution, thus I think it's a Constitutional right.
     
  4. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yup. I knew you'd be too chicken to answer the question.

    The Federal Government will never pass gay marriage and while you may think it is "provided under the Constitution," the USSC is not the MA SJC. Gay marriage wouldn't have a rat's chance in the USSC.

    So I ask again: Since you're so strongly against states' rights, does that mean we should abolish gay marriage in the states that have established it? Or are you a hypocrite that only opposes states' rights when a state does something you disagree with?

    Don't worry. If you chicken out from answering my question a second time, I won't ask it again. I think we all already know the answer anyway.
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    Basically, Patters wants to remove rights from anyone, and everyone, that does something he doesn't like.
     
  6. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    Yeah.... Right on Patters. Screw states rights. Who needs em'. It's not like our country was founded on them or anything. :rolleyes:
     
  7. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    +1. :rocker:
     
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    .

    Your question is so simplistic that I thought it was rhetorical. When someone says they are for states rights it means that they support the Supreme Court having the final say. Is that clear enough for you?

    In other words, I'm for gay marriage and want the Supreme Court to make it the law of the land, and overrule those states that oppose it.

    This means that I'm for our system as it now stands.

    To be even clearer: I believe our rights are better protected by the US Constitution than the state constitutions. If the Supreme Court outlawed gay marriage, I would vehemently disagree with that ruling, and would have faith that a future court would rule otherwise, as has been the case with most civil rights matters.

    Now, how about you. Do you think the Supreme Court should be allowed to override the states?
     
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    As usual you're wrong.
     
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    So you oppose the US Constitution? Or do you not understand what is meant by "states rights"?
     
  11. DisgruntledTunaFan

    DisgruntledTunaFan In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,534
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Don't believe a word Republicans AND Democrats tell you - they may say they "support" certain issues. For example, Republicans are supposedly staunch supporters of conservative family values like keeping the sanctity of marriage b/w a man and a woman, being pro-life, bringing prayers back into public schools among other Christian values.

    However - if the GOP was REALLY this conservative-conscience, then why the heck did they elect a Yale SKULL AND BONES alumn in George Bush AND his son? Why did they give Ronald Reagan a free pass when he was awarded an honorary 33rd Degree Freemason? Why don't ANY Republicans run around with their hair on fire crying for Roe V Wade to end? And less not forget too that it was under REAGAN's watch that FEMA camps started it's get-go(all Obama is doing is fully implementing them now).

    Ditto the Democrats - why hasn't Obama ended the globalist wars in the ME, but has intensified it instead?
     
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well then we have one thing in common. We would both love nothing more than for gay marriage to appear before the USSC and whatever they rule will become the law of the land.
    You question is so simplistic, it must be rhetorical.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,206
    Likes Received:
    236
    Ratings:
    +580 / 6 / -2

    No. As usual, I'm right.
     
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    Now, you're avoiding the issue, and I understand why. My question was much different than yours. You were asking if I only favored states rights when they served my interests. I saw as a childish attempt at gotcha! I'm a true liberal, so my stand on states rights is consistent with liberal thinking.

    However, on this issue conservatives are split. Many of the "intellectual" conservatives accept the federal system and the right of the Supreme Court to overrule the states. Others are more resistant. Unlike liberals, conservatives seem to be of two minds on this issue. Do you favor states rights and if so, what do you mean by that. It's a difficult question, and to quote you, "Don't worry. If you chicken out from answering my question a second time, I won't ask it again."
     
  15. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Out of every long term poster here, you're the least capable of seeing something from another person's point of view. This makes your inferences into Patters' or anyone else's thinking the most useless.
     
  16. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    40,376
    Likes Received:
    203
    Ratings:
    +721 / 2 / -9

    Saw some demonstrators in Arizona on TV they were demonstrating against the Governors decision to rid her state of criminal illegal aliens they were very similar to The Tea Partys signs and all they must be RACIST just like the Tea Partys also, THERE WERE NO WHITE PEOPLE.

    The Illegal Alien Tea Partys Are Racist They Have No Whites
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2010
  17. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Actually, you kind of really didn't answer my question, like I knew you wouldn't, but I promised not to keep asking it again and again - especially since we all already know what your answer is.
    Well if it makes you feel better, I support the system of government as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives the USSC the final say in interpreting the law.

    I know it is your propensity to put words in other peoples' mouth (it is one of the byproducts of the fact that so often you present an intellectually bankrupt argument). So, to quote our crackhead-in-chief: "Let me be clear:" There is nothing in my above statement which implies that I agree with every single decision the USSC has ever made. In fact I can think of quite a number of instances where, IMHO, they messed up. But ultimately I respect the rule of law which gives the USSC the final say on all matters of a Constitutional nature.
     
  18. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,189
    Likes Received:
    199
    Ratings:
    +294 / 12 / -10

    I answered your question explicitly, and if you didn't understand it show it to a family member who might be able to explain it to you. The odd things is your answer is the same as mine -- we both respect that the Supreme Court has the final say. I put it a little simpler than you. I said, "This means that I'm for our system as it now stands."
     
  19. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well I am glad to hear that while you support gay marriage, you oppose it being implemented by the states and you think the federal government should figure out one policy on the matter which applies across the nation. I guess we have more in common than I thought!
     
  20. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,919
    Likes Received:
    334
    Ratings:
    +574 / 11 / -4

    #24 Jersey

    Interesting, WP. Why do you oppose the state government being able to make a law which applies to one specific thing (in this case, gay marraige) but you support them being able to make a law which applies to another specific thing (such as immigration policy)?

    Either they have right to make individual laws which apply across the board or they don't.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>