Sorry, we're one country, you know, E pluribus unum and junk, not fifty fiefdoms I for one have no desire to resurrect feudalism, civil rights are bestowed upon each person in this country, and everyone should be able to enforce their rights against the states. Through the federal courts.
It is really telling that you consider civil rights to be a federal restriction, remember big brother says freedom is slavery
Well we will adamantly disagree on that point as I think the federal government has been far more guilty of overreach in that regard than have most of the states.
More importantly, if the laws of a state become intolerable for its citizens, the citizens are much more able to deal with it constructively and/or move to a state with better laws. With federal laws, there is no escape and no place to go where you can better govern yourself short of giving up your country.
So we put you down for a national government with complete power to order the people to do whatever those in government want them to do. Or not do. Such people either want unlimited power or they do not trust the people to make good decisions when they are allowed to govern themselves.
Let us please not fall into the abyss of ignorance that led us to this endeavor. There is no such things as GUN RIGHTS since guns are inanimate objects and objects do NOT possess rights. People have rights. The entire phrase is dishonest and serves to create the false belief that guns have been elevated beyond other objects in our land to some status where they actually have rights.
Please folks - lets clear the slate on this right now.
You are correct, guns have no rights, one has the right to bear arms, although typing an entire phrase for polling purposes can be rather cumbersome.
May I suggest, since we seem to be a bit hung up on states rights, to address the purpose of the 10th Amendment next?
I agree.
Regarding STATES RIGHTS: the USA of 2014 is NOT the USA of 1776. Today a person is often born in Massachusetts, spends part of their childhood in Connecticut and New York, goes to college in Michigan, does grad work in Ohio, takes a job in Texas and marries a person originally from California with their own travels to match. That couple then lives in three different states over the next thirty years as they change jobs residing in New Mexico, Colorado and Alabama. They retire to Florida only to sour on the climate after several years and end up spending their final years in South Carolina. One dies and the other goes to Oregon to live with their adult children.
That is the reality of the 21st century America we live in. The concept of a state as a individual place with its own culture and population and government is as old fashioned and out of date as the tri-cornered hat and knee breeches.
And if you've been to those sates you'd know that they all do have their own culture and government, as it should be. One point of states rights is to decentralize government so that it doesn't become powerful enough to take our liberty. Another is so states can compete with each other to provide us with more efficient and better government.
Actually, it was the states that have had a bad history of ripping peoples' rights to shreds.
I think the current Constitution was pretty well thought out. Some of the wording could be more precise, but the intent is pretty clear when we look at the Federalist papers and some of the written communication of especially James Madison. I'd ague that our problems don't come from the wording and intent of the Constitution but an honest interpretation of that wording and intent. And I don't see that we can depend on maintaining an honest interpretation of any agreement, no matter how well written. Lawyers and others hell bent on making the words mean what they want to mean will find a way.
That is the problem.
Although I think our present Constitution is excellent, I was hoping that we DPers would be able to clarify some of the arcane/obtuse wording.
I now think that whatever we agree to will be subject to interpretation---same as our current Constitution.
Maybe that's what the founders intended.:shrug:
This is still an interesting exercise, though.
A new constitution sould adress marriage per-se, not focus in only on gays.Are any of the topics important and relevant to our undertaking of creating a Constitution for the United States of America?
If so, which ones? and Why?
Gun Rights
Abortion
Gay Marriage
Marijuana
State Rights
Trayvon Martin
This is an anonymous poll.
A new constitution sould adress marriage per-se, not focus in only on gays.
Well, I do, and would like to make those arguments and have it put to a vote.And I don't see marriage laws of any kind being the prerogative of the federal government.
So we put you down for a national government with complete power to order the people to do whatever those in government want them to do. Or not do. Such people either want unlimited power or they do not trust the people to make good decisions when they are allowed to govern themselves.
And I don't see marriage laws of any kind being the prerogative of the federal government.
Well, I do, and would like to make those arguments and have it put to a vote.
Accusing other posters of wanting unlimited power and not trusting "the people" simply because they have a sincere difference of opinion with you is not only getting old, but is also not in keeping with the tone we want to promote in this forum
Marriage is a contract and the enforcement of contracts is something that even minarchists agree is a legitimate interest of govt.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?