Janszoon

Always? If that were the case the federal government would never have had to intervene to get states to integrate their schools or drop religious requirements from their public offices.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

blastingas10

Well the majority of the people in the state may have supported those things.

If a group of people in a state wants to legalize something like weed or gay marriage, are they more likely to affect law on a state level or a federal level? A state level.

But I guess you're right, not always. Luckily, when a state violates our liberties, then the federal government can intervene. We need to balance to power a little more. The federal government shouldn't have too much, and neither should the states.

TheBig3

How much power does the Federal Government have? How many freedoms have they taken away?

The only think I can recall in recent memory is the Patriot Act, and coming down the line, SOPA which is slated to die a horrible death, and its sponsors are now being primaried by right and left wing bloggers.

My question though is what are you being deprived?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

The Batlord

I used to be all states rights. In theory it should work. The states would represent everyone's interests better than a national government could, while the federal government makes sure that the states don't violate minority rights.

In practice, it's sorta pointless to try maintaining the balance, because nature abhors a vacuum. Someone is going to have more power than the other no matter what you do. The federal government was encroaching on states right almost as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution. And whatever else the civil war was about, it was also a power struggle between the federal government and the states, and lo and behold, any showdown between the two tends to be won by the side with the most power and resources (the federal government). States rights sounds great, but maintaining the balance of power between the two is impossible. And people are too stupid and easily manipulated to be counted on to make sure the balance is maintained.

__________________

TheBig3

I disagree. I think there's a perfect balance possible with the Federal Government as the defender of the Constitution. The states like to act as if things are in the Constitution that aren't (Nullification). A lot of what the Constitution does is logically implied, so when it says All Men are Created Equal - thats just what it means.

And I'm often baffled when Leftist nutbags are like "All men aren't created equal because we had slavery!"

Because a law was broken doesn't mean the law isn't there. So we write it in with the 14th Amendment after we slap around some ignorant upstarts. America's constitution was born of men long on theory and suppression. In many ways, its a really savvy document. The Federal Government, though, has a right to uphold the implicit rights of man even if they aren't spelled out. When you hear "strict constitutionalists" you should know it means "they try to skirt rights."

Ron Paul thinks its "ludicrous" the way they use the Interstate Commerce Clause because of things like the Civil Rights act and the Individual Mandate, but the truth is they won't need to do things like that if people were just good citizens. Its when the States try to uphold bull**** laws that we run into trouble. The Fugitive Slave act was a direct violation of one states sovereignty over another. You cannot mandate that our state violate its own law to uphold yours. So the Southern crybabies want to leave the states. Tough ****.

The Constitution isn't perfect, but part of its charge is defending it. If you like your country, make sure its doing the right thing. Don't expect it, do something about it. And if you don't, if you just whine, and cry, and complain, and say "well they're all corrupt theres no use for me to get involved" then i say you're a ****ty American and you don't deserve the freedoms it provides you.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

blastingas10

The NDAA

TheBig3

What?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Rubato

You're going to have to explain that.

blastingas10

I don't believe that you haven't heard of the NDAA. I don't see how you couldn't have.

Janszoon

I think he's probably confused as to what exactly about it you are referring to. Are you talking about the entire half century existence of the NDAA? The 2012 NDAA? The NDAA over the past decade?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm