This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I’m sure that if a state banned churches from preaching against gay people, then conservatives would just say that Christians in that state should move somewhere else.
The Person in Question
A Jury May Have Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay. And the Justices Don’t Care.
A Jury May Have Sentenced a Man to Death Because He’s Gay. And the Justices Don’t Care.
Fucking assholes.
I’m gonna jaywalk and demand the death penalty.
.
I’m gonna jaywalk and demand the death penalty.
what the guy did was worse than jaywalking, but I agree his sentence should be overturned. There was clear bias.
The premise of killing someone because they might enjoy prison is bizarre to me. I wasn’t aware that a convict’s enjoyment of his punishment was taken into account. What if a death-row inmate is suicidal? Do you give him life in prison because he wants to die?
The Person in Question
How such a craft becomes airborne, I’ll never know.
How such a craft becomes airborne, I’ll never know.
.
Much hot air, then.
P.U.
DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.
It defined marriage as between a man and woman, something you, Ferris and many other states rights conservatives have repeatedly said was up to the states to decide. If gay marriage is truly up to the states to decide, I don’t know how you could justify a federal law that defines marriage. I think I even brought up federal benefits to argue that the feds had to have some say over marriage, I forget the argument that you and/or Ferris used against me. If it weren’t so hard to search this site, I’d try to find the conversation.
In many areas I would defer to the states. I still think DOMA went too far and infringed on state authority. But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment. Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not). The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.
The blue elephant in the room.
But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment.
I made that argument?
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).
You’re not?
The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.
it seemed like you were agreeing with it.
DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.
But I recognize the sincere argument, that you previously made, that a person can support state authority and also limited federal action without offending the 10th Amendment.
I made that argument?
You said:
I think I even brought up federal benefits to argue that the feds had to have some say over marriage, I forget the argument that you and/or Ferris used against me.
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).
You’re not?
You read right.
The fact I can recognize a sincere argument doesn’t mean I agree with it.
it seemed like you were agreeing with it.
DOMA did at least concern federal benefits that states don’t naturally have the authority over, so it wasn’t clearly a 10th Amendment violation.
The fact that a reasonable argument can be made and that I can recognize that doesn’t mean I agree with it.
The blue elephant in the room.
I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.
The Person in Question
I feel like these new progressive candidates (Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders) are making things harder for themselves by taking on the name “democratic socialist.” Firstly, the name isn’t even correct, and I’ll keep saying it until the day I die. In order to be a democratic socialist, one has to be a… socialist. Neither Ocasio-Cortez or Sanders advocate for socialism. But the bigger issue is that by labeling themselves socialists, they’ve made it much easier for Republicans to smear them. Now their opponents don’t have to convince voters that welfare = socialism = communism = deathcamps = bad. All they have to do is convince voters that socialism = communism = deathcamps = bad. That first step, the one that progressives seem to be willingly giving up, is the most important one. Getting from ‘welfare’ to ‘socialism’ is a much bigger jump than getting from ‘socialism’ to ‘communism’ or from ‘communism’ to ‘deathcamps’. It’s the right’s weakest argument, the most tenuous connection in that entire chain of ideas, and they’re just throwing it away.
I don’t think that “socialist” is an insult that works anymore. Republicans have been calling Obama and even Hillary “socialists” for a decade now and they obviously weren’t too threatening, and their economic policies are far more reasonable than people like Bush or Trump’s. Anyone that would be won over by that kind of Republican argument wouldn’t be voting for a Democrat anyway. I agree though that they should call themselves Social Democrats since that would be a more accurate label.
The Person in Question
I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.
That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.
What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level. Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.
The blue elephant in the room.
I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.
That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.
I’m saying that neither is okay and if the federal government needs to step in in order to protect your rights, then I’m fine with that.
What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s a pretty selfish view of justice if you want to be state by state.
Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.
That’s not the case in any of the examples that I listed.
The Person in Question
I’ve never understood the argument of states’ rights people. Their arguments have been the same since before the Civil War and they just make no sense to me. It all boils down to, it’s okay for the states to infringe upon your rights, but it’s not okay for the federal government to stop states from infringing on your rights. That’s how it’s always been, whether we’re talking about slavery, women’s suffrage, worker’s rights, civil rights, public education, abortion, gay rights, marriage equality, and now trans rights.
That’s like me saying your point of view boils down to saying it’s okay when the federal government infringes your rights but not the states.
I’m saying that neither is okay and if the federal government needs to step in in order to protect your rights, then I’m fine with that.
If you think an issue belongs to the federal government - for example defining marriage - then based on history, gay marriage would have been federally prohibited, foreclosing the option many states took to allow gay marriage.
What it really boils down to is an acceptance of the federal system established by our Constitution and a belief that injustice can be cured on the state level.
I don’t think that’s the case. It’s a pretty selfish view of justice if you want to be state by state.
Not at all selfish.
Oftentimes change only happens at the national level because states have the freedom and authority to make those changes. It builds a momentum that wouldn’t exist if the federal government held all the cards.
That’s not the case in any of the examples that I listed.
That’s the case for most of the issues you list. In addition to marriage as I noted above, the fact that northern states had the freedom to forbid slavery set the stage for ending it altogether.
The blue elephant in the room.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anthony-kennedy-you-are-a-total-disgrace-to-america
There are issues that I could see varying state by state. For instance, I might reasonably expect different laws regarding fireworks in Nevada than in Minnesota, because of the differences in climate. However, I can’t understand the justification for basic personal issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. being any different in one state than another.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
There are issues that I could see varying state by state. For instance, I might reasonably expect different laws regarding fireworks in Nevada than in Minnesota, because of the differences in climate. However, I can’t understand the justification for basic personal issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. being any different in one state than another.
My mother, who is an attorney, says it’s because “Family Law” is traditionally determined by the states.
chyron just put a big Ric pic in your sig and be done with it.
There are issues that I could see varying state by state. For instance, I might reasonably expect different laws regarding fireworks in Nevada than in Minnesota, because of the differences in climate. However, I can’t understand the justification for basic personal issues such as gay marriage, abortion, etc. being any different in one state than another.
My mother, who is an attorney, says it’s because “Family Law” is traditionally determined by the states.
I still don’t see why such things should vary from state to state.
"Close the blast doors!"
Puggo’s website | Rescuing Star Wars
Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).You’re not?
You read right.
Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?
what