My Plea - PLEASE SUPPORT GODS AND GENERALS!

[Trytostaydead]

Hmm, I suppose I could ask where exactly the Constitution gives the federal government the right to go about legislating on marriage, but I suppose that would be fruitless. I like Dick Cheney's idea - encourage states to adopt homosexual marriage, but no federal policy in place in this area.

And I suppose I could ask since where the Constitution grants the states the power to take infringe the rights of groups of people without fear of federal correction, but I suppose that would be fruitless, too. On issues where people's rights are clearly being violated, the federal government should step in and let the states know that their right to govern does not make them sovereign nations, nor does it give them the power to encroach on people's rights.

HAHAHAHA! Federal Government.. protect.. people's rights? Ideally yes, but whenever I think of the Federal Government I think of these..

-George W. Bush
-Rumsfield
-Ashcroft
-Patriot Act I
-Patriot Act II
-Waco

[Joe]

Hmm, I suppose I could ask where exactly the Constitution gives the federal government the right to go about legislating on marriage, but I suppose that would be fruitless. I like Dick Cheney's idea - encourage states to adopt homosexual marriage, but no federal policy in place in this area.

And I suppose I could ask since where the Constitution grants the states the power to take infringe the rights of groups of people without fear of federal correction, but I suppose that would be fruitless, too. On issues where people's rights are clearly being violated, the federal government should step in and let the states know that their right to govern does not make them sovereign nations, nor does it give them the power to encroach on people's rights.

HAHAHAHA! Federal Government.. protect.. people's rights? Ideally yes, but whenever I think of the Federal Government I think of these..

-George W. Bush
-Rumsfield
-Ashcroft
-Patriot Act I
-Patriot Act II
-Waco

Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and the Indian Removal. The federal government has hardly been the ideal protector of people's rights in the past; that's why the states are needed to cancel out federal abuses, and vice versa.

[Durandal]

Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and the Indian Removal. The federal government has hardly been the ideal protector of people's rights in the past; that's why the states are needed to cancel out federal abuses, and vice versa.

A federal law is much more likely to receive attention and scrutiny than a state-level law. If Congress passed a law banning all vibrator sales, you could be sure that it would be on CNN. Yet, when Texas has that law on the books, no one cares.

[Joe]

Not to mention the Fugitive Slave Law and the Indian Removal. The federal government has hardly been the ideal protector of people's rights in the past; that's why the states are needed to cancel out federal abuses, and vice versa.

A federal law is much more likely to receive attention and scrutiny than a state-level law. If Congress passed a law banning all vibrator sales, you could be sure that it would be on CNN. Yet, when Texas has that law on the books, no one cares.

Because it's only going to affect people in Texas, not the whole nation. Idiocy is inevitable. But at least it can be contained to a state or region.

[Durandal]

Because it's only going to affect people in Texas, not the whole nation. Idiocy is inevitable. But at least it can be contained to a state or region.

Precisely. If half the laws made by states were put in a national spotlight, they'd be repealed immediately because you'd have a much wider audience scrutinizing them. Therefore, the federal-level government is in a better position to decide if a law is disrespecting minorities or not. An all-white supreme court in some state is much less likely to be sensitive to black minority concerns than the Supreme Court, which has the voices of the entire nation to deal with.

It'd be a good idea if state legislation was just fixed to state-only concerns, like traffic laws and the like. However, that would also presume an infallible federal government. There's no real acceptable solution, I guess.

[Rob Wilson]

Could someone give me a link to the review before it gets swallowed up?

Well here's a review of the film. Though it starts off with a spoiler.

(Spoiler: The Union wins the civil war.)

[Rob Wilson]

I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It's always bemused the Crap out of me. I can understand the whole 'levels of government' thing, because every nation on Earth has to deal with it, but the way it's implemented is insane! Rather than have the National Government give National laws, and have a national Police Force to enforce those laws; they appear to have a National Government that can only pass laws in the Capital, and everywhere else gets to interpret their use anyway they want, adding clauses and passing their own laws at the drop of a hat. Each state has its own laws, and a State-funded police service to administer them. So what's legal in Seattle might be illegal in Texas. Why? What's the point of belonging to the same nation if you won't allow it to deal with the administration and law making. It's not so much redundancy as carefully maintained lunacy.

[Nathan F]

I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It's always bemused the Crap out of me. I can understand the whole 'levels of government' thing, because every nation on Earth has to deal with it, but the way it's implemented is insane! Rather than have the National Government give National laws, and have a national Police Force to enforce those laws; they appear to have a National Government that can only pass laws in the Capital, and everywhere else gets to interpret their use anyway they want, adding clauses and passing their own laws at the drop of a hat. Each state has its own laws, and a State-funded police service to administer them. So what's legal in Seattle might be illegal in Texas. Why? What's the point of belonging to the same nation if you won't allow it to deal with the administration and law making. It's not so much redundancy as carefully maintained lunacy.

It was because, at the time, the states were considered sovereign, yet joined in a common goal. They considered it their right to secede if they wished.

When the Government was set up, it was designed to be only loosely controlling of the states, as they were afraid that, if given too much power, it would turn into another British colonial government. And that is what no one wanted.

[Rob Wilson]

I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It's always bemused the Crap out of me. I can understand the whole 'levels of government' thing, because every nation on Earth has to deal with it, but the way it's implemented is insane! Rather than have the National Government give National laws, and have a national Police Force to enforce those laws; they appear to have a National Government that can only pass laws in the Capital, and everywhere else gets to interpret their use anyway they want, adding clauses and passing their own laws at the drop of a hat. Each state has its own laws, and a State-funded police service to administer them. So what's legal in Seattle might be illegal in Texas. Why? What's the point of belonging to the same nation if you won't allow it to deal with the administration and law making. It's not so much redundancy as carefully maintained lunacy.

It was because, at the time, the states were considered sovereign, yet joined in a common goal. They considered it their right to secede if they wished.

When the Government was set up, it was designed to be only loosely controlling of the states, as they were afraid that, if given too much power, it would turn into another British colonial government. And that is what no one wanted.

That I understand, but it shouldonly have been an interim measure surely, especially when you consider that at the first sign of secession you ended up with a civil war. You're one Nation (as statd in your Oath's), yet you still act more like a collection of disparate nations and it's leading to more and more antagonism and bureaucratic spending. You have a largely impotent National Government and a collection of State Governments that refuse to help each other. Something somewhere has to give, and if ti's not carefully controlled, it's not going to be pretty when it does.

I'm happy that the US has managed to make this work for so long, but how long can the current model be seen as viable?

[Joe]

I will never understand this "States' rights" thing. I can understand fighting for freedom. I can understand fighting to defend your homeland. I can understand fighting for your rights. But fighting for the rights of one level of government versus another? What the fuck?

It's always bemused the Crap out of me. I can understand the whole 'levels of government' thing, because every nation on Earth has to deal with it, but the way it's implemented is insane! Rather than have the National Government give National laws, and have a national Police Force to enforce those laws; they appear to have a National Government that can only pass laws in the Capital, and everywhere else gets to interpret their use anyway they want, adding clauses and passing their own laws at the drop of a hat. Each state has its own laws, and a State-funded police service to administer them. So what's legal in Seattle might be illegal in Texas. Why? What's the point of belonging to the same nation if you won't allow it to deal with the administration and law making. It's not so much redundancy as carefully maintained lunacy.

Again, a country as large as the United States does not need a centralized plan to run itself. In fact, such a plan would be unwise. The State governments are likely going to be considerably more in touch with the needs of their populace than is a government hundreds of miles away that represents the entire population of the country. The Constitution was designed to create a national government which would make the states into one nation while also respecting their right to control most of their own affairs, and despite shortcomings it worked out pretty well.

And the federal government's power is not limited to the capital. The federal government is indeed Constitutionally-empowered to make laws pertaining to nation-wide problems. The states are not completely free to do anything they want.

That I understand, but it shouldonly have been an interim measure surely, especially when you consider that at the first sign of secession you ended up with a civil war. You're one Nation (as statd in your Oath's), yet you still act more like a collection of disparate nations and it's leading to more and more antagonism and bureaucratic spending. You have a largely impotent National Government and a collection of State Governments that refuse to help each other. Something somewhere has to give, and if ti's not carefully controlled, it's not going to be pretty when it does.

What the hell? The federal government is very much in control. If the federal government doesn't like something a state is doing, then chances are it is going to get its way. And perhaps you would like to ask Iraq about the "impotency" of our national government? And the state governments do help each other. There is no real institutionalized animosity between the states; they are forbidden in the Constitution to practice economic protectionism against one another, Americans can move freely from state to state without any harm, and the state governments do tend to get along and cooperate quite well. And as for the bureaucratic spending? Welcome to Government; it's hardly unique to us.

Honestly, it sounds like you believe that we're still living under the Articles of Confederation.

[Kuja]

For you Americans on this board, and those that are interested in US history. PLEASE go see Gods and Generals! Learn about one of the most pivotal points in American history that is beginning to fade into obscurity and PC-myth. Help us support the director and Ted Turner (brrr), so that this wonderful trilogy including Gettysburg, can be completed bringing a wonderful dramatization of the Civil War to the screen.

I'm not going to sit in a damn movie threater for four freaking hours, no matter how good the movie is. The fact that roughly two/thirds of the critics in my area are bashing it means that the possibility is reduced from "none" to "no way in hell".

[Nathan F]

<snip>
That I understand, but it shouldonly have been an interim measure surely, especially when you consider that at the first sign of secession you ended up with a civil war. You're one Nation (as statd in your Oath's), yet you still act more like a collection of disparate nations and it's leading to more and more antagonism and bureaucratic spending. You have a largely impotent National Government and a collection of State Governments that refuse to help each other. Something somewhere has to give, and if ti's not carefully controlled, it's not going to be pretty when it does.

I'm happy that the US has managed to make this work for so long, but how long can the current model be seen as viable?

Actually, the states are all United and there is never any talk of soveriegnty (sp?) anymore.

There hasn't been any talk of sovereign states since the civil war. We all get along well now, and, other than the occasional north-south animosity, there isn't much state to state nationalities now.

[Rob Wilson]

[snip me]

Again, a country as large as the United States does not need a centralized plan to run itself. In fact, such a plan would be unwise. The State governments are likely going to be considerably more in touch with the needs of their populace than is a government hundreds of miles away that represents the entire population of the country. The Constitution was designed to create a national government which would make the states into one nation while also respecting their right to control most of their own affairs, and despite shortcomings it worked out pretty well.

And the federal government's power is not limited to the capital. The federal government is indeed Constitutionally-empowered to make laws pertaining to nation-wide problems. The states are not completely free to do anything they want.

[snip me again]

What the hell? The federal government is very much in control. If the federal government doesn't like something a state is doing, then chances are it is going to get its way. And perhaps you would like to ask Iraq about the "impotency" of our national government?

I'm talking about internally, not internationally. Oh and "Chances are"? that's hardly the sign of a strong Federal Government.

And the state governments do help each other. There is no real institutionalized animosity between the states; they are forbidden in the Constitution to practice economic protectionism against one another, Americans can move freely from state to state without any harm, and the state governments do tend to get along and cooperate quite well. And as for the bureaucratic spending? Welcome to Government; it's hardly unique to us.

Honestly, it sounds like you believe that we're still living under the Articles of Confederation.

When was the last time the Federal Government successfully overturned a State decision? Why do you need different ages of consent in different states of the Same country? If the Federal Government has the ability to enforce it's laws, why have State laws on anything to do with crime and punishment? Shouldn't State laws only deal with the day to day running of the State (Zoning policies, local taxes, etc)?Do States still have the ability to Seced? and If not, then why should they act as if they are seperate nations?

I snipped out my stuff and ran your two responses together simply because I love the way you contradict yourself so quickly in the two opening sentences :

"Again, a country as large as the United States does not need a centralized plan to run itself. In fact, such a plan would be unwise."
"What the hell? The federal government is very much in control."

Which is it? You actually sound like you're arguing with yourself there. Before you try and debate the point you might want to sort out which side of it your actually on.

[Rob Wilson]

<snip>
That I understand, but it shouldonly have been an interim measure surely, especially when you consider that at the first sign of secession you ended up with a civil war. You're one Nation (as statd in your Oath's), yet you still act more like a collection of disparate nations and it's leading to more and more antagonism and bureaucratic spending. You have a largely impotent National Government and a collection of State Governments that refuse to help each other. Something somewhere has to give, and if ti's not carefully controlled, it's not going to be pretty when it does.

I'm happy that the US has managed to make this work for so long, but how long can the current model be seen as viable?

Actually, the states are all United and there is never any talk of soveriegnty (sp?) anymore.

There hasn't been any talk of sovereign states since the civil war. We all get along well now, and, other than the occasional north-south animosity, there isn't much state to state nationalities now.

I'll admit I have to go mostly on Perception here, and having travelled in the States, I've found that however tolerant or happy to see foreigners an American maybe, they have an almost primal need to hate 'out of Staters'. It is bizarre to see first hand, and I notice tht though a lot of lipservice is paid to States helping States, there is very little State policy passed to back it up. Could anyone here point me to State passed Legislature that actively helps another State? And again I have to ask, if they are no longer soveriegn states, why do they need to have seperate laws to do with Crime and punishment/ages of Consent/anything not to do with the Bureaucratic admin of the State?

[Kuja]

And again I have to ask, if they are no longer soveriegn states, why do they need to have seperate laws to do with Crime and punishment/ages of Consent/anything not to do with the Bureaucratic admin of the State?

State Sovereignty means that they are allowed to pass any kind of law they want as long as it does not conflict with higher authority (Federal Law, the Constitution).

[Rob Wilson]

And again I have to ask, if they are no longer soveriegn states, why do they need to have seperate laws to do with Crime and punishment/ages of Consent/anything not to do with the Bureaucratic admin of the State?

State Sovereignty means that they are allowed to pass any kind of law they want as long as it does not conflict with higher authority (Federal Law, the Constitution).

So if the Federal Government passed a Death Penalty law, then all States would have to adopt it... right? The Same if they made th Age of Consent 16? Or made it legal to use Marijuana recreationaly? The individual States would immediately adopt thse laws?

[Rob Wilson]

And again I have to ask, if they are no longer soveriegn states, why do they need to have seperate laws to do with Crime and punishment/ages of Consent/anything not to do with the Bureaucratic admin of the State?

State Sovereignty means that they are allowed to pass any kind of law they want as long as it does not conflict with higher authority (Federal Law, the Constitution).

Could the Americans on the Board please reach a concensus as to whether their States are soveriegn or not. Cheers.

[Bloody double posts. ]

[Durandal]

So if the Federal Government passed a Death Penalty law, then all States would have to adopt it... right? The Same if they made th Age of Consent 16? Or made it legal to use Marijuana recreationaly? The individual States would immediately adopt thse laws?

Yes. If the federal government wanted the drinking age to be 18, they could pass a law through Congress which would trump the states' laws. However, this isn't always how it happens; the drinking age is a prime example. Instead of going through the lengthy process of putting together a bill to federalize the 21 drinking age, the federal government simply told states that if they did not make their drinking age 21, then their federal highway funding would be pulled. So, you have most (if not all) states with a 21 drinking age.

This also happened with a nation-wide speed limit. The federal government held the states' highway funding hostage in order to force all the states to adopt speed limits. However, some states, like Arizona, rather creatively told the government to go fuck itself. They had someone run figures for how much money it would cost to employ and maintain a police force to enforce speed limits, and it turned out that it would cost more to enact speed limits than the government would give the state for highway funding. So, a few states, like Montana and Arizona, just told the federal government where it could stick its highway funding. The result is that Montana has 2 state cops.

[Durandal]

Could the Americans on the Board please reach a concensus as to whether their States are soveriegn or not. Cheers.

The states are not sovereign. They cannot enact treaties with other nations, nor can they dictate foreign policy, and they almost always lose to the federal government when there is a contradiction. As far as I am aware, they cannot secede, either.

[RedImperator]

Could the Americans on the Board please reach a concensus as to whether their States are soveriegn or not. Cheers.

The states are not sovereign. They cannot enact treaties with other nations, nor can they dictate foreign policy, and they almost always lose to the federal government when there is a contradiction. As far as I am aware, they cannot secede, either.

They have no legal right to secede. They would have a moral right to do so if the Federal government became oppressive and trampled on the rights of the citizens of those states (the same way the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire).

[Durandal]

They have no legal right to secede. They would have a moral right to do so if the Federal government became oppressive and trampled on the rights of the citizens of those states (the same way the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire).

Basically, it goes like this. If some states have a rebellion, try to secede and are successful, they had the right to secede. If they lose the rebellion, they had no right to secede. Funny, isn't it?

[RedImperator]

Rob, the reason why the several states have jurisdiction over things that in your view should be under the control of the Federal government is because the existance of the states serves as a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority. It allows groups who would be a minority in the national population to congregate and form a local majority where their views are better represented. This works for both the left and the right (Mormons get their crazy fundy state in Utah, ivy tower liberals get Massachusetts, "leave me alone" tax rebels get New Hampshire, hippies essentially get California, etc.). The 14th Amednment to the Constitution gurantees that the basic protections outlined in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments apply to the states as well, closing that loophole while leaving the states free to do as they will.

[Rob Wilson]

So if the Federal Government passed a Death Penalty law, then all States would have to adopt it... right? The Same if they made th Age of Consent 16? Or made it legal to use Marijuana recreationaly? The individual States would immediately adopt thse laws?

Yes. If the federal government wanted the drinking age to be 18, they could pass a law through Congress which would trump the states' laws. However, this isn't always how it happens; the drinking age is a prime example. Instead of going through the lengthy process of putting together a bill to federalize the 21 drinking age, the federal government simply told states that if they did not make their drinking age 21, then their federal highway funding would be pulled. So, you have most (if not all) states with a 21 drinking age.

This also happened with a nation-wide speed limit. The federal government held the states' highway funding hostage in order to force all the states to adopt speed limits. However, some states, like Arizona, rather creatively told the government to go fuck itself. They had someone run figures for how much money it would cost to employ and maintain a police force to enforce speed limits, and it turned out that it would cost more to enact speed limits than the government would give the state for highway funding. So, a few states, like Montana and Arizona, just told the federal government where it could stick its highway funding. The result is that Montana has 2 state cops.

Which has to be the most cockeyed way of doing things -ever.

Seriously, how difficult is it to get a law passed and that way it's set. And having to persuade States to toe the line through what amounts to extortion? I know Politics demands some things are handled in a roundabout way, but that's for things the politicians don't want the public to know about, not something like the Drinking age!

Why would it be so bad for the Federal Government to pas all laws on Crime and Punishment and only have the States deal with State specific laws (such as zoning, housing, road maintenance, etc)? They already hav no Sovereignty so what would be the problem?

[RedImperator]

They have no legal right to secede. They would have a moral right to do so if the Federal government became oppressive and trampled on the rights of the citizens of those states (the same way the 13 colonies seceded from the British Empire).

Basically, it goes like this. If some states have a rebellion, try to secede and are successful, they had the right to secede. If they lose the rebellion, they had no right to secede. Funny, isn't it?

Pretty much.

[Rob Wilson]

Rob, the reason why the several states have jurisdiction over things that in your view should be under the control of the Federal government is because the existance of the states serves as a safeguard against a tyranny of the majority. It allows groups who would be a minority in the national population to congregate and form a local majority where their views are better represented. This works for both the left and the right (Mormons get their crazy fundy state in Utah, ivy tower liberals get Massachusetts, "leave me alone" tax rebels get New Hampshire, hippies essentially get California, etc.). The 14th Amednment to the Constitution gurantees that the basic protections outlined in the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments apply to the states as well, closing that loophole while leaving the states free to do as they will.

But that can only happen if the government they elected (including thier State representatives) would be daft enough to work against their interests. It makes no sense, it's not even checks and balances, as the Federal Government suddenly has no power in that model, so why have it? And if it does have teh power, then there's no reason to have the individual State Governments as they can be overridden.
You don't see a problem inherent in having certain states for certain ways of thinking? That doesn't seem like a problem of devisiveness to you? "oh you want to be a Mormon, no worries, go live in Utah. Can't afford to move? Unlucky I guess.", you shouldn't have a State that looks after Liberal Ideals and one that Looks after Conservative ideals! Quite frankly, that's Stupid.

You didn't have Seperate States under British Rule and yet you managed to get out from under it anyway, this "Oh we have to be careful of the government getting too powerful" is ludicrous. Of course the Government is powerful, thats its job. You don't like what th Governments doing then you either vot them out or, if things get real extreme, rise against them. Having seperate State Governments, wastefully duplicating National government decision-making on Basic laws does nothing but waste money.