My Plea - PLEASE SUPPORT GODS AND GENERALS!

[Rob Wilson]

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.

I think that's pretty much the same around the world.

[Durandal]

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

I'm amazed that it works as well as it does, sometimes.

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!

In order for a bill to become a law, it has to go through the following process.
First, it is introduced in either the Senate or the House. The vote to introduce the bill must be unanimous.
Then it is forwarded to a committee.
It then goes up to the Rules committee, which determines what provisions can be tacked on. They will either attach an open rule, meaning that anything can be attached to the bill, a restricted open rule, meaning that anything can be attached as long as it's relevant, or a closed rule, meaning the bill stays as-is.
Then it is given to a sub-committee.
This sub-committee holds hearings and calls in "expert" witnesses to testify on the bill's content.They attach whatever provisions the Rules committee allows.
It then runs back up to the committee, which has its own hearings with its own expert witnesses and attaches its own provisions.
Then it goes over to the other house. They repeat the above process with the original bill.
After it goes through the other house, a Conference committee between the two houses hammers out one version of the bill from the two different versions floating around.
After the final version is hammered out, it then goes to each house for a vote. If one house votes it down, it's gone. If it passes, it's on to the president. He can veto it. Congress can override his veto with a 2/3 majority vote in each house.
The order of the committees and sub-committees is probably wrong, but you get the gist of it. Passing a bill into law is not an easy process.

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?

Because then states would piss and moan about their rights being infringed. They know they don't have sovereignty, but they like to pretend that they do. Anything which shatters their delusions is an unwanted intrustion. It would have been a political fiasco if the Clinton administration legalized gay marriages nation-wide, so instead he left it up to the states to dictate their own policy on it. Also, if the federal government illegalized the death penalty, Texans would piss and moan. Look at how they reacted when the Supreme Court said that executed mentally retarded people was unconstiutional for fuck's sake! They were appalled by the ruling!

[Rob Wilson]

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

I'm amazed that it works as well as it does, sometimes.

I know the feeling, having seen local government at work over here, I fel the same way on some of the 'traditional' methods of getting things to pass smoothly.

In order for a bill to become a law, it has to go through the following process.
First, it is introduced in either the Senate or the House. The vote to introduce the bill must be unanimous.
Then it is forwarded to a committee.
It then goes up to the Rules committee, which determines what provisions can be tacked on. They will either attach an open rule, meaning that anything can be attached to the bill, a restricted open rule, meaning that anything can be attached as long as it's relevant, or a closed rule, meaning the bill stays as-is.
Then it is given to a sub-committee.
This sub-committee holds hearings and calls in "expert" witnesses to testify on the bill's content.They attach whatever provisions the Rules committee allows.
It then runs back up to the committee, which has its own hearings with its own expert witnesses and attaches its own provisions.
Then it goes over to the other house. They repeat the above process with the original bill.
After it goes through the other house, a Conference committee between the two houses hammers out one version of the bill from the two different versions floating around.
After the final version is hammered out, it then goes to each house for a vote. If one house votes it down, it's gone. If it passes, it's on to the president. He can veto it. Congress can override his veto with a 2/3 majority vote in each house.
The order of the committees and sub-committees is probably wrong, but you get the gist of it. Passing a bill into law is not an easy process.

It may seem complicated, but that's just the way things are, nothing is easy, and once the law is passed, it's set. The other way may be a quick fix, but there's nothing to stop the States suddenly deciding to change their laws back again (and they simply shouldn't have that power in the first place).

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?

Because then states would piss and moan about their rights being infringed. They know they don't have sovereignty, but they like to pretend that they do. Anything which shatters their delusions is an unwanted intrustion. It would have been a political fiasco if the Clinton administration legalized gay marriages nation-wide, so instead he left it up to the states to dictate their own policy on it. Also, if the federal government illegalized the death penalty, Texans would piss and moan. Look at how they reacted when the Supreme Court said that executed mentally retarded people was unconstiutional for fuck's sake! They were appalled by the ruling!

And this is the Crux of the problem, People putting thier State ahead of the Nation and the government not having the balls to sort the problem out. They are the GOVERNMENT, they are there to Govern! That means telling people what they have to do, and passing laws that affect the whole country, not being MOR and hoping people won't notice you have less backbone than an Earthworm. So far, no one can give me a solid reason for why it's a good thing for States to set anything above State-level laws, and th jingo-ism that States deluding themselves into thinking they can govern themselves leads to is more apparent than ever. I hate to keep ragging on this, but the system makes absolutely no sense as it currently stands. It's only around because 'that's the way it's always been' but it was an interim ad hoc solution tht needs more and more shoring up as time passes. At Some point, the Federal Government is going to try and flex it's muscle and things will come to a head quickly and probably disasterously. Something I hope we're all agreed on, as not a good thing (i'm certainly not in hurry to see bad things happen to a frindly nation).

[Joe]

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.

The THIRTEEN colonies were not one unified colonial holding, they were thirteen colonies. Read up.

And this is America; the American Revolution, in many ways, was a Revolution that was carried out in spite of the institution of government and for the love of freedom. Neither the rebels nor the Founders wanted an all-powerful central Leviathan telling the people of the country what to do. Even after the need for a stronger government was realized, the Founders still wanted to have a government in place that was only powerful enough to accomplish its intended goal; to make one nation out of the states while still respecting their right to deal with their own affairs. I should also note that the Founders didn't believe in any of this "voting is the solution to tyrannical government" garbage (they didn't care much for voting at all, truth be told); they believed the system had to be built in order to minimize the possibility of a tyrannical government. And they saw Federalism as a means by which to do that.

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?

Why bother to run the entire criminal justice system from the center of the country when the states are already doing a fine job? It will be more costly, and the national government is not going to be as in touch with the needs of localities as state governments are.

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.

But it does have power, like Red just said. The federal government can protect the basic rights outlined in the Constitution from state infringement while leaving the states alone elsewhere. You're engaging in a bit of an either/or fallacy; either the states have all the power, or the federal government has all the power. It was this dilemma that the Founders worked so hard to reconcile. Yes, the states can be overridden, and the federal government often does this. But for the most part, it lets the states carry on their business alone. And it works.

And as for your problem with people moving away from states to escape policies they don't like; yes, it isn't the best solution, but it HAS worked out in practice; after the Civil War, when the southern states decided they had to oppress their former slaves into the ground because they were angry, you know what thousands of blacks did? Got the fuck out of the south. In the thousands.

And this is the Crux of the problem, People putting thier State ahead of the Nation and the government not having the balls to sort the problem out. They are the GOVERNMENT, they are there to Govern! That means telling people what they have to do, and passing laws that affect the whole country, not being MOR and hoping people won't notice you have less backbone than an Earthworm. So far, no one can give me a solid reason for why it's a good thing for States to set anything above State-level laws, and th jingo-ism that States deluding themselves into thinking they can govern themselves leads to is more apparent than ever. I hate to keep ragging on this, but the system makes absolutely no sense as it currently stands. It's only around because 'that's the way it's always been' but it was an interim ad hoc solution tht needs more and more shoring up as time passes. At Some point, the Federal Government is going to try and flex it's muscle and things will come to a head quickly and probably disasterously. Something I hope we're all agreed on, as not a good thing (i'm certainly not in hurry to see bad things happen to a frindly nation).

The federal government has flexed it's muscle. Perhaps you're familiar with a little spat we like to call the American Civil War?

And your comment about the states having "jingoism" (which refers to a belief in aggressive foreign policy) for thinking they can govern themselves (so much for self-government, an American ideal) is quite interesting. This jingoism is not apparent; the states get along pretty damn well, and the federal government can keep them in line via the commerce clause if things get sour. There are a LOT of problems facing America. Interstate rivalry is not one of them.

And the states CAN'T pass anything above laws that apply to only themselves. Under our constitutional system, an individual state really doesn't enough power to significantly impact the state of the nation as a whole.

And finally, trading off national interests in favor of regional ones is just an inevitable consequence of democracy; it's not unique to us.

[RedImperator]

Alright, Rob, how about this, since you think the idea of having individual states with different laws reflecting the ideas of the local majorities is "stupid", YOU come up with a legal code that's satisfactory to 280 million people without trampling on the rights of minorities (ethnic, social, political, or otherwise). Under your system, 50.1% of the population could decide to implement policies that 49.9% absolutely despise, and the minority could do nothing but suck it up. You think it's ludicrous to expect people to move from state to state if they hate state policies, what about a system where there isn't someplace else to go because the laws are the same everywhere? What's a New Yorker supposed to do if southern Bible-thumpers take control of the majority party in the Federal government and start imposing strict cultural conseratism on Manhattan liberals? Emigrate to Canada?

So far, other than the risk that individual states will abuse the rights of minorities (which they're legally not allowed to do according to the 14th Amendment and most individual state constitutions) and bureaucratic waste from duplication of government functions, you haven't given any reason why your system is better than ours other than that you think it's "stupid". I contend this is a country where parts of CITIES try to break away and become independent towns because they feel like the majority is riding roughshod over their rights, and you propose that the entire country ought to have the exact same laws on all issues, irregardless of the cultural differences between people, states, and regions in the United States.

[Rob Wilson]

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.

The THIRTEEN colonies were not one unified colonial holding, they were thirteen colonies. Read up.

Thirteen colonies under one rule, British Governance ad Laws, so your point would be?

And this is America; the American Revolution, in many ways, was a Revolution that was carried out in spite of the institution of government and for the love of freedom.

You've done it again, you're first point tries to say the Colonies weren't under one rule, then this one starts by acknowledging that they were under one rule. Consistancy is admirable, but in your arguement, not argument style.

Neither the rebels nor the Founders wanted an all-powerful central Leviathan telling the people of the country what to do. Even after the need for a stronger government was realized, the Founders still wanted to have a government in place that was only powerful enough to accomplish its intended goal; to make one nation out of the states while still respecting their right to deal with their own affairs. I should also note that the Founders didn't believe in any of this "voting is the solution to tyrannical government" garbage (they didn't care much for voting at all, truth be told); they believed the system had to be built in order to minimize the possibility of a tyrannical government. And they saw Federalism as a means by which to do that.

And you still have to rewrite the laws to make up for it. As to Voting out a tyrant, yes that is indeed very hard to do, so allow me to introduce you to democracy, where in you very rarely get tyrants, as thy are voted out if they get too big for their boots. Amazing how, Britain, a democracy, hasn't fallen prey to a tyrant despite having a strong central government that sets the Crime and Punishment Laws, and County Councils that only set County level laws for Administration and such. Damn if only there was some way I could point you to other examples of Democracy not producing tyrants (Canada, France, Switzerland, Belgium, IcelandEvery Democracy in the past 100 years or so). So I'm wondering just what your evidence for calling it Garbage is?

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?

Why bother to run the entire criminal justice system from the center of the country when the states are already doing a fine job? It will be more costly, and the national government is not going to be as in touch with the needs of localities as state governments are.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thank you so much for the good lauhg, I needed it. So The government can't set a national law on the punishment for say Murder, because it doesn't know how someone in Mass. feels about it? Do you have any idea how fucked up that notion is? Governments in Democracies have been happily setting forth Crime and Punishment Laws for their entire nations for centuries, and no ones had any problem with it.

How much more in touch with what you want is your State Govenor, than say your Congressman? Don't they both come from your State? Isn't your Congressman there to ensure your State is represented in the formation of Laws?

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.

But it does have power, like Red just said. The federal government can protect the basic rights outlined in the Constitution from state infringement while leaving the states alone elsewhere. You're engaging in a bit of an either/or fallacy; either the states have all the power, or the federal government has all the power. It was this dilemma that the Founders worked so hard to reconcile. Yes, the states can be overridden, and the federal government often does this. But for the most part, it lets the states carry on their business alone. And it works.

For now, but say the Government decides to introduce a Nationwide policy, that certain States don't agree with, what then?

And as for your problem with people moving away from states to escape policies they don't like; yes, it isn't the best solution, but it HAS worked out in practice; after the Civil War, when the southern states decided they had to oppress their former slaves into the ground because they were angry, you know what thousands of blacks did? Got the fuck out of the south. In the thousands.

And you don't realise how that vindicates my argument, while showing everything that's wrong with yours? If there had been a strong Federal Government able to pass and enforce it's laws, then the Slaves wouldn't have had to leave the South in the First place, as they would have been freed. Instead, the South said fuck you and went to war with it's own Government for something as hateful as the right to own and exploit other human beings.

Most countries have Civil war to get rid of an oppressive government, you managed to have one to get rid of an enlighted government. All because the Southern States refused to accept a Federal law.

And this is the Crux of the problem, People putting thier State ahead of the Nation and the government not having the balls to sort the problem out. They are the GOVERNMENT, they are there to Govern! That means telling people what they have to do, and passing laws that affect the whole country, not being MOR and hoping people won't notice you have less backbone than an Earthworm. So far, no one can give me a solid reason for why it's a good thing for States to set anything above State-level laws, and th jingo-ism that States deluding themselves into thinking they can govern themselves leads to is more apparent than ever. I hate to keep ragging on this, but the system makes absolutely no sense as it currently stands. It's only around because 'that's the way it's always been' but it was an interim ad hoc solution tht needs more and more shoring up as time passes. At Some point, the Federal Government is going to try and flex it's muscle and things will come to a head quickly and probably disasterously. Something I hope we're all agreed on, as not a good thing (i'm certainly not in hurry to see bad things happen to a frindly nation).

The federal government has flexed it's muscle. Perhaps you're familiar with a little spat we like to call the American Civil War?

Yes, when Southern States refused to listen to Federal Law, and caused the deaths of thousands over something that couldn't have happened if there had been a Strong central Government that could properly enforce its laws at the time.

And your comment about the states having "jingoism" (which refers to a belief in aggressive foreign policy) for thinking they can govern themselves (so much for self-government, an American ideal) is quite interesting. This jingoism is not apparent; the states get along pretty damn well, and the federal government can keep them in line via the commerce clause if things get sour. There are a LOT of problems facing America. Interstate rivalry is not one of them.

I had to go for the nearest colloquialism as I couldn't use Patriotism in there as I was refering to State over nation. Sorry for any misunderstanding there. And I've only really used interstate rivalry as a symptom not the disease here.

And finally, trading off national interests in favor of regional ones is just an inevitable consequence of democracy; it's not unique to us.

Care to give examples?

[Rob Wilson]

Alright, Rob, how about this, since you think the idea of having individual states with different laws reflecting the ideas of the local majorities is "stupid", YOU come up with a legal code that's satisfactory to 280 million people without trampling on the rights of minorities (ethnic, social, political, or otherwise).

Democracy. Next. (incidently, would you care to prove that Minorites don't hav thier rights trampled under the State system as is?)

Under your system, 50.1% of the population could decide to implement policies that 49.9% absolutely despise, and the minority could do nothing but suck it up.

Or they could live with the fact, that that is what the majority in thier country want. Or are you saying this never happens in the States right now? The States have no minority that is unhappy with what majority rule has lumped them with?

You think it's ludicrous to expect people to move from state to state if they hate state policies, what about a system where there isn't someplace else to go because the laws are the same everywhere? What's a New Yorker supposed to do if southern Bible-thumpers take control of the majority party in the Federal government and start imposing strict cultural conseratism on Manhattan liberals? Emigrate to Canada?

Why not, it worked in the Draft.

Now for the non-facetious answer, there's this thing about any democracy (or system of elected officials -at all levels) where you get a minority that are unhappy with the way things are. They work within the system to get things changed, same sex marriage is legal in the UK for instance, because a minority successfully lobbied for it, and got national law changed in the face of puritanical obstruction and protest. Your Government becomes a reflection of the way the voters think, you want a better government,start with education and work your way up from there (so you get no more of this 'should they allow evolution in class rooms' nonsense that is happening due to State-level laws). It should be that there are places in all States, where you can find like minded people and thinkers and are happy with, not one State for Liberals and one for Gun-lovers.

So far, other than the risk that individual states will abuse the rights of minorities (which they're legally not allowed to do according to the 14th Amendment and most individual state constitutions) and bureaucratic waste from duplication of government functions, you haven't given any reason why your system is better than ours other than that you think it's "stupid".

you don't think that abusing the rights of minorities (which does happen under State Laws) and the huge expense of Bureacratic duplication are enough? The fact that laws vary from State to State, so that your legal to drink in one, but illiegal in another, doesn't show how daft the system is?

I contend this is a country where parts of CITIES try to break away and become independent towns because they feel like the majority is riding roughshod over their rights, and you propose that the entire country ought to have the exact same laws on all issues, irregardless of the cultural differences between people, states, and regions in the United States.

You don't seem to realise how fragmentd that makes America sound, 'Don't like something, then ignore it and make up your own laws/State/City/Town', what next, Laws determined by household!? (and yes that's an exaggeration for effect).
Is it Legal to persecute another man because of his skin colour? Can you discriminate against someone for their religious Beliefs? Is it legal to falsify Documents? Is it Legal to Counterfeit Currency? No it isn't, and all of thse are Federal Laws that everyone has to abide by regardless of the State and affect everyones conduct, yet noone seems to be complaining about that. Gosh, could those be but a handful of legitimate examples of how a Governemtn can impose the rule of law across the entire nation without that nation having been destroyed? Why yes it is, and yet you seem to believe that such a thing cannot possibly happen in the USA, why?

[Joe]

Thirteen colonies under one rule, British Governance ad Laws, so your point would be?

They were separate entities despite being ruled by Britain. They had their own laws. By your logic Canada and the colonies were the same entity as well, being ruled by Britain. Furthermore, Britain did not think of the thirteen colonies as one unified holding either; they granted each colony their own separate charter.

You've done it again, you're first point tries to say the Colonies weren't under one rule, then this one starts by acknowledging that they were under one rule. Consistancy is admirable, but in your arguement, not argument style.

How can you possibly derive that from what I said? I didn't say they weren't under one rule, I said they were separate entities. Just because governments are separate doesn't mean they can't be ruled by the same larger government.

And you still have to rewrite the laws to make up for it. As to Voting out a tyrant, yes that is indeed very hard to do, so allow me to introduce you to democracy, where in you very rarely get tyrants, as thy are voted out if they get too big for their boots. Amazing how, Britain, a democracy, hasn't fallen prey to a tyrant despite having a strong central government that sets the Crime and Punishment Laws, and County Councils that only set County level laws for Administration and such. Damn if only there was some way I could point you to other examples of Democracy not producing tyrants (Canada, France, Switzerland, Belgium, IcelandEvery Democracy in the past 100 years or so). So I'm wondering just what your evidence for calling it Garbage is?

May I point at to you that Britain is a SMALL country? America is fucking huge. Britain isn't going to have the same problems with having one central ruling body as America will.

As for democracy not producing tyrants? Hitler was elected. Allende was elected. Saddam Hussein was elected. Athens is considered to be the world's first democracy, but ultimately it ended up producing tyrants. The Roman Empire was semi-democratic and also ended up producing tyrants as well. John Adams on democracy: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Which was true at the time.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thank you so much for the good lauhg, I needed it. So The government can't set a national law on the punishment for say Murder, because it doesn't know how someone in Mass. feels about it? Do you have any idea how fucked up that notion is? Governments in Democracies have been happily setting forth Crime and Punishment Laws for their entire nations for centuries, and no ones had any problem with it.
How much more in touch with what you want is your State Govenor, than say your Congressman? Don't they both come from your State? Isn't your Congressman there to ensure your State is represented in the formation of Laws?

Why the fuck does it NEED to do so? No state has at any point in the history of the Union attempted to legalize murder!

And hey, I'm NOT angry about the fact that government sets forth laws concerning crime and punishment, I'm saying there is no need for the federal government to involve itself in a task that the states are completely up to. That's the way the Founders intended it; they realized that the federal government would never need to legislate in regards to common crimes, because the states had historically handled that task, even when they were colonies. And what Red said; if you can create a body of law that is completely suitable for the extremely large, extremely diverse American populace, than be my guest.

For now, but say the Government decides to introduce a Nationwide policy, that certain States don't agree with, what then?

I'm sorry. I'm not here to give you a history lesson.

And you don't realise how that vindicates my argument, while showing everything that's wrong with yours? If there had been a strong Federal Government able to pass and enforce it's laws, then the Slaves wouldn't have had to leave the South in the First place, as they would have been freed. Instead, the South said fuck you and went to war with it's own Government for something as hateful as the right to own and exploit other human beings.
Most countries have Civil war to get rid of an oppressive government, you managed to have one to get rid of an enlighted government. All because the Southern States refused to accept a Federal law.

No, if anything that proves that strong federal power is NOT always going to be the correct solution to problems. The fact that the federal government failed to act to protect the rights of minorities for over 100 years is proof of that. But the great thing about federalism is that if you're being oppressed and the federal government fails to protect you, you can move to another state to escape local tyranny.

And an "enlightened government?" You're calling the government that passed the Fugitive Slave Law and carried out the Indian Removal DESPITE a court order not to do so "enlightened?"

Yes, when Southern States refused to listen to Federal Law, and caused the deaths of thousands over something that couldn't have happened if there had been a Strong central Government that could properly enforce its laws at the time.

Bullshit. The South was going to secede and rebel no matter what the government did. Thousands of lives would have still been lost.

I had to go for the nearest colloquialism as I couldn't use Patriotism in there as I was refering to State over nation. Sorry for any misunderstanding there. And I've only really used interstate rivalry as a symptom not the disease here.

There is no symptom. Interstate rivalry is not a problem in America.

Care to give examples?

Canada has similar problems. Quebec, for example; clearly pushing their own interests at the expense of the whole nation.

Democracy. Next. (incidently, would you care to prove that Minorites don't hav thier rights trampled under the State system as is?)

They don't, not anymore, because they can go to the federal government and have them take care of the problem.

You don't seem to realise how fragmentd that makes America sound, 'Don't like something, then ignore it and make up your own laws/State/City/Town', what next, Laws determined by household!? (and yes that's an exaggeration for effect).

Slip slidin' down the slippery slope.

Is it Legal to persecute another man because of his skin colour? Can you discriminate against someone for their religious Beliefs? Is it legal to falsify Documents? Is it Legal to Counterfeit Currency? No it isn't, and all of thse are Federal Laws that everyone has to abide by regardless of the State and affect everyones conduct, yet noone seems to be complaining about that. Gosh, could those be but a handful of legitimate examples of how a Governemtn can impose the rule of law across the entire nation without that nation having been destroyed? Why yes it is, and yet you seem to believe that such a thing cannot possibly happen in the USA, why?

Wow, thank you for completely distorting what myself and Red have been trying to say. At no point have we argued that federal law is illegitimate; we have been saying that there are certain matters in which it is indeed the responsibility of the federal government to legislate. All we have been trying to say is that the federal government doesn't have to do EVERYTHING; the states are more up to the task of dealing with their own populace in most matters.

[Patrick Degan]

A few observations are in order:

As to Voting out a tyrant, yes that is indeed very hard to do, so allow me to introduce you to democracy, where in you very rarely get tyrants, as thy are voted out if they get too big for their boots.

Hmm... Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Hitler, a tyrant who was voted into power and who couldn't quite be voted out afterward. For all its virtues, Democracy is not a rock-solid guarantee against the rise of tyrants.

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?

Why bother to run the entire criminal justice system from the center of the country when the states are already doing a fine job? It will be more costly, and the national government is not going to be as in touch with the needs of localities as state governments are.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thank you so much for the good lauhg, I needed it. So The government can't set a national law on the punishment for say Murder, because it doesn't know how someone in Mass. feels about it? Do you have any idea how fucked up that notion is? Governments in Democracies have been happily setting forth Crime and Punishment Laws for their entire nations for centuries, and no ones had any problem with it.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing the adverse effects of the position you seem to advocate in the form of the effective Federalisation of the drug laws here in the United States. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion has been just about destroyed in drug cases and now even the most innocous possession of a small amount of marijuhana can land you in 'chokey for five years. One reason why our prisons are filling up with relatively minor criminals taking up the spaces where rapists and murderers belong. The Prison Crisis is in large measure the result of usurpation of state power in this area.

If there had been a strong Federal Government able to pass and enforce it's laws, then the Slaves wouldn't have had to leave the South in the First place, as they would have been freed. Instead, the South said fuck you and went to war with it's own Government for something as hateful as the right to own and exploit other human beings.

Most countries have Civil War to get rid of an oppressive government, you managed to have one to get rid of an enlighted government. All because the Southern States refused to accept a Federal law....when Southern States refused to listen to Federal Law, and caused the deaths of thousands over something that couldn't have happened if there had been a Strong central Government that could properly enforce its laws at the time.

A matter of historical perspective: the "strong Central government" which existed at the time of the Civil War did not challenge the constitutional legality of slavery for three and a half years into the conflict. Indeed, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, the Lincoln Administration did not name the destruction of chattel slavery as an object of Federal policy. The famous Emancipation Proclamation did not mandate nationwide emancipation of slaves and did nothing to liberate slaves in states and regions remaining under Federal control. Slavery remained perfectly legal in Kentucky, Deleware, Indiana, and Ohio until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865. The amendment was not even proposed before January of that year, as the Confederacy was already going down to defeat.

[RedImperator]

Democracy. Next. (incidently, would you care to prove that Minorites don't hav thier rights trampled under the State system as is?)

The last time I checked, this was a republic. Federalism was designed to protect the rights of minorities from the whims of the majority. That's not just ethnic minorities, by the way--cultural and political minorities are protected, too. Now, if states are restricting the rights of citizens within their borders, then they're in violation of the constitution. Similarly, the Federal government has violated the First Amendment with the DMCA's restrictions on sharing information about copy protection decryption, and the Eighth Amendment by throwing tens of thousands of nonviolent drug offenders into prison. Neither level of government has clean hands. The difference is, minorities have the abilitiy to leave states whose policies they find oppressive or simply don't agree with, and the Federal court system is more likely to strike down an oppressive state law than a Federal one.

Under your system, 50.1% of the population could decide to implement policies that 49.9% absolutely despise, and the minority could do nothing but suck it up.

Or they could live with the fact, that that is what the majority in thier country want. Or are you saying this never happens in the States right now? The States have no minority that is unhappy with what majority rule has lumped them with?

Nice strawman. I say your system would allow the majority to trample the rights of an enormous minority--144,646,387 people, or two and a half times the entire population of your country, if I recall correctly--and you respond with, "So minorities within states are never unhappy with the majority's decision?" Of course minorities within states are unhappy with decisions made by the majority--the difference is, within a state you're less likely to have the yawning cultural gaps that exist between regions in the United States that would create huge minorities bitterly opposed to national policy (it's the difference between Los Angeles and Tulsa versus the difference between Tulsa and Oklahoma City), and if they're unhappy enough about it, they can leave (and despite your assertions that this is some horribly traumatic or difficult thing to do, it happens all the time, such as during the great black migrations north at the turn of the century or the current movement of northeasterners fed up with high taxes and intrusive government policies to the south and southwest).

And frankly, "they have to live with it because the majority wants it" is pure bullshit, and contradicts your own arguments about protecting the rights of minorities. At various times in this country's history, the majority has been in favor of slavery, segregation, banning the teaching of evolution, locking up leftists, anarchists, and other such dissenters, tossing American citizens of Japanese descent into internment camps, barring all immigration, and restricted rights for Arab-Americans. As I said before, there's a reason we're a republic and not a democracy. Democracy equals the rule of the mob.

You think it's ludicrous to expect people to move from state to state if they hate state policies, what about a system where there isn't someplace else to go because the laws are the same everywhere? What's a New Yorker supposed to do if southern Bible-thumpers take control of the majority party in the Federal government and start imposing strict cultural conseratism on Manhattan liberals? Emigrate to Canada?

Why not, it worked in the Draft.

Now for the non-facetious answer, there's this thing about any democracy (or system of elected officials -at all levels) where you get a minority that are unhappy with the way things are. They work within the system to get things changed, same sex marriage is legal in the UK for instance, because a minority successfully lobbied for it, and got national law changed in the face of puritanical obstruction and protest. Your Government becomes a reflection of the way the voters think, you want a better government,start with education and work your way up from there (so you get no more of this 'should they allow evolution in class rooms' nonsense that is happening due to State-level laws). It should be that there are places in all States, where you can find like minded people and thinkers and are happy with, not one State for Liberals and one for Gun-lovers.

But I thought minorities were supposed to roll over and accept whatever the majority imposed on them. Majority rules, remember?

So tell me, which government would be easier to lobby for changes? A national government represnting 280+ million people, or a state government representing 10 million people? Abolitionists were a minority in the 19th century nationwide, but represented significant enough power blocs within states to outlaw slavery in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New Hampshire, where slavery had been legal during colonial days. In the meantime, it took a 4 year war, 600,000 dead, and billions of dollars to get the national government into a political position where it could outlaw slavery, and in order to get the 13th Amendment passed, Congress had to force the southern states to ratify it before they could reenter the union. Right now, in this country, the Federal government, that bastion of civil liberties, has a law on the books called the Defense of Marriage Act, which outlaws gay marriage. In the meantime, the state of Hawaii, oppressive as it is, has said a big fuck you to the feds and legalized it. The feds have got their titties in a twist over marijuana so badly that they refuse to let glaucoma and cancer patients smoke it to relieve their symptoms. Arizona and California have told it to piss off and refuse to cooperate with federal agents. You'll probably tell me how "daft" this is, because heavens knows, if the federal government says "THIS is how it ought to be", there can't be any room for dissent.

So far, other than the risk that individual states will abuse the rights of minorities (which they're legally not allowed to do according to the 14th Amendment and most individual state constitutions) and bureaucratic waste from duplication of government functions, you haven't given any reason why your system is better than ours other than that you think it's "stupid".

you don't think that abusing the rights of minorities (which does happen under State Laws) and the huge expense of Bureacratic duplication are enough? The fact that laws vary from State to State, so that your legal to drink in one, but illiegal in another, doesn't show how daft the system is?

Did you miss the part where I said it was illegal to abuse the rights of minorities? You're not American, so I don't expect you to be a Constitutional scholar, but how many Goddamned times do I have to tell you that the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well thanks to the 14th Amendment?

The fact that laws vary from state to state DON'T tell me that the system is "daft", as you put it. It tells me that the people of different states have different ideas about how things should be, and it's worth the inconvenience and inefficency to let the states run things the way they think is right (within constitutional limits). There's NO REASON to impose some monolithic Federal government on 280 million people just because other countries do it that way.

I contend this is a country where parts of CITIES try to break away and become independent towns because they feel like the majority is riding roughshod over their rights, and you propose that the entire country ought to have the exact same laws on all issues, irregardless of the cultural differences between people, states, and regions in the United States.

You don't seem to realise how fragmentd that makes America sound, 'Don't like something, then ignore it and make up your own laws/State/City/Town', what next, Laws determined by household!? (and yes that's an exaggeration for effect).

You totally missed the point of my argument. If the citizens of the San Fernando Valley can get so pissed off at the city government of Los Angeles that a majority of them could vote to secede from that city, what does that say for the ability of the central government to cococt laws that are satisfactory to the whole population (not 100% of the people, mind you, but enough so that you don't have large, angry minorities causing all sorts of trouble).

Is it Legal to persecute another man because of his skin colour? Can you discriminate against someone for their religious Beliefs? Is it legal to falsify Documents? Is it Legal to Counterfeit Currency? No it isn't, and all of thse are Federal Laws that everyone has to abide by regardless of the State and affect everyones conduct, yet noone seems to be complaining about that. Gosh, could those be but a handful of legitimate examples of how a Governemtn can impose the rule of law across the entire nation without that nation having been destroyed? Why yes it is, and yet you seem to believe that such a thing cannot possibly happen in the USA, why?

Well, you sure beat the stuffing out of that strawman, didn't you? Next time you could address the arguments that Durran and I actually made. The Federal governent has legitimate jurisdiction over a number of areas, and for the third time now, I'll point out that the Federal Bill of Rights applies to the states. While we're on logical fallacies, let's try examine your false dilemma: either the states run everything in a barely-united confederation and merrily trample the rights of whatever minority is unpopular at the moment, or a monolithic central government imposes a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem from Washington irregardless of local differences. Or, we could look at the way the Framers solved the problem, which has worked for 225 years, gives the Federal governement jurisdiction over problems that cannot be solved by individual states and les the states handle their own affairs, and is found to be satisfactory by most Americans.

[Lonestar]

From what I've read they filmed the Battle of Antietam but cut it out because of the length of the movie. Supposedly it will be on the DVD in some form or another. It was the major section of the movie that Jeff Daniel's character was supposed to be in. Perhaps that section would even out the viewpoints a little?

It might, but it still left out Winfeld Scott Hancock (to anything more than a bit player). So, we had Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Joshua Lawerance Chamberlain.

Bear in mind, at the time of the Civil War the north outweigh the South in almost all aspects 2-1. (The South had the North beat on donkey-breeding, though). And we aren't even giving equal time to both sides!

Rob Wilson

I Think that the Federal System is a great system for this country, created by some of the best minds North America had at the time. America is just too honkin' big to go any other way.

I also likew the electoral system because it kept Gore out.

[Rob Wilson]

Thirteen colonies under one rule, British Governance ad Laws, so your point would be?

They were separate entities despite being ruled by Britain. They had their own laws. By your logic Canada and the colonies were the same entity as well, being ruled by Britain. Furthermore, Britain did not think of the thirteen colonies as one unified holding either; they granted each colony their own separate charter.

Allow me to introduce you to a little something called the Declaratory act of 1766, in which the British Parliament asserted its "full power and authority" to make any laws it wishes concerning the American colonies. So whaty do you know I was right and you get another piece of research and you're countries history wrong. Have you ever considered researching your arguements before posting? *looks down at the rest of your post* apparently not.

You've done it again, you're first point tries to say the Colonies weren't under one rule, then this one starts by acknowledging that they were under one rule. Consistancy is admirable, but in your arguement, not argument style.

How can you possibly derive that from what I said?

Well it would be easier to notice and follow if you didn't keep removing your own statements to which I'm refering, it's called maintaining context. here then is wht you said and what i was refering to "And this is America; the American Revolution, in many ways, was a Revolution that was carried out in spite of the institution of government" this despite your false assertion that America wasn't under one rule (how do you have a revolution that involves all the colonies if they don't all have the same thing to revolt against?)

I didn't say they weren't under one rule, I said they were separate entities.

Then why are you so strenuosly objecting to my correctly stating they were under one rule? Also after 1766 all American colonies were regarded under British law as one entity, so your wrong again anyway.

Just because governments are separate doesn't mean they can't be ruled by the same larger government.

Yep, because that worked so well for Rome... oh wait, that's not a good thing for your arguement, you beter hope no one else is daft enough to bring up Rome in this debate as it shows all the weaknesses of the model your trying to defend *looks down* oh dear, you are a silly boy aren't you.

And you still have to rewrite the laws to make up for it. As to Voting out a tyrant, yes that is indeed very hard to do, so allow me to introduce you to democracy, where in you very rarely get tyrants, as thy are voted out if they get too big for their boots. Amazing how, Britain, a democracy, hasn't fallen prey to a tyrant despite having a strong central government that sets the Crime and Punishment Laws, and County Councils that only set County level laws for Administration and such. Damn if only there was some way I could point you to other examples of Democracy not producing tyrants (Canada, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Iceland, Every Democracy in the past 100 years or so). So I'm wondering just what your evidence for calling it Garbage is?

May I point at to you that Britain is a SMALL country? America is fucking huge. Britain isn't going to have the same problems with having one central ruling body as America will.

Yes you may, and I'll point out that Geographyy makes not a blind bit of difference to the matter at hand. How does the size of the country stop the government making effective laws, especially these days with modern transport and communication?

As for democracy not producing tyrants? Hitler was elected.

In a Federal Republic, made of a collection of Self-governing Landers (states) and a Government that didn't decide on local matters... hey that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Allende was elected.

And his first year seemed to go well, his mishandling of the economy meant that in the next elections he would have been voted out (showing that democracy would work), however A US funded military Coup by Pinochet put paid to that (Thanks America) and the only Democracy in Latin America was stamped out in 1973.

Saddam Hussein was elected.

Holy fucking shit! You are really stretching if you're trying to claim that Iraq had a real democracy and that Saddam was fairly elected! He was a Dictator that used his position of power to ensure that the votes went his way. That's just weak.

Athens is considered to be the world's first democracy, but ultimately it ended up producing tyrants.

No, Athens was the place in which the ideals of democracy were first espoused in modern history, but it was itself nothing like a democracy (it had slaves, and only a very select few could vote.) Indeed, Greece was a Republic, with many smaller states (self-governing) and a central capital (Athens)... hey would you look at that, another Republic that you admit produced tyrants. Wow, you just keep destroying your own arguement for me, it's so much easier this way.

The Roman Empire was semi-democratic and also ended up producing tyrants as well.

Actually, Rome was a Republic, with a collection of Self-governing States that had a central capital, Rome. And yes that model of government produced the line of tyrants that all others aspire to be, the Caesars! Thank you for once more demonstrating that throughout history your political model has consistantly produced tyrants and Emperor's, not stopped them.

John Adams on democracy: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

That would have been a valid point, if you could have produced any evidence to back it up. Score to date in your examples: Republics with self-governing states to produce historcally famous tyrants = 3, Tyrants using Mock elections for legitamacy = 1, Democracies being destroyed by outside influences much larger than themselves = 1, Democracies that produce tyrants = 0

So once more, what is your proof that it is garbage to claim that Democracies are effective at stopping the creation of tyrants? So far all you've proved is that the Federal model you are trying to defend has produced some of histories most famous tyrants. Well done.

Which was true at the time.

you have yet to produce a single shred of proof that it has ever been true.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thank you so much for the good lauhg, I needed it. So The government can't set a national law on the punishment for say Murder, because it doesn't know how someone in Mass. feels about it? Do you have any idea how fucked up that notion is? Governments in Democracies have been happily setting forth Crime and Punishment Laws for their entire nations for centuries, and no ones had any problem with it.
How much more in touch with what you want is your State Govenor, than say your Congressman? Don't they both come from your State? Isn't your Congressman there to ensure your State is represented in the formation of Laws?

Why the fuck does it NEED to do so? No state has at any point in the history of the Union attempted to legalize murder!

Have you ever considered answering the point raised? That it is falacious to say that your State government is better suited to making Criminal laws, rather than the Federal Government.

And hey, I'm NOT angry about the fact that government sets forth laws concerning crime and punishment, I'm saying there is no need for the federal government to involve itself in a task that the states are completely up to. That's the way the Founders intended it; they realized that the federal government would never need to legislate in regards to common crimes, because the states had historically handled that task, even when they were colonies. And what Red said; if you can create a body of law that is completely suitable for the extremely large, extremely diverse American populace, than be my guest.

I already did, and how does having the Federal Government set Criminal laws for the entire United States become "unsuitable"?

For now, but say the Government decides to introduce a Nationwide policy, that certain States don't agree with, what then?

I'm sorry. I'm not here to give you a history lesson.

Damn am I ever glad to hear that, considering how wide of the mark you've been on history so far in the debate. I'd hate to think you should ever give a history lesson.

Now that's out the way, how about you answer the question this time (or do you plan to snip and ignore it?)

And you don't realise how that vindicates my argument, while showing everything that's wrong with yours? If there had been a strong Federal Government able to pass and enforce it's laws, then the Slaves wouldn't have had to leave the South in the First place, as they would have been freed. Instead, the South said fuck you and went to war with it's own Government for something as hateful as the right to own and exploit other human beings.
Most countries have Civil war to get rid of an oppressive government, you managed to have one to get rid of an enlighted government. All because the Southern States refused to accept a Federal law.

No, if anything that proves that strong federal power is NOT always going to be the correct solution to problems.

What strng federal power? It's the same system you have today and it failed spectacularly to enforce a law, that being the point I've been making. Your present Political model allowed a civil war to explode because your government couldn't enforce it's laws and the individual States took umbrage at it's attempt to (aside from the economic reasons as well).

The fact that the federal government failed to act to protect the rights of minorities for over 100 years is proof of that. But the great thing about federalism is that if you're being oppressed and the federal government fails to protect you, you can move to another state to escape local tyranny.

A local tyranny that wouldn't exist if you weren't in a federal systm in the first place! Like to show me a modern, true democracy where there are Oppressed people, suffering at the hands of the government in the same way Slaves were suffering in the Southern States?

And an "enlightened government?" You're calling the government that passed the Fugitive Slave Law and carried out the Indian Removal DESPITE a court order not to do so "enlightened?"

And yet it still made the Emancipation proclamation and freed the Slaves, Something the Southern States objected to. Also the inherent problems with the Government of the times is yet another inditement against your arguement that the Federal System is good, not my arguement against it.

Yes, when Southern States refused to listen to Federal Law, and caused the deaths of thousands over something that couldn't have happened if there had been a Strong central Government that could properly enforce its laws at the time.

Bullshit. The South was going to secede and rebel no matter what the government did. Thousands of lives would have still been lost.

Because the system of Government allowed it. So thank you for reinforcing my point there.

I had to go for the nearest colloquialism as I couldn't use Patriotism in there as I was refering to State over nation. Sorry for any misunderstanding there. And I've only really used interstate rivalry as a symptom not the disease here.

There is no symptom. Interstate rivalry is not a problem in America.

So there is no such thing as Inter-state rivalry (I'll remind you, before you reply, that I've travelled through the States and have seen it for myself), and the fact it exists is a symptom of the problems inherenet in the System of government exercised in the States.

Care to give examples?

Canada has similar problems. Quebec, for example; clearly pushing their own interests at the expense of the whole nation.

And squashed by a strong central government. So that it doesn't actually effect the National concerns.

Democracy. Next. (incidently, would you care to prove that Minorites don't hav thier rights trampled under the State system as is?)

They don't, not anymore, because they can go to the federal government and have them take care of the problem.

Surely if the State government model is so necessary and correct, they should go to that? Now about your assertions that Minorities don't get their rghts trampled under the State system - Gay marriages, are they legal in all States? ESL and non-English speakers have education systems to aid them in speaking English in all States? Religious fredom is the Same across all States is it?

You don't seem to realise how fragmentd that makes America sound, 'Don't like something, then ignore it and make up your own laws/State/City/Town', what next, Laws determined by household!? (and yes that's an exaggeration for effect).

Slip slidin' down the slippery slope.

Your that desperate for a point in this? I acknowledge I'm exagerrating for effect and you try to claim a slippery slope fallacy (in a post to another User at that)? OK, now show how it wasn't a natural progression of Imperator's arguement (sections of cities trying to establish their own rule independant of that city)? Lets see you back up your assertion.

Is it Legal to persecute another man because of his skin colour? Can you discriminate against someone for their religious Beliefs? Is it legal to falsify Documents? Is it Legal to Counterfeit Currency? No it isn't, and all of thse are Federal Laws that everyone has to abide by regardless of the State and affect everyones conduct, yet noone seems to be complaining about that. Gosh, could those be but a handful of legitimate examples of how a Governemtn can impose the rule of law across the entire nation without that nation having been destroyed? Why yes it is, and yet you seem to believe that such a thing cannot possibly happen in the USA, why?

Wow, thank you for completely distorting what myself and Red have been trying to say. At no point have we argued that federal law is illegitimate; we have been saying that there are certain matters in which it is indeed the responsibility of the federal government to legislate. All we have been trying to say is that the federal government doesn't have to do EVERYTHING; the states are more up to the task of dealing with their own populace in most matters.

My assertion was that the Federal government should make all Criminal laws, Imperator is th one that ditorted that to "the exact same laws on all issues", and my examples were to show that contrary to Imperators assertion, the Federal Government is more than capable of pssing laws that affect everyone, without having to be State generated. It also shows the fallacy of your assertion that fro law to be effective you need it to be passed by State government as they are more in tune with the needs of the populace.
Also it should be noted that I'm saying the Federal Goverenment should pass Laws on Crime and Punishment, not "EVERYTHING", so you are guilty of Distorting my arguement , not the other way round!

[Rob Wilson]

Rob Wilson

I Think that the Federal System is a great system for this country, created by some of the best minds North America had at the time. America is just too honkin' big to go any other way.

It was too big at the time, that's not a problem any more. It's amazing how my stated opinion that it seems insane to me, has produced so much debating fun. If only someone would post something correct as a refutation it could end, instead all I'm getting is huge flawed arguments and incorrect historical info. I'll state here, that I have nothing against the American system, so far I've just had fun poking holes in the replies made and the logic they're trying to use in defence of those arguments.
It should also be noted, that I'm replying to an opinion here, and look, no debate.

I also likew the electoral system because it kept Gore out.

But it let Shrub in!

[Durandal]

I also likew the electoral system because it kept Gore out.

The electoral college is simply disastrous. Hell, the way the electoral vote system goes is entirely fucked up. It's winner-take-all. If a candidate wins a state, then it effectively nullifies all the votes of the people who didn't vote for him! What do you think I told people in Illinois who voted for Shrub and were all happy that that fuckwit was president? "Your vote didn't count, so fuck off." The electoral votes should be divided up based on the number of people who voted for each candidate.

The only reason the electoral vote system exists is because everyone was afraid that candidates wouldn't campaign in smaller states if it was pure majority vote. I see no problem with that; fuck the smaller states. They get 1 electoral vote a piece anyway; what difference does it make? Going by a simple popular vote is the most logical, straightforward way to do it. The fact that Gore lost and more voters wanted him to be president is still mind-boggling.

[Rob Wilson]

A few observations are in order:

As to Voting out a tyrant, yes that is indeed very hard to do, so allow me to introduce you to democracy, where in you very rarely get tyrants, as thy are voted out if they get too big for their boots.

Hmm... Allow me to introduce you to Mr. Hitler, a tyrant who was voted into power and who couldn't quite be voted out afterward. For all its virtues, Democracy is not a rock-solid guarantee against the rise of tyrants.

Hitler came to power during the Weimar republic, a Federal Republic, with self-governing Lander (states), sound familiar?

Why does everyone make this mistake? The Weimar Republic was famously modelled on the US government, yet everyone that raises it here is trying to use it to show that the US model can't produce tyrants.

You are shooting yourselves in the feet here guys, Rome, Early Greece, Wiemar Republic, they are all republics with self-governing states that produced tyrants, stop bringing them up it makes you all look silly (and yes Patrick I know you only brought up Hitler, but I'm taking the opportunity to speak to everyone in the debate - sorry to hi-jack your post like that )

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?

Why bother to run the entire criminal justice system from the center of the country when the states are already doing a fine job? It will be more costly, and the national government is not going to be as in touch with the needs of localities as state governments are.

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, thank you so much for the good lauhg, I needed it. So The government can't set a national law on the punishment for say Murder, because it doesn't know how someone in Mass. feels about it? Do you have any idea how fucked up that notion is? Governments in Democracies have been happily setting forth Crime and Punishment Laws for their entire nations for centuries, and no ones had any problem with it.

Unfortunately, we are already seeing the adverse effects of the position you seem to advocate in the form of the effective Federalisation of the drug laws here in the United States. Prosecutorial and judicial discretion has been just about destroyed in drug cases and now even the most innocous possession of a small amount of marijuhana can land you in 'chokey for five years. One reason why our prisons are filling up with relatively minor criminals taking up the spaces where rapists and murderers belong. The Prison Crisis is in large measure the result of usurpation of state power in this area.

Finally a valid point, thanks Patrick. I'll just rain on your parade, however, by asking if State Courts have ever filled the prisons with petty criminals? We both know they have and so that's not a Federal government only problem. Also having them take over all Criminal Laws would still see Rapist and Murders in prison and free up Local funds for things other than State duplication of what should be a Federal concern.

If there had been a strong Federal Government able to pass and enforce it's laws, then the Slaves wouldn't have had to leave the South in the First place, as they would have been freed. Instead, the South said fuck you and went to war with it's own Government for something as hateful as the right to own and exploit other human beings.

Most countries have Civil War to get rid of an oppressive government, you managed to have one to get rid of an enlighted government. All because the Southern States refused to accept a Federal law....when Southern States refused to listen to Federal Law, and caused the deaths of thousands over something that couldn't have happened if there had been a Strong central Government that could properly enforce its laws at the time.

A matter of historical perspective: the "strong Central government" which existed at the time of the Civil War did not challenge the constitutional legality of slavery for three and a half years into the conflict. Indeed, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, the Lincoln Administration did not name the destruction of chattel slavery as an object of Federal policy. The famous Emancipation Proclamation did not mandate nationwide emancipation of slaves and did nothing to liberate slaves in states and regions remaining under Federal control. Slavery remained perfectly legal in Kentucky, Deleware, Indiana, and Ohio until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865. The amendment was not even proposed before January of that year, as the Confederacy was already going down to defeat.

This would be another strong point, and well made. Except I said there WASN'T a strong central government. Your arguing against something I didn't say. Don't let that put you off retackling it though (especially if you reapply the valid points in the last few sentences), at least your providing research and thought in your debate.

[RedImperator]

Allow me to introduce you to a little something called the Declaratory act of 1766, in which the British Parliament asserted its "full power and authority" to make any laws it wishes concerning the American colonies. So whaty do you know I was right and you get another piece of research and you're countries history wrong. Have you ever considered researching your arguements before posting? *looks down at the rest of your post* apparently not.

So the government in London, against which the colonists were in rebellion, asserted central authority over the colonies. In the meantime, the COLONIAL government consisted of the colonial legislatures and. after the declaration, a weak Continental Congress (modeled on the Articles of Confederation, though they weren't ratified until after the war) that had to beg the colonies for money to support the war effort. In the five years between Yorktown and the adoption of the Constitution, the states were considered 13 sovereign nations that happened to be loosely allied and maintained joint control of the trans-Appalachian interior of North America (AFTER several states, notably Virginia, ceded their claims to Congress). They even came close to war with each other several times. America was in no way united as a single nation until 1788. You can stop celebrating your superior research now.

[Joe]

Allow me to introduce you to a little something called the Declaratory act of 1766, in which the British Parliament asserted its "full power and authority" to make any laws it wishes concerning the American colonies. So whaty do you know I was right and you get another piece of research and you're countries history wrong. Have you ever considered researching your arguements before posting? *looks down at the rest of your post* apparently not.

Indeed? Allow me to introduce you to a period of history entitled pre-1766, where the colonies were each granted a great deal of latitude in governing their own affairs separately from the crown. Even though the British government technically had control over the colonies, it rarely used this power extensively; the Privy Council rarely overturned colonial laws, and up until the 1760s the various regulations concerning the states were enforced relatively loosely.

Well it would be easier to notice and follow if you didn't keep removing your own statements to which I'm refering, it's called maintaining context. here then is wht you said and what i was refering to "And this is America; the American Revolution, in many ways, was a Revolution that was carried out in spite of the institution of government" this despite your false assertion that America wasn't under one rule (how do you have a revolution that involves all the colonies if they don't all have the same thing to revolt against?)

FYI, I am removing my posts to prevent the formatting from getting fucked up. Secondly, I NEVER implied that the colonies were under one rule; all I said was that they were seperate ENTITIES under the same rule. But you seem to have erected a considerable wall of ignorance in this area, so I give up.

Then why are you so strenuosly objecting to my correctly stating they were under one rule? Also after 1766 all American colonies were regarded under British law as one entity, so your wrong again anyway.

YOU are COMPLETELY missing my point! There are different layers of government; at the local level, each colony was governed by its own government separate from one anothe; at the higher level, they were all ruled (technically) by the British government. But the British government never really intervened in the domestic affairs of the colonies heavily, until the 1760s. And it doesn't fucking matter that Britain changed its mind in 1766; for the VAST majority of the history of the thirteen colonies, Britain considered the colonies to be separate entities.

Yep, because that worked so well for Rome... oh wait, that's not a good thing for your arguement, you beter hope no one else is daft enough to bring up Rome in this debate as it shows all the weaknesses of the model your trying to defend *looks down* oh dear, you are a silly boy aren't you.

Rome fucked up because its central government overextended itself trying to exercise too strong of a rule over such extensive territory. That does not weaken my case, it weakens yours.

Yes you may, and I'll point out that Geographyy makes not a blind bit of difference to the matter at hand. How does the size of the country stop the government making effective laws, especially these days with modern transport and communication?

I'm sorry, I can't help you if you honestly believe that one single unified code of law is going to be suitable for a country as vast and diverse as America. Myself, Patrick, and Red have all provided examples as to why it is not. Read Patrick Degan's post on drug policy.

In a Federal Republic, made of a collection of Self-governing Landers (states) and a Government that didn't decide on local matters... hey that sounds familiar doesn't it?

Comparing the two-decade old Weimar Republic to America, a country that has a strong history of federalism, is a completely unfair comparison. Germany had no tradition of republican government at the time; it was inevitable that the Weimar Republic would not last long. Furthermore, Germany today has a Federal Republic.

Holy fucking shit! You are really stretching if you're trying to claim that Iraq had a real democracy and that Saddam was fairly elected! He was a Dictator that used his position of power to ensure that the votes went his way. That's just weak.

It's not a stretch. The illusion of democracy was there. You however, are stretching by holding the Weimar Republic to be typical of the behavior of other Republics.

No, Athens was the place in which the ideals of democracy were first espoused in modern history, but it was itself nothing like a democracy (it had slaves, and only a very select few could vote.) Indeed, Greece was a Republic, with many smaller states (self-governing) and a central capital (Athens)... hey would you look at that, another Republic that you admit produced tyrants. Wow, you just keep destroying your own arguement for me, it's so much easier this way.

Actually, Rome was a Republic, with a collection of Self-governing States that had a central capital, Rome. And yes that model of government produced the line of tyrants that all others aspire to be, the Caesars! Thank you for once more demonstrating that throughout history your political model has consistantly produced tyrants and Emperor's, not stopped them.

These were the most democratic societies in world history at the time, even if they weren't pure, they were still experiments, and they failed. And as for our democracy which you are so sure will prevent tyranny; well, it's too soon to tell. History's verdict isn't in on 20th century democracy yet. This is the same rationalization Marxists use for their failings: "it wasn't real Marxism!"

That would have been a valid point, if you could have produced any evidence to back it up. Score to date in your examples: Republics with self-governing states to produce historcally famous tyrants = 3, Tyrants using Mock elections for legitamacy = 1, Democracies being destroyed by outside influences much larger than themselves = 1, Democracies that produce tyrants = 0
So once more, what is your proof that it is garbage to claim that Democracies are effective at stopping the creation of tyrants? So far all you've proved is that the Federal model you are trying to defend has produced some of histories most famous tyrants. Well done.

Repulics and democracies are not all that different; they have many of the same characteristics as one another. Stop trying to polarize everything into being either a republic or a democracy.

I have not proven that the federal model that I am defending produces tyrants. The American system of federalism was built in order to AVOID the mistakes made by the ancients; it was something like the world had never seen before.

you have yet to produce a single shred of proof that it has ever been true.

Every experiment in democracy prior to that point of history had failed.

Have you ever considered answering the point raised? That it is falacious to say that your State government is better suited to making Criminal laws, rather than the Federal Government.

I refer you again to Patrick's post concerning drug policy. The burden of proof is still on you to prove that our system of criminal justice is so horrible that it needs to be federalized. I don't need to prove that the states are capable of handling criminal law by themselves, because history speaks for itself.

I already did, and how does having the Federal Government set Criminal laws for the entire United States become "unsuitable"?

Because with a population as large and diverse as the United States, it isn't that simple. You Brits, it's this belief that the a central government is needed to tell everyone what to do that caused us to opt out of your Empire in the first place.

Damn am I ever glad to hear that, considering how wide of the mark you've been on history so far in the debate. I'd hate to think you should ever give a history lesson.
Now that's out the way, how about you answer the question this time (or do you plan to snip and ignore it?)

OK, then, read up on the decisions of the Marshall Court, read up on the nullifcation crisis of the 1830's, read up on the Civil War, read up on the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 60s. This is what happens when the states resist a federal policy; the federal government is going to get its way in all likelihood.

What strng federal power? It's the same system you have today and it failed spectacularly to enforce a law, that being the point I've been making. Your present Political model allowed a civil war to explode because your government couldn't enforce it's laws and the individual States took umbrage at it's attempt to (aside from the economic reasons as well).

The Civil War happened because the southern states were TIRED of the federal government enforcing laws that they didn't agree with. The states were tired of these policies, and they would have seceded, and there would have been violence regardless of what happened.

A local tyranny that wouldn't exist if you weren't in a federal systm in the first place! Like to show me a modern, true democracy where there are Oppressed people, suffering at the hands of the government in the same way Slaves were suffering in the Southern States?

No large democratic country in the recent few centuries has tried to have a single, centralized government to control everything; most have some degree of federalism. So there are no examples.

And yet it still made the Emancipation proclamation and freed the Slaves, Something the Southern States objected to. Also the inherent problems with the Government of the times is yet another inditement against your arguement that the Federal System is good, not my arguement against it.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a political document; it did not free the slaves still within the Union. Furthermore, abolishing slavery was a peripheral issue for the "enlightened" Union government at best for most of the Civil War, as Patrick pointed out.

Because the system of Government allowed it. So thank you for reinforcing my point there.

What the hell are you talking about? We sent THOUSANDS of troops South to end their rebellion! Rebellion is not unique to our federalist system.

So there is no such thing as Inter-state rivalry (I'll remind you, before you reply, that I've travelled through the States and have seen it for myself), and the fact it exists is a symptom of the problems inherenet in the System of government exercised in the States.

Ah, anecdotal evidence, the ultimate proof.

Surely if the State government model is so necessary and correct, they should go to that? Now about your assertions that Minorities don't get their rghts trampled under the State system - Gay marriages, are they legal in all States? ESL and non-English speakers have education systems to aid them in speaking English in all States? Religious fredom is the Same across all States is it?

They are legal in some states. And the government not recognizing a marriage is hardly on par with a government not recognizing the right of minorities to be treated like real people.

Your that desperate for a point in this? I acknowledge I'm exagerrating for effect and you try to claim a slippery slope fallacy (in a post to another User at that)? OK, now show how it wasn't a natural progression of Imperator's arguement (sections of cities trying to establish their own rule independant of that city)? Lets see you back up your assertion.

YOU are the one engaging in the slippery slope fallacy, not me, YOU need to demonstrate that large-scale secession of cities is the natural result of a federalist system. But I will prove it anyway; our federal system prevents this, for the most part. Furthermore, this is not a problem; a city attempting to secede from its state is a extreme rarity at best.

My assertion was that the Federal government should make all Criminal laws, Imperator is th one that ditorted that to "the exact same laws on all issues", and my examples were to show that contrary to Imperators assertion, the Federal Government is more than capable of pssing laws that affect everyone, without having to be State generated. It also shows the fallacy of your assertion that fro law to be effective you need it to be passed by State government as they are more in tune with the needs of the populace.
Also it should be noted that I'm saying the Federal Goverenment should pass Laws on Crime and Punishment, not "EVERYTHING", so you are guilty of Distorting my arguement , not the other way round!

Patrick has demonstrated the folly of the federal government passing laws relating to crime and punishment. And your repeated implication that the federal government has no power under our federalist system undermines your claim that you have not been advocating the federal government do "everything." Don't try to avoid this by hiding behind Crime and Punishment. You have stated that the federal government has no power in the model that Red and myself have been proposing.

[Patrick Degan]

Hitler came to power during the Weimar republic, a Federal Republic, with self-governing Lander (states), sound familiar?

Why does everyone make this mistake? The Weimar Republic was famously modelled on the US government, yet everyone that raises it here is trying to use it to show that the US model can't produce tyrants

Um, excuse me, but the Weimar Republic allocated seats in the Reichstag on the basis of proportional representation of the direct popular vote. Hitler was eligible to assume the Chalcellorship in Weimar Germany due to his party holding a bare majority in the parliament. That is not how a federal republic on the American model works.

Finally a valid point, thanks Patrick. I'll just rain on your parade, however, by asking if State Courts have ever filled the prisons with petty criminals? We both know they have and so that's not a Federal government only problem. Also having them take over all Criminal Laws would still see Rapist and Murders in prison and free up Local funds for things other than State duplication of what should be a Federal concern.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to rain on your parade. Heavily. I should know, having lived in this country all my life whereas you have not, how the prosecution and sentencing policies were structured. Before the latest War on Some Drugs, minor possessions and even possesion of small sale-weights of controlled substances were dealt with in proportion to the scale of the offense. Minor or first-time drug cases were often pled-out to either probation or sentences which usually extended to about a year or two in prison. That has not been the case at all since the Federal sentencing mandates and five-year sentences for marijuhana dealing along with the wholesale seizure of property for a very wide range of drug offenses became the standard. In short, before the Federalisation of drug laws, this country did not number its prison population in the millions.

A matter of historical perspective: the "strong Central government" which existed at the time of the Civil War did not challenge the constitutional legality of slavery for three and a half years into the conflict. Indeed, prior to the Emancipation Proclamation, the Lincoln Administration did not name the destruction of chattel slavery as an object of Federal policy. The famous Emancipation Proclamation did not mandate nationwide emancipation of slaves and did nothing to liberate slaves in states and regions remaining under Federal control. Slavery remained perfectly legal in Kentucky, Deleware, Indiana, and Ohio until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865. The amendment was not even proposed before January of that year, as the Confederacy was already going down to defeat.

This would be another strong point, and well made. Except I said there WASN'T a strong central government. Your arguing against something I didn't say. Don't let that put you off retackling it though (especially if you reapply the valid points in the last few sentences), at least your providing research and thought in your debate.

The crux of your position was that a strong central government would have simply outlawed slavery and that, in your model, had the states acceeded to Federal authority, being in the subordinate position, slavery would have been eliminated without a Civil War. My reply was to point out that the central government was not inclined in 1860 to abolish the "peculiar institution" at all. In point of fact, in a last effort to compromise the conflict without the recourse to war, the Lincoln Administration announced its support for a proposed constitutional amendment which would in fact have prohibited the Federal government from ever interfering with slavery.

Furthermore, your view of the state of our government pre- and post-Civil War is a bit simplistic. Just as in that period as today, the central government was as strong or as weak as it was willing to go in enforcing its authority. Under presidents such as Buchanan, the Federal authority was weak because that administration was unwilling to enforce Federal supremacy as outlined in Article 6.2 of the constitution. By contrast, during the Nullification Crisis of 1836, President Andrew Jackson put a swift end to a threatened secession when he declared that he would personally march the army into South Carolina to keep that state in the Union.

In addition, the Federal government of the United States was most certainly a strong central government, as it had the mechanisms at its disposal to make its authority felt as necessary; in marked contrast to the former Articles of Confederation government with a very weak one-year presidency and requirements of 3/4 supermajorities or in some cases unanimous support in the Congress to take any form of Federal action. That government's very survival was effectively threatened by rioting in one Pennsylvania county over an excise tax (Shay's Rebellion, 1788).

Lastly, I will point out that the even stronger central government which existed after the Civil War decided not to exercise its authority to enforce the civil rights laws for eighty years and that was how this country ended up with de-facto racial apartheid. The measures which were taken afterward were legal and necessary, but did not come to pass until the government was willing to exercise its authority.

The trick, in a Federal system such as ours, is to not exceed the balance of powers or to cede too much power one way or the other. Furthermore, as a matter of practicality, the Federal government cannot exert day-to-day control over every aspect of civil law over a continent-spanning nation and one in which its remotest state is about two thousand miles out in the ocean and another is brushing the Artic Circle. To attempt to do so would destroy its capacity to effectively manage any issue bearing upon the national and the popular interest. The chaos which is resulting from the War on Some Drugs is but one example of the breakdown of civil democracy which accompanies total centralisation.

[Darth Wong]

In short, before the Federalisation of drug laws, this country did not number its prison population in the millions.

Not to intercede here, but why does that fact serve as an indictment of federalizing crime and punishment, as opposed an indictment of those particular statutes? If the same statutes had been passed at the state level, the effect would be the same.

[Joe]

In short, before the Federalisation of drug laws, this country did not number its prison population in the millions.

Not to intercede here, but why does that fact serve as an indictment of federalizing crime and punishment, as opposed an indictment of those particular statutes? If the same statutes had been passed at the state level, the effect would be the same.

Because if crime and punishment was not federalized in the area of drug control, some states could at least choose to adopt more liberal drug policies (California, obviously, would do so) rather than being forced to accept the federal government's standards. With the federalization of drug policy, every state has to act in accordance with the federal government's wishes, regardless of how unsuitable it is to their situation. A state is going to have trouble passing drug policy that will adversely affect the entire nation significantly. The federal government will not, and so, federal policy warrants greater criticism.

[Patrick Degan]

In short, before the Federalisation of drug laws, this country did not number its prison population in the millions.

Not to intercede here, but why does that fact serve as an indictment of federalizing crime and punishment, as opposed an indictment of those particular statutes? If the same statutes had been passed at the state level, the effect would be the same.

Because while one state may choose to pass the most draconian drug laws conceivable, 49 may choose more moderate or even liberal drug laws as well as prosecutorial and judicial guidelines for trying and sentencing cases. Federalising the drug laws has removed that lattitude nationwide.

If another historical example might suffice, there is Prohibition. Alcohol control and criminalisation was largely a state and county affair from 1880 through to 1916. Such laws were effective mainly in rural areas and Bible Belt states until the passage of the Volstead Act and the ratification of the 18th Amendment. The results were bathtub gin, wood alcohol, the rise of the Capone Mob and its rivals in organised crime, the greatest wholesale civil disobedience to ever occur in American history streatching for two and a half decades, and the transformation of Chicago into a virtual battleground with a thoroughly corrupted city government. It was, in short, a disaster. Congress finally repealed Prohibition in 1933 and kicked the whole issue back to the states. There are still "dry" counties to this day, but I doubt that a single state still has state prohibition laws anymore.

[Joe]

By the way, Patrick, would a long-overdue concession from me concerning our prior debates on the nature of federalism be acceptable now?

[Patrick Degan]

Perhaps, if I could remember them...

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Haven't read much of this thread, mainly because I don't want to read a lot of Civil War history.

So, from what I've read, this film is just a bunch of semi-pro-Confederate appologies?

Fuck, count me out. I will never watch it.

[Trytostaydead]

Haven't read much of this thread, mainly because I don't want to read a lot of Civil War history.

So, from what I've read, this film is just a bunch of semi-pro-Confederate appologies?

Fuck, count me out. I will never watch it.

See? That's what you get for not reading. None of adore most of the reasons why EITHER government felt they were morally superior. The South still had slaves at the time of secession but was about ready to phase it out anyways near the end of the war especially. The North didn't give a rat's ass about slaves and actually began lynching blacks in the beginning, and Lincoln only supported anti-slavery until well INTO the war.

What movies like Gods and Generals and Gettysburg are about, it's about the PEOPLE that fought. Why they fought. And that's why we honor them.

People like Lee, Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart, and Johntson, and Armistead didn't fight to keep slaves. They fought because they saw federal troops ready to shoot at their neighbors and family and march through their homes. People like Grant, and Hancock fought for the Union and duty. People like Chamberlain fought because they thought it was the right thing to do.

And in the end of the Civil War, it was Chamberlain who saluted the surrendering rebels. And in that honor, a lot of us still salute the memory of those who fought on either side to help forge the United States.