+- Mock (https://mockforums.net)
+-- Forum: Serious Shit? (https://mockforums.net/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Discussions, Opinions & Debate (https://mockforums.net/forum-11.html)
+--- Thread: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY (/thread-10797.html)
US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - HairOfTheDog - 01-10-2014
Over the last few years, I've found myself at a philosophical intersection many times when it comes to US laws, regulations, etc...
On the one hand, I understand and support the founding fathers' vision of each state having sovereign rights, with limited federal intervention, and the concepts of the Articles of Confederation and the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
On the other hand, it's frustrating that there is no consistency between states when it comes to same sex marriage legality, marijuana legalization, gun laws, the death penalty, etc...
There is so much conflict between the laws of different states and, to a lesser extent, between state laws and federal laws. The Supreme Court has its hands full considering cases pertaining to the latter and, to me, it's not often clear from a Constitutional view where the power should lie - state or fed? I don't think that the Supremacy Clause, which the founding fathers included in anticipation of such state vs. fed conflicts, is all that definitive, myself.
Here's the Supremacy Clause to the Constitution:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
====================================================
Any opinions?
Is the Constitution adaptable to changing times and working as it should; with these conflicts and diversity being a testament to what the country was meant to be?
Or, is it time to tag some key issues as belonging at the federal level for the sake of national unity in the face of changing times and social norms?
P.s. I imagine similar challenges arise with any type of "union". There are likely hot topic differences and conflicts in laws between countries comprising the European Union and the United Kingdom, between the territories and states of Australia, between the provinces of Canada, etc... Interested in hearing opinions/experiences therein too, if anyone's interested in weighing in.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - HairOfTheDog - 01-10-2014
The Equal Protection clause to the 14th Amendment - does this Constitutional provision prohibit states from banning same-sex marriage?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Duchess - 01-10-2014
Dick would love this thread. Damn shame he didn't stick around after being here on New Years Eve.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Midwest Spy - 01-10-2014
(01-10-2014, 12:12 PM)Duchess Wrote:
Dick would love this thread. Damn shame he didn't stick around after being here on New Years Eve.
OMG!
He's alive?
I thought for sure he had died some horrible, gruesome death.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-10-2014
A mixture of both maybe?
I believe there are some laws that should govern all states, counties, provinces and whatever else you want to call them.
But then again some laws might need to be specific to specific areas to meet local needs and issues.
A big issue in the UK is the referendum on Scottish independence next year. I'm personally against Scottish independence but if it happens I won't be too bothered. The thing that pisses me off is the SNP want independence but still expect to get money from Westminster if Scotland vote yes! Sorry no! Independence means you are on your own fuck off!
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-10-2014
(01-10-2014, 12:12 PM)Duchess Wrote:
Dick would love this thread. Damn shame he didn't stick around after being here on New Years Eve.
He was?!
Holy shit!
Why the new years eve cameo?
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-10-2014
What do you personally identify with the most? Your state or your country?
I'm probably more likely to describe myself as British as opposed to Northumbrian.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - sally - 01-10-2014
(01-10-2014, 12:16 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote:(01-10-2014, 12:12 PM)Duchess Wrote:
Dick would love this thread. Damn shame he didn't stick around after being here on New Years Eve.
OMG!
He's alive?
I thought for sure he had died some horrible, gruesome death.
Yeah, I was thinking he probably fell into a wood chipper.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-10-2014
I thought he might have become tangled up in all the exposed electrical wires in his “work forever in progress” hovel in New Mexico.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Duchess - 01-10-2014
(01-10-2014, 12:16 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: OMG!
He's alive?
(01-10-2014, 12:20 PM)Cynical Ninja Wrote: He was?!
Holy shit!
Totally my reaction too. Could hardly believe my own eyes when I saw his name listed. I sent him a message but he again choose not to respond.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-10-2014
He's become the Phantom of the Opera of Mock.
Hiding in the basement wearing a cape and mask playing menacing tunes on a huge baroque organ.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Maggot - 01-10-2014
How would it look if a State declared war on Iran? Keeping things seperated on a state vs. federal law is important. Although federal funding for interstate highways should not be in any bargaining type of law, you do not cut highway funding because a state refuses to address same sex marriage. Not that that has happened.
States should be able to fund or not fund anything. As in same sex marriage the reason the feds are involved is many times a state will ask its people to vote on gay rights and as they are a minority they usually lose. Morality and lifestyle issues should be a state problem.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-11-2014
(01-10-2014, 01:26 PM)Maggot Wrote: As in same sex marriage the reason the feds are involved is many times a state will ask its people to vote on gay rights and as they are a minority they usually lose.
That's exactly why same sex marriage should be a federal issue.
Same sex marriage is completely inkeeping with the American constitution as hotdog has already pointed out.
ALL men created equal, liberty and justice for ALL. Not liberty and justice for all....except queers fuck them.
Uncle Abe Lincoln liked cock after all.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Duchess - 01-11-2014
I usually think it's important for states to look after their own but in some instances the Feds have to get involved, particularly where rights are concerned.
RE: US CONFLICT?: STATE RIGHTS VS. NATIONAL CONSISTENCY - Cynical Ninja - 01-11-2014
(01-11-2014, 06:54 AM)Duchess Wrote:
I usually think it's important for states to look after their own but in some instances the Feds have to get involved, particularly where rights are concerned.
Absolutely.
States shouldn't be allowed to have pure prejudice as law.