State's Right to Home Rule

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

marshaul wrote:

mcdonalk wrote:

I must admit I like Eye's vision of a Marketplace of States even if the system would be burdensome to those who travel or move a lot... I don't agree with him that the 2nd amendment applies to the states because it doesn't say it didn't.

Click to expand...

What about those who are born into poverty? Such people are at an obvious disadvantage if their only vote is with "their feet".

Talk about being disenfranchised!

Click to expand...

I kind of like it too, but certain rights should be universal as well. I honestly don't have an answer as to where that line should be drawn.

On the other hand, I don't think it "disenfranchises" poorer folks. I moved out west with less than 500 bucks to my name, no job, and drove a car with barely any breaks to get here. Granted, I don't have kids or a lot of expenses, but that is a result of choices I made. People make choices that bring about their unfortunate circumstances. I speak of the majority, not special cases like the mentally or physically ill, or who are otherwise unable to work because of some legitimate circumstance outside of their control.

Click to expand...

Exactly. This country was built by people who had nothing, got up and went somewhere where the could make something, and made a lot.

The US wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for poor people who voted with their feet.

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

On the other hand, I don't think it "disenfranchises" poorer folks.  I moved out west with less than 500 bucks to my name, no job, and drove a car with barely any breaks to get here. Granted, I don't have kids or a lot of expenses, but that is a result of choices I made.  People make choices that bring about their unfortunate circumstances.  I speak of the majority, not special cases like the mentally or physically ill, or who are otherwise unable to work because of some legitimate circumstance outside of their control. 

Click to expand...

I'm very happy for you.

You realize that, statistically, poor folks are among the least likely to ever complete a major move?

imported post

eye95 wrote:

The US wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for poor people who voted with their feet.

Click to expand...

"It's OK if I use my local government to abrogate your rights. I can just force you to pick up and move away from everything and everyone you've ever loved; problem solved. It's not like that is essentially forcing you to do anything, like move, and basically become a refugee, or anything".

Lots of jews voted against Hitler with their feet, after all. That doesn't mean he should have been allowed to use his "local government" to continue abrogating the rights of the remaining Jews.

imported post

Keep in mind though we are not supposed to be a democracy, there can be tyranny by the many. Because the poor don't like their circumstances shouldn't give them the right to take from those who are better off than them. A trick progressives in this country have been using for a century to buy votes.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

eye95 wrote:

The US wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for poor people who voted with their feet.

Click to expand...

"It's OK if I use my local government to abrogate your rights. I can just force you to pick up and move away from everything and everyone you've ever loved; problem solved. It's not like that is essentially forcing you to do anything, like move, and basically become a refugee, or anything".

Lots of jews voted against Hitler with their feet, after all. That doesn't mean he should have been allowed to use his "local government" to continue abrogating the rights of the remaining Jews.

Click to expand...

Now that's taking things to the extreme. One of the biggest reasons to reserve certain powers to the states is to protect our rights. Do you want firearms to be regulated solely by the federal government, only to have the feds regulate the right away eventually? So longs as the states have been allowed to regulate firearms, there have always been bastions of freedom in our country. You may end up with a 'California' here of there, but it's a rarity.

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

Do you want firearms to be regulated solely by the federal government, only to have the feds regulate the right away eventually?  So longs as the states have been allowed to regulate firearms, there have always been bastions of freedom in our country.  You may end up with a 'California' here of there, but it's a rarity.

Click to expand...

You may not realize it, but this is a strawman.

I never said that the Federal government should have the authority to pass gun laws more stringent than any given states does. I fail to see from where it properly (constitutionally) derives such a power, for one thing.

What I did say was that, if a state does infringe upon a natural (and especially constitutional right) the Federal government is an appropriate tool to force respect of that right. In fact, I view one of the few useful functions of the Federal government to be creating a nationwide minimum standard for respect of rights (all of them).

A mechanism preventing the enforcement of certain laws which violate rights shouldn't be construed as an instrument to pass other laws which infringe upon right. The ability to prevent the passage of a restriction need not be necessarily the same as the ability to create a restriction.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

Do you want firearms to be regulated solely by the federal government, only to have the feds regulate the right away eventually? So longs as the states have been allowed to regulate firearms, there have always been bastions of freedom in our country. You may end up with a 'California' here of there, but it's a rarity.

Click to expand...

A mechanism preventing the enforcement of certain laws which violate rights shouldn't be construed as an instrument to pass other laws which infringe upon right. The ability to prevent the passage of a restriction need not be necessarily the same as the ability to create a restriction.

Click to expand...

I concede the point. You and I view this much the same way then. Unfortunately, due to misguided rulings about the interstate commerce clause and other powers of the federal government, power to restrict something often becomes the power to control it completely. If only we could sit on the supreme court.

imported post

IndianaBoy79 wrote:

I concede the point.  You and I view this much the same way then.  Unfortunately, due to misguided rulings about the interstate commerce clause and other powers of the federal government, power to restrict something often becomes the power to control it completely.  If only we could sit on the supreme court. 

Click to expand...

Indeed. I don't know what to say about that. It's one thing to argue how our government ought to be; it's quite another to make it actually behave that way.

I suppose we must start with demanding greater respect for the constitution, from across both sides of the partisan divide.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I suppose we must start with demanding greater respect for the constitution, from across both sides of the partisan divide.

Click to expand...

+1 , both "sides" ignore the constitution when it doesn't favor them, this includes the supreme court often siding with tyranny.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I suppose we must start with demanding greater respect for the constitution, from across both sides of the partisan divide.

Click to expand...

Right!!! Good luck with that!!