Maybe, Rick, I misunderstand Roe Vs. Wade, but isn't an abortion ban unconstitutional according to that ruling? I guess I missed the part where states' rights are more important than individuals'.

Also, Mr. Paul getting it right on Iraq isn't as big a deal as you'd think. So he gets it. As of March 13th, so did half of the country; since I'm sure that number's gone up since then, that simply puts Mr. Paul in the majority.

Rick is pro-gold standard? Hilarious. I'm putting that on the list next to the free energy and returning space aliens.

Johnny C wrote:Maybe, Rick, I misunderstand Roe Vs. Wade, but isn't an abortion ban unconstitutional according to that ruling? I guess I missed the part where states' rights are more important than individuals'.

Also, Mr. Paul getting it right on Iraq isn't as big a deal as you'd think. So he gets it. As of March 13th, so did half of the country; since I'm sure that number's gone up since then, that simply puts Mr. Paul in the majority.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

There is Paul's argument on abortion and the constitution. And it's not so much that he talks about Iraq the way he does now that is a big deal. It's getting it right almost 10 years ago that should open eyes. Not even Dennis Kucinich had a problem with regime change in 1998.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 100598.htm

Johnny C wrote:Maybe, Rick, I misunderstand Roe Vs. Wade, but isn't an abortion ban unconstitutional according to that ruling? I guess I missed the part where states' rights are more important than individuals'.

True, it did, but another supreme court case could reverse this judgment. Its not actually in the constitution (right to have an abortion); it was an interpretation of it.

Did everyone in this forum forget to read the 14th Amendment?

I guess so.

Turns out, when states rights were greater than they are today, the states though what was "best" for them was union busting, jim crow, child labor, and blue laws.

I think abortion is covered under the 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause. If you think a state has a right to determine whether or not a woman with medical complications should die because she cant get an abortion in her state and can't afford to travel to another state where it is legal then go right ahead. I think the 14th Amendment would beg to differ.

Segregation is not explicitly outlawed in the constitution, yet under the 14th Amendment, it can be against the law.

I think that the federal government has a responsibility to the people to set a minimum floor for rights that the states cannot trample over. Because time and time again, the states have shown that they will set their bars pretty low without a national standard.

As for the 40% of people who think banning abortion is hunky dory, fuck em. If 99% of the populace thought it was a good idea, I'd say the same thing. Taking away the rights and privelages of Americans is wrong no matter what percentage of the populace think it isn't. Would you support a states decision to mandate biblical creation as the only allowable biology curriculum if 40% of the people in the state thought it was a great idea because religion came first for them? I mean, we wouldn't want to ruffle their feathers or anything.

I'm sure that at least 40% of the country support laws against drug use. Are we willing to say we'll continue the drug war just to make them happy?

According to polls, 30% of Americans approve of Bush's handling in Iraq. Should we stay there just to keep them happy?

I say no on both accounts. I'm sure that in my home state you could find a good percentage of people who wouldn't mind bringing segregation back. Again, it's not expressly mentioned in the constitution and I don't think they're going to evolve on the issue, so why shouldn't we bring it back to make them happy?

Should we all just move to states that support our political views until we become divided into homogenous zones of thought? Sounds like a pretty shitty world to me. Part of the beauty of America is the wide range of political ideas. Though I disagree with nearly everything Rick and Chet say, I love the fact that I can have a discussion with them. I enjoy not being surrounded by people I totally agree with all day every day. Who wants that?

Plus, I love Georgia.(Probably not a popular opinion) I do not want to move. Why should I have to go to another state because my state has decided to pass laws I don't like? Why can't we just have some minumum standards for things that the states have to abide by and let the states decide whether to stay at the minimum or go above it? Makes sense to me. And it seems like it would do a much better job at preserving the UNION of states this country is supposed to be.

Don't get me wrong, There are plenty of things that are within the states domain that they do a better job of taking care of. I just don't think the things we've been talking about here fit that category.

Beautifully stated, o_d_m.
My thoughts exactly.

-A

Well said o_d_m.

The United States is a republic. Were focused on protecting the rights of the individual, and not just letting democracy rule. Democracy sucks.

Probably my biggest complaint with the constitution (besides allowing slavery) is that it doesn't go far enough. They should have put more rights in the bill of rights (instead of just leaving things open ended with the 9th amendment). The right to privacy comes to mind.

The Supreme Court/Bill of Rights exist to keep the states laws in check, but I still feel that the states should work things out for themselves without violating the rights of the individuals. Things like legalized segregation and Jim Crow laws should not be allowed (nor would they be under the current Supreme Court rulings we have today and the Bill of Rights), but letting the people of each state work out things like their own education system is ok by me.

You just have to make sure you dont violate the rights of the individual.

The abortion issue is probably the hardest one for me. Rights of the mother vs. rights of the unborn kid. I've heard every argument in the book for and against abortion; this is definitely less open-and-shut than say something like segregation which blatantly violates the rights of the individual. This is why I think its based more on interpretations of the constitution at the present time, unless of course we add an amendment that allows/bans it.

Once again, good post o_d_m.

Rick Reuben wrote:

o_d_m wrote:As for the 40% of people who think banning abortion is hunky dory, fuck em.

Cool, way to keep a peaceful nation going- let a slim majority rule with an iron fist.

o_d_m wrote:I'm sure that at least 40% of the country support laws against drug use. Are we willing to say we'll continue the drug war just to make them happy?

Are you willing to let 60% of the states decriminalize marijuana and 40% not? I am. Do you see what joyous solutions you are ruling out with your extreme infatuation for federalized power over all?

odm wrote:According to polls, 30% of Americans approve of Bush's handling in Iraq. Should we stay there just to keep them happy?

Military is a different story. Military has to be managed at the federal level because it involves foreign engagements.

None of this addresses his best point:
If a state decides that abortion is illegal and gays can't marry, then people are somewhat trapped behind an iron curtain of sorts.
I've lived in NC for 33 years. I don't want to leave because some things I find to be important are overturned or there's regression.

Fortunately I *could* leave, but what about people who aren't lucky enough to have transferable skills or are locked in for some other means, including financial?

Not to say that there isn't an appeal to state's rights - I see it. I see an appeal to a lot of things that don't seem practical or fair to me though.

I don't mean for this to be some sort of cut or low blow, but this solution seems typically Libertarian, as if all solutions were super simple.
"If you don't like the laws of your state, you can always leave."
Really? That seems reasonable to people?

To clarify -
I can see it a little more if 98% of a state wants pot to be illegal/legal (or whatever), but if it's done by popular vote, then the 55% who, say, want abortion to be made illegal can make it so against the 45%'s wishes (and that's a lot of people hung out to dry) and they can tell the "if you, almost half of the people of this state don't like it, you can uproot your lives and leave."


-A

Rick Reuben wrote:

o_d_m wrote:Plus bankers did just fine exploiting people on the gold standard.

Your brain is fried. If the gold standard ( or any commodity-backed money ) allowed the bankers the freedom to exploit as they wished, then why the fuck did they convert all the currencies of the world to fiat????

maybe it was the great depression

Rick Reuben wrote:A citizen of a pro-life state, or a citizen of a pro-choice country?

And the citizen of the pro-life state wants to get an abortion? As if she's not going through enough trauma already you want to make her move? Why should any state interfere with a woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body? Once again, do states' rights override that of the individual? Does a religious belief take precedence over what one person wants to do with their body?

Think carefully!

In Canada the gold standard was temporarily abandoned in WWI, restored afterwards and then finally abandoned in 1933 when the Depression rendered it an inviable option. The gold standard was how Canada operated until our economy collapsed. Ours also collapsed for a longer time than yours.

Allow me to apologise for being north of the forty-ninth parallel and having learned a different history from you. If it makes you feel better I learned last week that Islamic beavers did not gnaw the beams away on the South Tower to cause its collapse.