LIVE Active Shooter Event in Santa Fe High School

[Madison320]

Not if they want to be members of the union.

Yeah, it sounds good in theory to have the Federal government protecting my rights, but there's a slight downside to that. In their eternal quest to "protect my rights" they've implemented the FDA, ADA, SS, Medicare, DEA, Dept of Education, etc, etc. Plus the income tax to help pay for all that "right protection". No thanks. I'd rather let the states decide then I can move to the state I like best.

[Swordsmyth]

Besides that I'm not too crazy about the amendment that makes the bill of rights extend to the states.

The 2ndA always applied to the states, it doesn't say "congress shall make no law" it just says "shall not be infringed".

[Swordsmyth]

Yeah, it sounds good in theory to have the Federal government protecting my rights, but there's a slight downside to that. In their eternal quest to "protect my rights" they've implemented the FDA, ADA, SS, Medicare, DEA, Dept of Education, etc, etc. Plus the income tax to help pay for all that "right protection". No thanks. I'd rather let the states decide then I can move to the state I like best.

Those things were not protections of your rights.

[Madison320]

Those things were not protections of your rights.

Not according to the Feds. Hence the problem. I'm a states rights guy.

[Madison320]

Not if they want to be members of the union.

So it's optional now?

[Swordsmyth]

Not according to the Feds. Hence the problem. I'm a states rights guy.

Were those things in the bill of rights? NO
Were they in the enumerated powers? NO

[dannno]

So it's optional now?

That's how it was supposed to be..

I'm slightly torn on the whole bill of rights, states rights thing, but if states could leave more easily I think it would be an easier decision.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint you have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint your family or friends have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint the federal govt. has a right to reverse that - but do we want to create this federal govt. that has the power over states and the states cannot make the choice to leave? That doesn't sound too good, especially since with all that power they end up just violating our rights.

[Swordsmyth]

So it's optional now?

That's how it was supposed to be..

I'm slightly torn on the whole bill of rights, states rights thing, but if states could leave more easily I think it would be an easier decision.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint you have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint your family or friends have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint the federal govt. has a right to reverse that - but do we want to create this federal govt. that has the power over states and the states cannot make the choice to leave? I dunno..

It should be, if a state won't recognize the rights in the BoR one option for dealing with them should be to eject them from the union.
Two wrongs don't make a right, letting members of the union violate their citizens' fundamental rights isn't the solution to Lincoln creating the "indivisible" union, allowing secession is.
CALExit.

[Madison320]

Were those things in the bill of rights? NO
Were they in the enumerated powers? NO

It's irrelevant since the federal government gets to decide. For example the Fed has decided that the handicapped have the "right" to a wheelchair ramp to any private place of business.

[Madison320]

It should be, if a state won't recognize the rights in the BoR one option for dealing with them should be to eject them from the union.
Two wrongs don't make a right, letting members of the union violate their citizens' fundamental rights isn't the solution to Lincoln creating the "indivisible" union, allowing secession is.
CALExit.

Allowing the federal government final say in how to "protect" your rights is the equivalent of letting the fed decide if a state can secede.

The federal government should be protecting the states (defense mainly) and the states should be protecting individual rights.

[Swordsmyth]

It's irrelevant since the federal government gets to decide. For example the Fed has decided that the handicapped have the "right" to a wheelchair ramp to any private place of business.

Then you must either reign in the federal government or eliminate it, if you can't keep it limited to its enumerated powers and the BoR then you won't be able to keep it from doing anything.
You will have the same problem with your state government, you either believe limited government is possible or you join the anarchists. (Of course the anarchists will end up with despotism filling the vacuum they create but that is another issue.)

[dannno]

It's irrelevant since the federal government gets to decide. For example the Fed has decided that the handicapped have the "right" to a wheelchair ramp to any private place of business.

Do handicapped people have the right to steal from others? No.. Leftists have distorted what the word "rights" means. They think it has positive claims (right to healthcare) as opposed to negative rights (the state shall not infringe, people shall not infringe on your property, etc)

Some argue that maybe we should just ditch it all for that reason.

[Madison320]

That's how it was supposed to be..

I'm slightly torn on the whole bill of rights, states rights thing, but if states could leave more easily I think it would be an easier decision.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint you have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint your family or friends have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint the federal govt. has a right to reverse that - but do we want to create this federal govt. that has the power over states and the states cannot make the choice to leave? That doesn't sound too good, especially since with all that power they end up just violating our rights.

I think the results speak for themselves. I think the 14th amendment giving the fed power over the states to "protect" our rights has been a huge failure.

[Swordsmyth]

Allowing the federal government final say in how to "protect" your rights is the equivalent of letting the fed decide if a state can secede.

No it isn't, club members must follow club rules, I don't want N. Korea as a member of the union, they don't get to benefit from the union or infect it with their citizens.

The federal government should be protecting the states (defense mainly) and the states should be protecting individual rights.

And the federal government should be enforcing the rights of its citizens or expelling states that don't like it.

[phill4paul]

That's how it was supposed to be..

I'm slightly torn on the whole bill of rights, states rights thing, but if states could leave more easily I think it would be an easier decision.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint you have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint your family or friends have every right to do what it takes to reverse that.

I think if your local government violates your rights then from a moral standpoint the federal govt. has a right to reverse that - but do we want to create this federal govt. that has the power over states and the states cannot make the choice to leave? That doesn't sound too good, especially since with all that power they end up just violating our rights.

And such is what the CONstitution has wrought. The Articles of Confederation were just fine. There was no need to "tweak" it. There was no president (executive branch), there was no judiciary (clowns in gowns re-interpreting how they personally chose,) and no powers of taxation. Sounds like a great "Federal Government" to me.

[Swordsmyth]

I think the results speak for themselves. I think the 14th amendment giving the fed power over the states to "protect" our rights has been a huge failure.

The 14th had very little to do with it, the feds took illegitimate power under many different excuses and they would have without the 14th.

[Madison320]

Then you must either reign in the federal government or eliminate it, if you can't keep it limited to its enumerated powers and the BoR then you won't be able to keep it from doing anything.
You will have the same problem with your state government, you either believe limited government is possible or you join the anarchists. (Of course the anarchists will end up with despotism filling the vacuum they create but that is another issue.)

I believe there's optimal levels at which government decisions should be made. I think the federal government is too high up, and covers too much territory to be making decisions on individual rights. Plus if you don't like the fed's decision you can't easily move. The original idea of the united states was for the laws to be decided by the individual states and allow citizens to move around to states they like.

[Swordsmyth]

And such is what the CONstitution has wrought. The Articles of Confederation were just fine. There was no need to "tweak" it. There was no president (executive branch), there was no judiciary (clowns in gowns re-interpreting how they personally chose,) and no powers of taxation. Sounds like a great "Federal Government" to me.

Something inbetween was required, under the AoC we would have turned into a collection of states that randomly violated their citizens fundamental rights and eventually split up and decayed, there would have been little difference between us and Europe.

[Madison320]

The 14th had very little to do with it, the feds took illegitimate power under many different excuses and they would have without the 14th.

But when is their power legitimate and when is it illegitimate? And who decides?

[Swordsmyth]

I believe there's optimal levels at which government decisions should be made. I think the federal government is to high up, and covers too much territory to be making decisions in individual rights. Plus if you don't like the fed's decision you can't easily move. The original idea of the united states was for the laws to be decided by the individual states and allow citizens to move around to states they like.

The Constitution itself forbade the states from violating certain rights:
A1S10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either government can be limited or it can't, the feds should be limited to protecting your basic rights and any states that don't like it should leave or be expelled.

[Swordsmyth]

But when is their power legitimate and when is it illegitimate? And who decides?

That is what the enumerated powers define, if you think they should be reduced or expanded then you need an amendment.

[Madison320]

The Constitution itself forbade the states from violating certain rights:
A1S10
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Either government can be limited or it can't, the feds should be limited to protecting your basic rights and any states that don't like it should leave or be expelled.

I think the underlined part was a mistake, the camel's nose under the tent. I think a cleaner, more sustainable solution was for the fed not to be involved in individual rights. Remember, once you give the Fed a particular power you need to take the good with the bad.

[Swordsmyth]

I think the underlined part was a mistake, the camel's nose under the tent. I think a cleaner, more sustainable solution was for the fed not to be involved in individual rights. Remember, once you give the Fed a particular power you need to take the good with the bad.

I don't want a union with states that don't recognize fundamental rights, it won't end well.

[The Gold Standard]

Trying to stop school shootings by abolishing guns is like trying to stop termites from eating your house by eradicating the entire world population of termites.

It's stopping termite damage by abolishing wood.

[The Gold Standard]

Those things were not protections of your rights.

What rights? Your rights are what they tell you they are.