Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 08:17:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Out of the following, who is your first choice for president?
Barack Obama
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Newt Gingrich

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Who do you support for president?  (Read 4511 times)
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 03:26:36 PM
 #61

That would require a constitutional amendment, since Constitution > Federal > State > Local. If the constitution forbids passing a law that restricts rights, NO ONE at any level can pass laws restricting those rights. All the cases you listed were precisely because someone tried to restrict rights on a more local level.

1481012241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012241
Reply with quote  #2

1481012241
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481012241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012241
Reply with quote  #2

1481012241
Report to moderator
1481012241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481012241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481012241
Reply with quote  #2

1481012241
Report to moderator
AndDuffy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 03:44:03 PM
 #62

Constitution > Federal > State > Local

That hierarchy only applies on issues expressly detailed in the Constitution. On most issues, the order should be Constitution > Local > State > Federal. Most people don't realize that this is what the founders intended.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624


Director of Bitcoin100


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 03:57:55 PM
 #63

Constitution > Federal > State > Local

That hierarchy only applies on issues expressly detailed in the Constitution. On most issues, the order should be Constitution > Local > State > Federal. Most people don't realize that this is what the founders intended.

I think you may be conflating what rights are allowed to be prohibited with what is allowed to be established. Anything is allowed to be established at the local level and up if the constitution doesn't forbid it, but if the constitution says you have free speech or freedom of/from religion, that trumps all laws restricting that freedom all the way to the local level. I.e. if the constitution says you can't have a christian government, not only does that mean you can't have a federal christian government, but that even local town governments can't be established by a church. I'm all for states having rights to decide how they operate, but not for states to make their own decisions to restrict rights otherwise protected by the country as a whole. USA went to war to finally settle that issue.

Jon
Donator
Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


No Gods; No Masters; Only You


View Profile
March 01, 2012, 09:46:10 PM
 #64

I wanted to vote for Vermin Supreme. : \

The Communists say, equal labour entitles man to equal enjoyment. No, equal labour does not entitle you to it, but equal enjoyment alone entitles you to equal enjoyment. Enjoy, then you are entitled to enjoyment. But, if you have laboured and let the enjoyment be taken from you, then – ‘it serves you right.’ If you take the enjoyment, it is your right.
AndDuffy
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 76


View Profile
March 30, 2012, 02:17:58 AM
 #65

Constitution > Federal > State > Local

That hierarchy only applies on issues expressly detailed in the Constitution. On most issues, the order should be Constitution > Local > State > Federal. Most people don't realize that this is what the founders intended.

I think you may be conflating what rights are allowed to be prohibited with what is allowed to be established. Anything is allowed to be established at the local level and up if the constitution doesn't forbid it, but if the constitution says you have free speech or freedom of/from religion, that trumps all laws restricting that freedom all the way to the local level. I.e. if the constitution says you can't have a christian government, not only does that mean you can't have a federal christian government, but that even local town governments can't be established by a church. I'm all for states having rights to decide how they operate, but not for states to make their own decisions to restrict rights otherwise protected by the country as a whole. USA went to war to finally settle that issue.

Whoa. The Constitution does not say you can't have a Christian government. It simply dictates the separation of church and state. This was not only to protect religious liberty; the main reason is because our founders had seen the corruption that the churches, especially the Catholic Church, had brought to Europe. Most of our politicians claim to be Christians, so in essence we do have a Christian government; just not a church government. I think that's an important distinction to make. However, there are town governments run by religious organizations: Omish settlements, Mormon towns in the midwest, and Native American reservations (a special case, but still relevant).

As for state's rights and the Civil War/ reconstruction: I think that the Civil War did more damage to America in the long term than most people believe. Lincoln, while an exemplary politician and a man of admirable character, unintentionally helped cause a distortion of how our federal government interacts with the states. In his days in Congress, Lincoln was a strong advocate for the 10th amendment, and had a very moderate stance on slavery; he opposed it, but thought that the best course of action would be to let the states get rid of it on their own, with limited federal involvement. These were tense times, however, and unfortunately Lincoln's only option in his presidency was to exert a lot of Federal power. Of course, he did this in order to preserve the Union, but it had the unintended consequence of increasing the federal government's power disproportionate to the states from what the Founders intended. We've seen increase in power occur with all of our national crises: the entitlement programs of the Great Depression, the hysteria created during the Cold War, and the Patriot Act (etc.) in the modern era. If we do not return the power to the states, America will suffer the fate of all past empires by restricting liberty and abusing power.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!