State's Rights Movement

Here's to 200!

 

my point stands.

 

pacs they are all bought off.



think of it in terms of a group of corporations.


from the family (the smallest)

ward, bourough, aldermanic distririct whatever
then
county
then state
then stateS

all corporations forming a conglomerate of which in theory or on paper we are controlling members of, (keeping in mind we NEVER voted on ONE AMENDMENT), however few people know hot to be heard, so everyones whining falls upon deaf gub ears.

a nation full of double thinkers

 

A certain amount of bribery is inevitable, but the one saving grace to federal politicians is that you're dealing with a bigger pool on the national level.

No one interest has enough power and money to get everything they want.

Even big banks are limited in what they can demand from a federal politician. The same isn't as true for lower level bureaucrats.

 

They're kind of the same, aren't they?...

Give me an example.

 

civil rights can be taken away, they are political

 

Well, any right can be taken away, honestly.

Name any right, and I can tell you how it can be removed.

 

sure just shot them dead, that takes away all rights at the speed of a bullet LOL

 

what did I do steal your punch line? LOL

 

You see what I'm getting at though, right?

A right is only worth something if you have the ability to defend it.

The concept of natural rights is nice, but it's not reality. Reality is that your rights are entirely dependent on how they're protected.

 

and the only way there will ever be equality is if force is no longer the determining factor.

that said.....

if it comes down to a jury, then the force is legitimate force IF and only IF the right under review is assessed within its proper form and venue.

If you have crosseyed bunch of good ole boys up there well they have a tendency to tip those scales how they want to see the outcome, even with a jury.

Lets face it we want to believe we live in a civilized society when we are as barbaric as and probably even worse than cave men.

so what you say is the reason justifying mob rule.


unequal protection under the gun.

 

Well, ultimately, force has always been the determining factor.

I don't see that ever changing.

The best that can be done is to create an accountable government with an ever vigilant populace.

 

and that is impossible.

if you think our constitution is a masterpiece you should read the russian constitution. Makes ours look lame.

the fact that force is the determining factor means only that we live in purely lawlessness.

the faced of protection that vaporizes the second you need it..

 

Nothing. Back when you fought for your freedom at the end of a musket, against another army willing to kill you to keep you in the empire. In an age before the Internet, where your community consisted of farms with much distance between, and towns who's sizes you could fit in a decent hockey arena.

Things have changed, people have changed, and the world is a much different place. The legal system is becoming a black hole of suck, the medical system is failing (well, the US anyway, ours is having some issues, but not nearly at the us level), and the gov't is landlocked by partisan bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I wonder what Washington and co would think of a rep being kicked out for wearing a hoodie, or someone calling the president a liar during a SOTU address, or the president being compared to a genocidal madman.

Its a (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up world, and we all have to adapt to it, or we risk being left behind while the rest of the world looks on a wonders....


(sorry for the rant, had an energy drink and am super wired)

 

It is not a new world. The difference between now and then is that then the people valued their rights and were not willing to sacrifice them for comfort. Now, people will sacrifice any rights for comfort or safety because they don't value them. Once they lose them, then they will acquire value. Of course, then it is too late. So it goes in America. Where the golden rule is booed on live national tv. What a Christian bunch.

 

Of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing course it is a new world!! Modernity and the modern nation state have created realities and citizens completely different than anything we saw before or after.


PS. What is this idiotic gibberish about rights? People are exponentially freer now than they ever were in the past, with the exception of possibly only the very recent past.

 

It's also easier to interact with them on a personal level, or to get away from them when they become intolerable.

 

Yes, "things have changed", but I don't see how that renders the Constitution "antiquated". It is the legal embodiment of a timeless and transcendent moral philosophy - it has no time limit.

 

Fundamentally, though, we're still the same as we were thousands of years ago. Times may change, but human nature remains the same.

 

Check out the 10th Amendment Center.

This isn't about state law usurping the federal government, this is about Constitutionality of the federal government.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution actually supports State's Rights via the 10th Amendment as it has been pointed out gives everything not given to the Fed's to the State's and the People.

The OP has it right that more State's should stand up and say no against the usurpation of their powers and rights via taxed coercion.

How is that?

Except most State's Rights movements are not anti-government, but rather "anti-government who acts outside the bounds of the Constitution"

 

State's Rights movement? Really? Where is it? I see other movements more alive and effective.

Is there a web page where State Right coordinate actions among activist?

 

lol really? Methinks your looking at it through rose colored glasses.

The constitution is like the bible. Easily open to numerous interpretations, as evident by this whole health care debacle.

Anyway, no matter how you look at it, no code is worth anything that allows people to die just because they weren't lucky enough to have as much money as other people. All equal under god, unless your insurance can't cover that surgery....

 

Rich people die too.

 

yea, but not because they can't afford something they need.

 

I really don't even know what that means actually!! In my experience, I have never witnessed much of a nature shared universally by humans. I mean of course most people of the basic biological imperatives to eat, procreate, find shelter, survive, etc. However, that isn't universally true. As there are anorexic people, suicidal people, people who don't want children, etc. Now those people are a minority of the population, so even accepting those things make up something called "human nature," what insight does that term offer? How is referencing that supposed nature mean society is unchanged? We may still share some basic biological imperatives with our ancestors, but out basic natures are not the same. We now live in a consumerist capitalist society, that is so radically different from anything we experienced before, that we cannot help but change. On top of that, we have mechanisms of selection. People who have skills that would have been useful to society many years ago(like say a big strong guy who is good at and enjoys fighting), that person would have been celebrated 1000 years ago. Now they are incarcerated and separated out from society. Those were the sorts of people society privileged, them and people born into privilege. Now we privilege people with an entirely different skill set, who likely would have been ignored/marginalized at any other point in human history. So while we may share some basic characteristics that you describe as a nature, I don't think those characteristics are determinative of behavior to that large an extent, for that to matter.