Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   People who hate the federal government preempting state laws have no problem with state governments preempting local laws when it comes to guns   (theatlantic.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, state governments, federal government, state law, Missouri General Assembly, Sedgwick County, residential community, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio Governor  
•       •       •

1481 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



267 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 12:41:32 PM  
ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.


Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.
 
2014-03-06 12:43:43 PM  

jaytkay: meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.

For example...


There are groups attempting to in Eugene, Oregon.

We have a group that has been pushing for the city to enact stricter pollution and other guidelines than state or federal agencies.  The city just banned itself from using neonictonoids in it parks management program.  The group behind that (and I'm ok with them not spraying neonics) failed to get the city to adopt a complete no-spray policy.  The person in charge of that push actually told the city, "Just hire more people to pull weeds you used to spray".

We also are preempting state law regarding civil unions.  The city recognizes them, the state prohibits civil unions.
 
2014-03-06 12:45:10 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.


Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.
 
2014-03-06 12:46:05 PM  

meat0918: jaytkay: meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.

For example...

There are groups attempting to in Eugene, Oregon.

We have a group that has been pushing for the city to enact stricter pollution and other guidelines than state or federal agencies.  The city just banned itself from using neonictonoids in it parks management program.  The group behind that (and I'm ok with them not spraying neonics) failed to get the city to adopt a complete no-spray policy.  The person in charge of that push actually told the city, "Just hire more people to pull weeds you used to spray".

We also are preempting state law regarding civil unions.  The city recognizes them, the state prohibits civil unions.


Oh, several cities have attempted to preempt the feds by banning the transport of coal through their cities as well, even though they have no jurisdiction.
 
2014-03-06 12:49:18 PM  
The purpose of State preemption of local firearms laws is to insure that the law is uniform over the entire state.   Otherwise it would be impossible to go from Point-A to Point-B without having to know the laws (sometimes conflicting) of every single jurisdiction along your path.
 
2014-03-06 12:50:25 PM  
ikanreed:
Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.

No, it's an explanation for why people have certain view points that they have and it isn't "wrong," no matter how much you want to wail and gnash you teeth.  The fact of the matter is, the States do not derive their authority from the federal government, whilst local governments do derive their authority from the States.  Your failure to recognize that is why you cannot understand why some people have a problem with a big federal government but don't have those similar concerns when it comes to State government.
 
2014-03-06 12:54:01 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:
Christ.  If I decided to critically analyze any other part of the constitution, we'd arrive at numerous good reasons for it being so, like say, why we have a bicameral legislature, or why the supreme court is nominated by the president and approved by the senate.  Or why they serve for life.  Falling back on "that's just how it is" means you're wrong.  How something is, and how it should be are two distinct concepts, and it takes a child's understanding of rules to assume any different.

No, it's an explanation for why people have certain view points that they have and it isn't "wrong," no matter how much you want to wail and gnash you teeth.  The fact of the matter is, the States do not derive their authority from the federal government, whilst local governments do derive their authority from the States.  Your failure to recognize that is why you cannot understand why some people have a problem with a big federal government but don't have those similar concerns when it comes to State government.


Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.
 
2014-03-06 12:55:27 PM  
Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.
 
2014-03-06 12:59:13 PM  
ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.
 
2014-03-06 12:59:58 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.



They aren't superseding federal drug laws.  The Fed could still prosecute violations of federal law in colorado and washington as it relates to marijuana.
 
2014-03-06 01:00:26 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Technically they are not "superseding federal drug laws", they simply got rid of their own redundant drug laws. Neither Colorado nor Washington passed laws indicated that federal laws do not apply within their boarders. Marijuana cultivation, distribution and possession is a crime in those states.
 
2014-03-06 01:01:26 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.


The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.
 
2014-03-06 01:03:35 PM  
When the top most law declares that individuals have a right to something, you'd think any arguments about which lower tier laws can infringe on that right would be short lived.

/...but enough about the fourth amendment.
 
2014-03-06 01:04:10 PM  

Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.


Nope. State law has not "trumped" federal law in Colorado. Weed is still illegal there. The federal government has only voluntarily exercised its prerogative to restrict federal marijuana enforcement in the state. It is a legally, morally, and politically important distinction.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:14 PM  

ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.


The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation.  It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.
 
2014-03-06 01:05:51 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Only because the Feds have decided not to be total asshammers about drug law. They could, even today (assuming Holder's promises aren't legally binding), decide not to abide by their unilateral decisions and start rounding up Coloradans and Washingtonians who violate Federal Law, seize money and assets, etc.

// they're still asshammers, but to less than 100% density
 
2014-03-06 01:06:50 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.

The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation. It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.


So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?
 
2014-03-06 01:08:56 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: ikanreed: sprgrss: ikanreed:
Counterpoint: we explicitly have it stated that governments derive their power from the people at all levels.  That's more fundamental than any principle you claim to be citing.  So... your whole line of reasoning is stupid.  I mean that.  Stupid.

What point are you trying to make?  Because I cannot follow the thought process of the syphilitic.

The point is that there's no reason for you to behind this, other than "I like states".  Threre's no value to your position, unless you're obsessed with tradition, especially when it can lead to injustice.

The value to my position comes from the realization that federalism allows for democratic experimentation.  It's from the realization that States do not derive their authority from the federal government.  it's a realization that one could want a limited federal government while still wanting an entity, in this case, having general police powers.

There is no value in your position because your position is nothing short of not understanding why some people would have a problem with the federal government having general police powers.

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?


Yeah, this, dummy.  If the principal applies, why doesn't it apply at lower levels too?
 
2014-03-06 01:14:03 PM  
Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.
 
2014-03-06 01:16:41 PM  

sprgrss: TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


They aren't superseding federal drug laws.  The Fed could still prosecute violations of federal law in colorado and washington as it relates to marijuana.


Hmph.

I think I had ignoring laws == superseding
 
2014-03-06 01:19:09 PM  

nmrsnr: More like "people like laws they like, and dislike laws they dislike, and attempt to rationalize any incongruity between the two."


This.  But I generally favor laws passed by smaller legislative bodies, so I'm gonna have to side with the cities and counties on this one.  I just wouldn't live in one of those cities.

/From my cold dead hands.
 
2014-03-06 01:19:45 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.


So the final conclusion is: "because you can't know the law that way", as if we have some magic way to know the laws in states, municipalities, or even federal government with the status quo.

"Oops, you crossed a state line, you don't know it, but you're not now not married."
"Oops, you crossed a state line, suddenly your car doesn't meet safety requirements, not that you'd know"


This argument is equally valid as an accusation against state based federalism.  It doesn't change anything, except that it allows specific petty tyrannies republicans like.  The idea got demolished by the supreme court regarding the 14th amendment a long time ago, because it's dumb.
 
2014-03-06 01:24:30 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.


Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?
 
2014-03-06 01:26:57 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?


That would take an act of Congress to authorize those counties to form their own state and if the legislature of colorado so desired, prior to breaking them off could dissolve those local governments and join them with other local governments.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:04 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?


It means those counties had enough sway to convince Congress to create a 58th state.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:05 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.


Hitchhiker: No! No, no, not 6! I said 7. Nobody's comin' up with 6. Who works out in 6 minutes? You won't even get your heart goin, not even a mouse on a wheel.
Ted: That - good point.
Hitchhiker: 7's the key number here. Think about it. 7-Elevens. 7 dwarves. 7, man, that's the number. 7 chipmunks twirlin' on a branch, eatin' lots of sunflowers on my uncle's ranch. You know that old children's tale from the sea. It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby. Step into my office.
 
2014-03-06 01:27:08 PM  

sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.


citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-03-06 01:33:28 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black:

So why not do federalism at the state level? If a small number of democratic experiments is good, why wouldn't a larger number of democratic experiments be better?

because any sort of benefit that could possibly be derived from smaller and smaller laboratories would be lost because there would be an absence of uniformity and the citizens of the state would have no possible way of knowing if a behavior that is legal in one local government is illegal in another.

It would also establish counties and municipalities did not derive their authority from the State and the State would lose its general police powers, which might not sound like much, but when prosecution of crimes becomes impossible because of that you'll start screaming and crying.

But this is all predicated on the local governments attempting to supersede state law as it applies to rights that are enshrined both in the state and federal constitutions.

Suppose a city or county decided that it didn't want to be under the thumb of their current state government, like the counties in eastern Colorado are thinking about. If they were to successfully secede from their previous state and start their own state, what impact would that have on your thinking?

That would take an act of Congress to authorize those counties to form their own state and if the legislature of colorado so desired, prior to breaking them off could dissolve those local governments and join them with other local governments.


Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing problems since the general police powers are even more local than they were when Weld was merely a county in Colorado? Have they destroyed the uniformity necessary for democratic experimentation? Are they making it more difficult for people to know what is legal in one area and not in another?
 
2014-03-06 01:36:55 PM  
Serious Black:

Your response doesn't answer my counterfactual question. All you're doing is saying what would have to happen for a city or county to secede and what different groups could do to stop it from happening. Forget all that. I'm telling you in this counterfactual world, it has already happened. Weld County has successfully removed itself from Colorado and created the state of Weld in a manner recognized by the federal government. Is the Weld state government now causing prob ...

In this instance, Weld County would be its own state and as such would have general police powers and the ability to create and uncreate local governments and afford those local governments powers.  Colorado would not longer have authority over Weld County as Weld County would not longer be part of Colorado.
 
2014-03-06 01:40:36 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]


Art. I § 8 of the constitution is where the Congress is authorized to act and can only act in those areas.

Then, look at the 10th Amendment, all powers not assigned to the federal government and not denied to the States are the States.  The States have general police powers and are only limited in those police powers by their own constitutions or where the federal constitution limits that authority.
 
2014-03-06 01:41:13 PM  

TwistedIvory: Funny then how Colorado and Washington don't mind superseding federal drug laws.


Sort of related; was funny how the citizens of CO blew a gasket when their own state officials passed some gun control after the movie theater shooting. When it comes to guns in CO there be no reasonable response.
 
2014-03-06 01:51:06 PM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.
 
2014-03-06 01:53:56 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.


Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.
 
2014-03-06 01:57:24 PM  

mrshowrules: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.


Yeah but you're not a 'Murican so you and your evil , godless Snakes and Ladders is germane to the discussion. Down here in Real 'Murica we have wholesome and godly Shoots and Ladders.
 
2014-03-06 02:01:08 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ikanreed:

Because the States are sovereign.

"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.

Because people like to operate on a straw man that someone how federalists are small government all the time.  It completely ignores that Federalists are small national government because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.  You may call it arbitrary, but it is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system.

[citationneededuk.files.wordpress.com image 850x226]

Art. I § 8 of the constitution is where the Congress is authorized to act and can only act in those areas.

Then, look at the 10th Amendment, all powers not assigned to the federal government and not denied to the States are the States.  The States have general police powers and are only limited in those police powers by their own constitutions or where the federal constitution limits that authority.


True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.
 
2014-03-06 02:06:00 PM  

Saiga410: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Unless it is weed.

brandonzin.files.wordpress.com

Farking wah! The Feds are free to enforce the stupidest of their laws if they want, but they will be paying the full cost of it. States like mine, Colorado, will no longer be assisting them, is all.
 
2014-03-06 02:07:32 PM  
ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.
 
2014-03-06 02:08:19 PM  

jigger: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.

Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.


But all states are equal in their sovereignty.
 
2014-03-06 02:11:44 PM  
These types of headlines are the worst. The submitter attempts point out a perceived hypocrisy of whatever group he wants to discredit. In doing so, he'll throw out any sort of nuance that might explain why there may be a reasonable difference in the two cases. The "example" of hypocrisy then becomes so general that it doesn't mean anything, and ironically lets open the door for this type of argument to be used against their side (or anyone, really)
 
2014-03-06 02:12:26 PM  
FTFA: "There are lots of areas where home rule certainly applies," Stoneking said. "But this is not one of them. Not when it comes to an unalienable, natural, God-given right for people to protect themselves."

18 And lo, upon the eighth day, God did look upon his creations and see that Man had no protection against other men God had created who would do harm 19 And God said, Let there be firearms 20 And God looked upon the firearms and saw that they were good. 21And God blessed the firearms, for they were his greatest work.

22 And the serpent was beneath all the other beasts of the field, and crawled upon his belly, cunning and devious was the serpent. 23 And the serpent spake unto Adam, and said 24 But if you have access to firearms, access must be given even unto those who would do harm unto you 25 And Adam spake, saying, 26 Thou evil and devious serpent, What God hath made, and hath blessed, let no man put asunder, even for the sake of living together in peace! 27 And thus the serpent did slink away, chastised.

28 And God did look upon his creation, and the destruction wrought with the firearms He had made for them, and blessed, and was well pleased.
 
2014-03-06 02:13:40 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.


Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.
 
2014-03-06 02:15:11 PM  
...and when it comes to collective bargaining, wages, infrastructure, public transit, protection from discrimination, education...  The concept is the same, isolated areas affected by outside majorities. The farthest reaches of white flight dictating what cities can do is kinda of like southern states dictating how roads are salted and plowed in the winter.. in the latter case, all they see is a dollar amount for road repair, and then gripe and gripe about it, claiming costs could be reduced by how the roads are maintained in the winter, and ban any change to how the roads are actually constructed and paved. (Because their in-laws own the companies that "won" the [no-bid] contracts to lay all the asphalt every year, and sure as hell aren't going to allow any gubberment to tell them to do a better job of it, let alone have someone else do the work.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:10 PM  

ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.


Same holds true for you.  You know, don't strip the context from what I type.
 
2014-03-06 02:17:30 PM  

Frank N Stein: These types of headlines are the worst. The submitter attempts point out a perceived hypocrisy of whatever group he wants to discredit. In doing so, he'll throw out any sort of nuance that might explain why there may be a reasonable difference in the two cases. The "example" of hypocrisy then becomes so general that it doesn't mean anything, and ironically lets open the door for this type of argument to be used against their side (or anyone, really)


this.
on the other hand, it does give all some of the politics warriors a chance to practice their inane shouting, so that's kind of nice
 
2014-03-06 02:21:25 PM  

sprgrss: jigger: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.

Some states aren't. Most states are.

The original 13 plus Vermont, Texas, California, and Hawaii were independent before becoming a territory/state. The rest were carved out by the federal government as territories and then granted statehood later.

But all states are equal in their sovereignty.


Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.
 
2014-03-06 02:25:38 PM  

sprgrss: ScaryBottles: sprgrss: ScaryBottles:

True but nowhere does it explicitly say that the states are the final authority on anything. And no I'm not just arguing semantics. So you can think that state authority supersedes federal authority all you want but the supremacy clause unambiguously sets federal authority above that of an individual state. I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news lately but a whole of homophobic teabagger types have been learning that lesson the hard way.

Where did you come up with the idea that I support nullification?  I don't.  I understand that where the Congress has the authority to act it's word is final.  I also recognize that the States, because of the 14th Amendment cannot deny people certain rights and protections.

Please do not put words in my mouth. The only thing I said was that the states are not the final authority on anything period. I could spend the rest of the day listing all the various situations where state authority is not absolute. Next time respond to what I actually said not what you wish I had said.

Same holds true for you.  You know, don't strip the context from what I type.

because the national government is a government limited authority and the States are not.


Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-03-06 02:26:32 PM  
cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.  Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.
 
2014-03-06 02:27:06 PM  

max_pooper: mrshowrules: max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.

Sorta like my bed time rule at home overrides the rules of the Snakes and Ladders game my kids are playing when I tell them to go to bed.  Except my kids are more mature than most Red State Governments.

Yeah but you're not a 'Murican so you and your evil , godless Snakes and Ladders is germane to the discussion. Down here in Real 'Murica we have wholesome and godly Shoots and Ladders.


"shoots" can also have a connotation of gun violence and would therefore be to damaging to our sensitive and emotional sensibilities.
 
2014-03-06 02:28:20 PM  
ScaryBottles:

Its not my fault you said something thats demonstrably inaccurate regardless of its context.

[31.media.tumblr.com image 500x238]


Have you bothered to read the rest of the thread?  Because you are making a fool of yourself to anyone who knows what they are talking about.
 
2014-03-06 02:33:23 PM  

sprgrss: cameroncrazy1984:

Correct, they are all not sovereign at all as they are superseded by the federal government.

only in specific limited areas, those areas where the Federal Government is authorized to act.   Otherwise, they have all the sovereignty as they like unless the US Constitution or their state constitutions limit it.


Do you not see how you're talking out both sides of your face here. You're literally completely contradicting yourself in less than one sentence.

Cognitive dissonance is a harsh mistress I guess.....
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report