[talaniman]

I can get with a constitutional republic as long as we don't forget the governance of consensus, but an unbridled so called free market making the rules for profit doesn't fit my idea of FAIR. Now you may love things like they are, but get with the idea things could be better with a few tweaks and we could all benefit from greater circulation by taking the tourniquet off our necks. Think of all those healthy customers you can sell stuff to right here in America.

The old model of building a country off the backs of slave labor should be dead by now!

[excon]

Hello again:

I love free market economics too.. But, I'm GLAD that when I call the fire department, they get in their trucks, instead of checking with accounting.. I LOVE getting on the freeway without going through a toll booth.. I LIKE that the military protects ME without looking to see if I paid my taxes..

There ARE some services that should NEVER become private, and the delivery of health care is one of those..

excon

[paraclete]

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

[talaniman]

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

It's a for profit international corporation Clete.

[tomder55]

Ex the examples you cite are legitimate roles of government

freeway ....(either state ;local ;or covered under Federal constitutional government (Art 1 sec 8) ..... all legit powers Some states toll their sections ,others don't . I predict that with EZ Pass systems more states will opt to toll roads . NYC is thinking of using it for congestion tolling . You drive down I-95 in VA. and you can get in an express lane where pricing adjusts while you are on the road depending on traffic levels . The schmucks who don't use the express lanes often end up in horrific traffic jams . Florida tolls express lanes near Orlando also .

fire department ...local governments have to power to set them up as they see fit . Many have paid firefighters . Many use volunteers . Private firefighting is a rapidly growing industry because it costs local governments too much to own their own equipment and facilities and the tax revenues decline because of things like populations fleeing due to high taxes . Many localities are consolidating their departments with other nearby towns .

military ... a Federal government power covered under both the 1st and 2nd article.

[tomder55]

Seriously Clete ;you don't know what a Republic is ? A democracy is rule by the majority . ie 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner . A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49

A republic is rule by the people through their representatives . Representatives are directly elected or in some cases appointed . The constitution protects individual rights even if the majority voted to take them away.

I forgot to add one important thing I love ;a federal system where no region because of a majority population can impose their will on regions less populated .

[talaniman]

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

[jlisenbe]

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

More accurately, the basis for our republic. 10th Amendment (You know, one of those pesky amendments to the Constitution that liberals pay but little attention to) states as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

[talaniman]

I got ya' and its not surprising that gay rights/marriage, Medicaid expansion, and a living wage were started in the states. So I was paying attention. You conservatives can slow down cultural evolution but I doubt you can stop it.

... and the beat goes on!

[jlisenbe]

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

[tomder55]

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

no tal .The issue of the Civil War was slavery

AND there is no such thing as states rights .people have rights ;states have powers ;and the powers of the Federal and State governments are very clearly defined in the Constitution. I defy you to find one clause or amendment that uses the word rights when it applies to states or the Federal government .
Why don't you just admit it ;Progressives don't like living under constitutional law .

[Wondergirl]

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, arguments over states' rights arose in the context of Slavery."

...defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict...ates%27+Rights

[talaniman]

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

You left out the PUBLIC in your school reference that also extends to federal and state GOVERNMENT buildings as well, since religious and PRIVATE schools can pray whenever they want as far as I know, but you can fact check me on those details. The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe. Can't tell them what to do can you. BUMMER!

States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years (As far back as allowing interracial marriages), and most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

Even some (MOST?) Christians resist the yoke of oppressive and discriminating religious rule. Maybe you should have patented marriage, which no doubt would and should have expired eons ago. So don't blame it on those liberal judges making new law, they just expanded, tweaked and improved the old ones.

Yo' boy Kavanaugh can change them all back, so GOOD LUCK! Go for it! You held your nose and got what you wanted so I suppose you should enjoy it!

[tomder55]

It was never about states 'rights '....period . There were plenty of other crisises that came before the Civil War that were about states POWERS that did not erupt into Civil War. example the issue of nullification crisis of 1832. Slavery was the only irreconcilable issue and it came to a head after the idiots in SCOTUS reversed the Missouri Compromise with the Dred Scott decision.

Again I challenge anyone to find wording that States have rights . The 10th is very clear and it needed to be .

The

powers

not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

It wasn't just slave states but ALL the states wanted to preserve state powers . Period . Alexander Hamilton was the least southern like framer there was . He said :

It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government.

Even without the 10th the limited nature of the Federal Government was defined in the Articles of the Constitution. Article 1 in particular is very specific about what powers Congress has. Nothing outside of the limited and well defined powers is constitutional .

The idea of limited government pervades the entire Constitution

.

[Wondergirl]

Wikipedia:

"The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.^[1] It expresses the principle of federalism and STATES' RIGHTS, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The states ratified the Tenth Amendment, declining to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated RIGHTS. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication."

[tomder55]

assume that powers not defined do not exist . The 9th covers the issue of unenumerated rights of the people .

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[jlisenbe]

The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.

since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe.

Otherwise known as birth control.

States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years

No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.

most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

[paraclete]

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.

Otherwise known as birth control.

Do you hear yourself, deprive the people who need guidance of that guidance. Obviously not all the advice they get is good advice however there is a difference between funding abortion and funding advice

No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.



The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

We can all agree that equating the right of gay people to be equal under the law and the travesty of gay marriage are two different things

[talaniman]

JL ask your wife about oby/gyn visits. It's more than Birth Control which is not 100% effective.

Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.

Try 37 state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-s..._United_States




Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America by state/district/territory:

Majority support same-sex marriage — 80 to 89%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 70 to 79%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 60 to 69%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
Plurality support same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Plurality oppose same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Majority oppose same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
No recent polling data

Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage was legal to at least some degree in thirty-eight states, one territory (Guam) and the District of Columbia; of the states, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama had restrictions. Until United States v. Windsor, it was only legal in 12 states and Washington D.C.. Beginning in July 2013, over forty federal and state courts cited Windsor to strike down state bans on the licensing or recognition of same-sex marriage.

The ball was already rolling pretty good before the SCOTUS ruling by the second map in this article. The good news is if you are against it you don't have to do it! :D

Same with abortions.

[jlisenbe]

Your map shows public opinion. Yes, we supporters of marriage have lost the public opinion battle due, I think, to a left wing media and entertainment business which endlessly puts out gay propaganda. Still, the great majority of those 37 states you mentioned had gay marriage forced upon them by an array of federal court decisions ruling their own laws to be unconstitutional. In most cases it was not legislative action.

I suppose when marriage is gone entirely, we will wake up one day and realize that God did, after all, know what He was talking about. Too late, in all likelihood, we will realize what we have thrown away. Yes, you are free to go your own way, and you are doing that, but not without consequences. Jesus endorsed marriage between one man and one woman, but you believe you know better. I guess we'll find out who's right.

"In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, requiring federal agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Citing that decision in part, dozens of federal district courts declared state marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, and the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage expanded rapidly. On Friday, the Supreme Court said that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.