Don't like freedom?

[Lisnpuppy]

removed by author

[csgators]

Ok, CS, so you posted a map and said something about the least free states in the Union. Then a whole bunch of people said a whole bunch of stuff.

 

What I really want to know is this. What exactly is your point?

 

Do you expect this Nation to become more free by denying the Constitutuion?

 

Do you expect it to become more free by following the Constitution to the absolute letter of the law?

 

Shall we rewrite the Constitution? And if so, who will be the new author. Do you wish to volunteer?

 

Which laws do you think are ok?

 

Which laws do you think are not ok?

 

Who should decide which laws are ok or not ok?

 

Who has the best judgement regarding whether or not the government needs to become involved in a specific matter?

 

If some laws are ok, who should be responsible for enforcing them?

 

Where does the line get drawn?

 

Examples:

 

1. There are those who firmly believe that laws governing who should be allowed to be married to whom should not be on the books. Are those laws ok?

 

2. There are those who firmly believe that their should be laws governing whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Regardless of circumstances, are those laws ok?

 

3. There are those who firmly believe that the sale of assault weapons should be disallowed to the general public. Are those laws ok?

 

4. There are those who firmly believe that if you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs and as a result kill someone while driving said vehicle, you should pay a much larger penalty than is currently assessed in many states. How about those laws?

 

5. There are those who firmly believe that laws that state that a corporation should be treated as a person should be repealed. What say you about those?

 

6. There are those who firmly believe that someone should be keeping an eye on corporations who have the ability to pollute our national waterways, and that there should be laws to prevent them from so doing. What about those?

 

Now I have given a variety of examples. But I'm only asking for your opinion. What happens if your specific opinion differs from the next guy's opinion?

 

How will these new freedoms work exactly. I just need a little reassurance.

 

 

Hi Granny, normally I tend to pick on the federal government and leave the states to their own devices, unless of course the states pass laws that violate the Constitution. The reason I stared the thread was just to point out that almost all of the least free states are dominated by Democrat politics. Despite the rhetoric, it is the Democrats more than the Republicans that are more prone to curtailing our liberties, they wish to regulate every single aspect of our lives. The GOP is by no means innocent, they have a few areas that they too are all to happy to limit our freedoms.

 

Do you expect this Nation to become more free by denying the Constitutuion?

 

Do you expect it to become more free by following the Constitution to the absolute letter of the law?

 

The Constitution should be followed strictly and the original intent of the amendment in question should be honored. Just because language and standards change over time that does not mean the intent of the amendment can be altered. If you want to change it, pass another amendment.

 

Do you expect it to become more free by following the Constitution to the absolute letter of the law?

 

Yes, the Constitution is a document outlining what the government CAN NOT DO, we ignore it to our peril.

Which laws do you think are ok?

 

Which laws do you think are not ok?

 

Who should decide which laws are ok or not ok?

 

We already have a system for this, unfortunately many people have been attempting to subvert this system over many, many years. One of the scariest things I have ever heard is that we "Have a living breathing constitution." No we don't, it is set in stone (or should be) until it is changed through the proper means. We have one political party that nominates judges solely with the intent to pervert the meaning of the Constitution and it scares the crap out me.

 

1. There are those who firmly believe that laws governing who should be allowed to be married to whom should not be on the books. Are those laws ok?

 

2. There are those who firmly believe that their should be laws governing whether or not a woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Regardless of circumstances, are those laws ok?

 

4. There are those who firmly believe that if you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs and as a result kill someone while driving said vehicle, you should pay a much larger penalty than is currently assessed in many states. How about those laws?

 

All of these should be left to the states, not the federal government.

 

3. There are those who firmly believe that the sale of assault weapons should be disallowed to the general public. Are those laws ok?

 

I should be able to own a tank if I want to, I should also be held accountable for how I use that tank.

5. There are those who firmly believe that laws that state that a corporation should be treated as a person should be repealed. What say you about those?

 

I am fine with this as long as ALL of the same rules apply, such as campaign contribution limits.

6. There are those who firmly believe that someone should be keeping an eye on corporations who have the ability to pollute our national waterways, and that there should be laws to prevent them from so doing. What about those?

 

Of course laws should be enforced, but who is watching the watchmen?

Now I have given a variety of examples. But I'm only asking for your opinion. What happens if your specific opinion differs from the next guy's opinion?

 

Assuming that the laws in question pass constitutional muster, it is decided at the ballot box.

 

How will these new freedoms work exactly. I just need a little reassurance.

 

Somehow we survived before without all of these laws. Many laws passed today are simply a power grab and so that the elected officials can claim they are doing something. Do you really think we need hundreds of new laws passed every year? Was life so rotten before these laws and do these laws fix more problems than they create?

Edited June 18, 2011 by csgators

[grannywils]

Hey CS, Don't want to start one of those, answer within an answer, within an answer posts, 'cause I cannot stand to read them. So will begin new page.

 

Although you point out that you normally tend to focus on the federal government rather than the states, I just do not get that. If you say you are for "freedom", why be selective about who is imposing the laws?

 

Secondly, let us please not get into which party is responsible for what. We could go on and on about that, and that is not really what this needs to be all about. Let me just say this. As far as I can tell, we currently have one party in this country, the Republicrats. And it is run entirely by corporate America. I personally do not consider myself to be aligned with this party, so can say nothing in its defense.

 

Although I do agree with most of your views on the Constitution, I will say that although it is carved in stone, I think it was written with the view towards a changing America (thus the ability to amend it). However, I am sure that the framers never envisioned the extremes to which we would go.

 

Back to my original second paragraph, to me you have somewhat copped out by saying that you would leave some of those most controversial "laws"/"freedoms" to the states. Again I say, if you stand for freedom then why not stand up for those freedoms that are being legislated all over the map. Either we mean it or we don't. Right??

 

 

[csgators]

Hey CS, Don't want to start one of those, answer within an answer, within an answer posts, 'cause I cannot stand to read them. So will begin new page.

 

Although you point out that you normally tend to focus on the federal government rather than the states, I just do not get that. If you say you are for "freedom", why be selective about who is imposing the laws?

 

Because the design of our country is so wonderful. We have 50 states in which to test ideas and 50 states that you can choose to live in. I hate when everything is mandated from on high with a one size fits all "solution"

 

Secondly, let us please not get into which party is responsible for what. We could go on and on about that, and that is not really what this needs to be all about. Let me just say this. As far as I can tell, we currently have one party in this country, the Republicrats. And it is run entirely by corporate America. I personally do not consider myself to be aligned with this party, so can say nothing in its defense.

 

I am aligned with Liberty, the Libertarian party reflects my views far more accurately than any other. I am in full agreement with the creators of South Park on this:

Q: Are you two guys liberal or conservative? Me and my friends have had debates about this.

TREY: We avoid extremes but we hate liberals more than conservatives and we hate them [conservatives].

MATT: I hate conservatives but I really ******* hate liberals.

 

Although I do agree with most of your views on the Constitution, I will say that although it is carved in stone, I think it was written with the view towards a changing America (thus the ability to amend it). However, I am sure that the framers never envisioned the extremes to which we would go.

 

Back to my original second paragraph, to me you have somewhat copped out by saying that you would leave some of those most controversial "laws"/"freedoms" to the states. Again I say, if you stand for freedom then why not stand up for those freedoms that are being legislated all over the map. Either we mean it or we don't. Right??

 

I do stand up for freedom all over the map, that is why I posted the map from the article on the first page. I just think states have more leeway than the feds for the reasons I stated above. Also there is very important piece of text from the constitution:

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.

[HeyYou]

I would point out, that michigan currently has a republican governor, and the reps also control both houses...... the latest bit of legal wizardry that just passed, is similar to what made the news in wisconsin.

 

Seems Governor Snyder wants to be able to toss out union contracts with the state/local governments, and even toss out duly elected officials, if by some twist of fate, the location is determined to be 'financially troubled'...... conveniently, no definition of that term was made, nor was it outlined just whom would be making that decision.

 

I'm with Granny. We only have one party. And it sucks.

[grannywils]

Have to admit that I liked your response CS. Am going to think about it for awhile. You did a good job. Was all ready to jump all over your case. But I can't. Thanks.

[csgators]

Have to admit that I liked your response CS. Am going to think about it for awhile. You did a good job. Was all ready to jump all over your case. But I can't. Thanks.

 

:biggrin:

You are a wonderful sparring partner, care to dance? :dance:

[grannywils]

Have to admit that I liked your response CS. Am going to think about it for awhile. You did a good job. Was all ready to jump all over your case. But I can't. Thanks.

 

:biggrin:

You are a wonderful sparring partner, care to dance? :dance:

 

 

Any time, pal. Would love to.:P

[Vagrant0]

Because the design of our country is so wonderful. We have 50 states in which to test ideas and 50 states that you can choose to live in. I hate when everything is mandated from on high with a one size fits all "solution"

For starters, we have a hard enough time building a fence along the partial border of three and a half states. If every state had their own unique laws, naturally all the borders into and out of each state would have to heavily be controlled to keep people from trafficking illegal wares, persons, documents, ect. What you are suggesting is not 50 states, but rather 50 countries... and that is something which is quite unamerican. Or do you somehow have idealist notion that state governors wouldn't decide to just change the laws to suit their own agendas? This would not lead to more freedom, but rather less freedom since each state would have to come up with their own unique answer to all those thousands of things; which have to be regulated as a matter of being able to have any society to speak of (or are you still on that "all laws are the chains of the man, man" stuff), instead of relying on a national government to decide laws. If states could decide all laws, undoubtedly we would have states banning anything seen as heretical to the Bible, and certainly denying entry to persons who did not prove their faith (and not just Utah).

 

I mean, seriously, do some reading of history back when the states were founded, not only could people be arrested or jailed for one thing in one state but be allowed in the other... often just by crossing the border, but you had criminals who could cross state borders and be free of any crimes the committed due to no national jurisdiction of any police force. Do some looking around you... How many states have tight liquor laws, and how many people do you know who live in those states who border hop? The 4th is coming up, how about those fireworks that usually have to be smuggled in? And that's just petty stuff... What about marriages which are only valid in one state because another state refuses to recognize it based on race or religion, and being hung because you happened to be speaking to a woman of another race despite her being your wife on the other side of the border? Which brings the question to legalized slavery... Something which undoubtedly would resurface in some places where a working wage cannot be paid, and was an issue that people died for at one time.

 

You say we live in enlightened times, yet people carry around signs saying "God hates fags" and even posting them on their lawns. If every state decided their own laws, who's to say there wouldn't be someone who decided to make homosexuality illegal (they tried with various sodomy and cross-dressing laws in many states already) and punishable by death. There wouldn't be fewer laws or even more practical laws, there would only be more specific ones.

 

National laws are needed to create an orderly constant between states, so that people traveling from one state to another don't have to learn the 90 or so different laws that a state might have regarding how you brush your teeth in the morning (I'm purposely being ridiculous in hopes that some of my point is getting through) just to be free from jail time or execution. National law was created primarily so that every state would have a measure of sanity for which to create their own laws. The fact that the sanity has left the congress doesn't mean that the system was always flawed, only that the current incarnation is just some twisted reflection (mostly by special interest groups, who also operate strongly on the state level) of that system.

 

Lastly, maybe you don't care about where you live, but few people are going to abandon their homes to find some better state short of some dire emergency. But, these people would not be refuges from a national disaster, but because of political persecution. And they would be refuges just the same, fleeing for their lives with little more than what they can carry. Don't think so? We see it constantly in eastern Europe and Africa. You take a hard line "Democrats are the cause of everything wrong"... ok... So what's to keep other like minded people from chasing all supposed Democrats from their state and enforcing laws that promote "True, American (Republican)" values?

 

50 states, 50 autonomous governments... That's a worse idea than, well, anything. To suggest it suggests a startling ignorance about the people of your town, state, country, society.

[ginnyfizz]

I rather think, had you read his post properly, Vagrant0, that you would have noticed that he showed his knowledge of his country and his Constitution by quoting the provision

 

"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 therefore seems to me that so far from having a "startling ignorance" he is stating the facts and the position as the US Constitution lays down, that in certain areas the individual states do have power/jurisdictional freedom. I don't see him arguing for the sort of extreme measures and scenarios that you depict. Yet more intellectual arrogance and stereotyping from someone on the Left leaning side, assuming that the conservative side can neither read "I mean, seriously, do some reading of history back when the states were founded" - how do you know he hasn't? - nor develop a mind of their own.