How to Fix Congress

[Marxist ßastard]

Then you support states' rights, and I support states' rights, but you keep arguing because you think I'm a Communist, and this is a massive Communist conspiracy. Good to have that cleared up.

 

Just curious: Did you see a lot of blue-on-blue in the Navy? Did you do a lot of blue-on-blue?

[grannywils]

I do not have much time right now, but I tend to agree with the person who said earlier (I think it was Aurielius) that the problems are not with the system but with those within the system who are malfunctioning in it (as it were).

 

We have in the United States a tricameral representative republic. If our representatives and politicians would read up on just what that is, and would behave accordingly, things would work out just fine. However, human nature being what it is, we have all dropped the ball and let ourselves go to Hell in a handbasket.

 

However, once again I repeat our form of government was written to be the best possible, for little states, big states, little people, big people, etc. We are the ones who are screwing it up. There is nothing wrong with the system as it was written to work.....

[Aurielius]

@Marxist

Though I am in favor of states rights the issue of whether federalism or states rights has superiority was settled in 1865, the last advocates of the preeminence of States Rights (the Confederate States) lost that argument conclusively. As for your thinly disguised not so adroit barb, Naval Officers are non political, we serve as guarantors of the constitution so in that respect I saw only red white and blue.

[juderodney]

...you keep arguing because you think I'm a Communist, and this is a massive Communist conspiracy.

 

Call me crazy, but I think it has something to do with your name. You know... Marxist Bastard? It kind of sticks out.

 

Btw, if you're all for states' rights, why not just call for the repeal 17th Amendment (which I'd be all for) instead of this complex undermining of the Senate?

[marharth]

This is relevant to what Marxist said.

Edited November 7, 2011 by marharth

[lukertin]

@Marxist

Though I am in favor of states rights the issue of whether federalism or states rights has superiority was settled in 1865, the last advocates of the preeminence of States Rights (the Confederate States) lost that argument conclusively. As for your thinly disguised not so adroit barb, Naval Officers are non political, we serve as guarantors of the constitution so in that respect I saw only red white and blue.

 

 

If the issue were settled in 1865 why does it still come up even today? :biggrin:

[Aurielius]

@Marxist

Though I am in favor of states rights the issue of whether federalism or states rights has superiority was settled in 1865, the last advocates of the preeminence of States Rights (the Confederate States) lost that argument conclusively. As for your thinly disguised not so adroit barb, Naval Officers are non political, we serve as guarantors of the constitution so in that respect I saw only red white and blue.

 

 

If the issue were settled in 1865 why does it still come up even today? :biggrin:

It's settled as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, there has not been a successful challenge to the superzenity of Federalism in over a 155 years, the last case contesting it was United States v. Cruikshank (1876), and Federalist brief prevailed. States Rights was used to defend segregation in the South 60's and all contesting state's attorney's generals had their cases dismissed. It may be brought up from time to time but as far as case law is concerned, it's settled. For all intents and purposes States Rights primacy died at at Appomattox with the army of Northern Virginia.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Good point, Mr. A.

[lukertin]

In US v. Perez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), US v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Court limited Congress' commerce regulating power as overreaching into States' police rights. The buck would have continued in Gonzalez v. Raich if not for Scalia being butthurt over marijuana.

 

The issue of States' rights is hardly dead, the fact that it is about to pop up again in US v. Arizona and US v. Alabama is tantamount to that..

[pseudobio]

Marxist, why do we need to protect the rights of the disabled or elderly either? The elderly and disabled just waste money better spent on younger and healthier abled-bodied productive citizens! Little states, like the disabled and elderly just waste money and resources better spent on the bigger states. --Sarcasm

 

The little states, like the elderly and disabled, have the right to be heard, and what you propose to do with the senate cripples their ability to be heard at all.

 

BTW, I am one of those disabled people I mentioned in the post.