What's your opinion...should moral issues like abortion, sexuality, marriage, prohibition, etc be state/local issues? Or should the federal government make the rules? Personally I'm for states rights...on all moral issues, I think when the fed gets involved we lose our liberty.
Yes. They are absolutely states rights. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that allows for the federal government to control these issues. The constitution is pretty specific about what powers the feds have and these aren't included in any of them.
__________________
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency........... Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
What's your opinion...should moral issues like abortion, sexuality, marriage, prohibition, etc be state/local issues? Or should the federal government make the rules? Personally I'm for states rights...on all moral issues, I think when the fed gets involved we lose our liberty.
Since when is murder a moral issue? Why do you believe your liberty isn't lost under state control? As far as sexuality goes it often isn't given the light it deserves. Time and time again a sex crime is committed and between people of the same sex. The headlines never read "A homosexual man raped boys..." when the man is clearly a homosexual by default. That is a crime and one the government has a right to regulate and firmly based in sex. I'm surprised you haven't mentioned religion, it clearly regulates that and the reason it does is because of religions long lists of abuse of the people. It's regulation of religion is also very offensive and true to form, but religion didn't take it's freedom seriously and act responsibly giving government a reason to regulate. Religion unlike the others listed is the only true moral issue.
The government can regulate anything when given the opportunity. The civil rights laws were all created because the states refused to guarantee freedom for the people in it's borders. Because of their refusal the federal solution was offensive, true to it's form and the main reason people should take their freedom seriously and act in accordance with it's only demand, responsibly.
The government is reactionary, when the people feed it by their abuse of each other the government grows, your blaming the wrong entity. The people created this monster and will continue to feed it till we get our head on straight and the answer isn't a government solution. To end the regulation without ending the reason it regulated is doing nothing and will lead to greater trouble.
WWI started in a time we firmly believed war was a thing of the past, economic prosperity was the future. We fought the belief that there was a war going on as long as we could and then decided to join in and bring an end to war once and for all. When it was over and the UN taking shape a prominent political leader stood and gave a speech in which he reiterated the claim and said the only way to disarm was to disarm. He received a standing ovation and nations agreed to destroy their weapons. This wrong headedness gave birth to a terror the world had never seen before, the atomic bomb.
Many people today are saying basically the same thing concerning government, the only way for it to be efficient is for it to do X. If it does X it will lead to another "atomic bomb". It is not the answer and supposed to be something people work very hard at not giving a reason to respond, just like war.
A Ron Paul will lead to an Obama (pick your own poison politician) x 100 unless he's proclaimed ruler for life and he is the only one who can name his successor. Fat chance he'd live to appoint one. As in days gone by where that was the norm assassination was very popular. Do a person little good if they were dependent on the people voting for them. For the record Hitler was whatever, but he claimed the enemy of Germany was the liberal democrat in cahoots with the communists. Germany agreed and made him ruler for life while he solomnly promised to only use his new power for good and in extreme circumstances. The morning after his "election" many people were missing, never seen again and fear began to sweep through the land. Germany's 13 year old democracy toast. Another government solution gone bust. Germany was one of the country's that agreed to disarm, so did ***an.
What's your opinion...should moral issues like abortion, sexuality, marriage, prohibition, etc be state/local issues? Or should the federal government make the rules? Personally I'm for states rights...on all moral issues, I think when the fed gets involved we lose our liberty.
These issues used to be state/local issues., but they are no longer. Abortion used to be legal in some states before Roe v. Wade, Michigan for example, and illegal in others, Texas for example. But the federal government, acting through the Supreme Court declared abortion legal in every state. Sodomy used to be illegal in at least some states, for example, Michigan where the statute barred "the vile and detestable crime against nature." But the federal government, acting through the Supreme Court made those laws unenforcable.
Some states have declared same-sex "marriage" to be legal, while other states have refused to recognize such "marriages" performed in another state. It's quite possible that the federal government, acting throught the Supreme Court will declare that the Constitution requires such states to recognize same-sex "marriages." The federal government, acting through the Supreme Court may also require states which now bar same-sex "marriages" to permit them within the state.
On the flip side though, some states used to bar marriages between people of certain different races. In fact, in some of those states, my marriage, as an Oriental, marrying a Caucasian, would have been barred. The Supreme Court ruled such statutes violate the Constitution. I can't honestly find fault with that.
There are groups in some areas which have tried to force the schools to teach Creationism in biology classes but the federal courts have ruled that unconstitutional. I can't find fault with that either. Your religious beliefs are your own business but I don't want people forcing them on my children.
I think the concept of states rights that existed during the earlier part of our nation's history was workable. But the differences between someone living in say, Nevada, and someone living in say, Pennsylvania, are quite minimal today. As a nation we are much more homogeneous. So it's hard to draw a line as to where "states rights" should begin and where they should end. The ease of communication and transportation have made us a larger community and lessened the differences between states.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
States' rights issues completely. The Federal government was never empowered to dictate to the states on these sorts of issues. Personally, the less involved the federal government is in the lives of the citizenry, the more this country resembles the republic presented to us by the Founding Fathers. THe bigger the federal government gets, the further from that original vision we stray.....
I side with issues like this being for the states but history has shown that the federal government has been the decider of crucial matters and this is not a new thing. The Civil War was a State's Rights issue and we all know how that turned out.
I side with issues like this being for the states but history has shown that the federal government has been the decider of crucial matters and this is not a new thing. The Civil War was a State's Rights issue and we all know how that turned out.
Biker
The Civil War was about slavery. Had the slave states been willing to give up their residents' right to own slaves, a right which civilized people were finding increasingly repulsive, it never would have happened.
The Civil War gave the federal government the opportunity to increase its power more quckly and more broadly than would have happened otherwise I believe.
This is not all bad. Segregated schools, segregation in general, anti-miscegenation laws, etc., reflect badly on all of the people of our country.
__________________
Proud parents of our own "Daddy's Little Girls"
I heard Jesus He drank wine and I bet we'd get along just fine.
I'm for states rights...on all moral issues, I think when the fed gets involved we lose our liberty.
For moral issues I say neither. These are personal decisions and I will not have any earthly government telling me what is right or wrong. The King of Heaven is my guide for what is morally right.
Abortion may be legal but that does not make it right.
__________________ www.Kaydoo.com
Your Visual Marketplace
Crafters, Artists, Fundraisers,
Kaydoo is your place to be seen.
The Civil War was about slavery. Had the slave states been willing to give up their residents' right to own slaves, a right which civilized people were finding increasingly repulsive, it never would have happened.
The Civil War gave the federal government the opportunity to increase its power more quckly and more broadly than would have happened otherwise I believe.
This is not all bad. Segregated schools, segregation in general, anti-miscegenation laws, etc., reflect badly on all of the people of our country.
See the bold parts.
While I may not agree with the state's stance on a law, I do think it is a matter for the state to decide. The first bold sentence confirms that this is a state's right issue. Slavery was only the catalyst not the root cause.
Any and all increase in federal power is a bad thing in my opinion. Most states have enacted some form a concealed carry law. I support this but oppose a federal law telling the states they have to allow concealed carry. While I would like concealed carry in all states I do not support the federal government making it so. I use concealed carry as an example that most people can understand, not to change the direction of the thread.
I didn't list murder, but I'm guessing you are referring to abortion as murder. That's a whole other discussion for a different time/thread.
Quote:
Why do you believe your liberty isn't lost under state control?
I'm of the opinion that the more local the government control is...the more power the people have to influence laws/regulation. If Joe Somebody in Wichita Kansas wants to drink alcohol but its illegal nationwide he has 3 choices: 1) Hide that he is drinking it for fear of being caught. 2) Move to another country. 3) Don't drink it. But if drinking alcohol was legal in some states/counties/cities, then Joe can move where its legal and not have to leave this great nation. Ultimately Joe shouldn't be told by any government what he can/can't put in his body, but certainly not at the federal level.
Quote:
As far as sexuality goes it often isn't given the light it deserves. Time and time again a sex crime is committed and between people of the same sex. The headlines never read "A homosexual man raped boys..." when the man is clearly a homosexual by default. That is a crime and one the government has a right to regulate and firmly based in sex.
You lost me here, not sure what your point is. Rape of any kind is obviously a crime and illegal, no matter whether it was hetero or homosexual.
Quote:
I'm surprised you haven't mentioned religion, it clearly regulates that and the reason it does is because of religions long lists of abuse of the people. It's regulation of religion is also very offensive and true to form, but religion didn't take it's freedom seriously and act responsibly giving government a reason to regulate. Religion unlike the others listed is the only true moral issue.
I simply typed in the first 4 or 5 issues that popped in my head that I thought were considered moral
Quote:
The government can regulate anything when given the opportunity.
Agreed...when given the opportunity, and I think they have been given too much opportunity.
Quote:
The civil rights laws were all created because the states refused to guarantee freedom for the people in it's borders. Because of their refusal the federal solution was offensive, true to it's form and the main reason people should take their freedom seriously and act in accordance with it's only demand, responsibly.
I agree that this is an instance where the federal government was correct in stepping in and making the necessary laws. But I don't consider civil rights a "moral" issue, more like a necessity for freedom.
Quote:
The government is reactionary, when the people feed it by their abuse of each other the government grows, your blaming the wrong entity. The people created this monster and will continue to feed it till we get our head on straight and the answer isn't a government solution. To end the regulation without ending the reason it regulated is doing nothing and will lead to greater trouble.
I have to disagree here, certainly the people are partly to blame for this monster due to ignorance, but I can't agree that there wasn't a level of deception that carries at least an equal amount of fault.
Quote:
WWI started in a time we firmly believed war was a thing of the past, economic prosperity was the future. We fought the belief that there was a war going on as long as we could and then decided to join in and bring an end to war once and for all. When it was over and the UN taking shape a prominent political leader stood and gave a speech in which he reiterated the claim and said the only way to disarm was to disarm. He received a standing ovation and nations agreed to destroy their weapons. This wrong headedness gave birth to a terror the world had never seen before, the atomic bomb.
You lost me again, are you saying because they all agreed to disarm it paved the way for the A-bomb?
Quote:
Many people today are saying basically the same thing concerning government, the only way for it to be efficient is for it to do X. If it does X it will lead to another "atomic bomb". It is not the answer and supposed to be something people work very hard at not giving a reason to respond, just like war.
Not following you here either, are you saying that by cutting the moster down to size it will result in something worse than letting it grow bigger?
Quote:
A Ron Paul will lead to an Obama (pick your own poison politician) x 100 unless he's proclaimed ruler for life and he is the only one who can name his successor. Fat chance he'd live to appoint one. As in days gone by where that was the norm assassination was very popular. Do a person little good if they were dependent on the people voting for them. For the record Hitler was whatever, but he claimed the enemy of Germany was the liberal democrat in cahoots with the communists. Germany agreed and made him ruler for life while he solomnly promised to only use his new power for good and in extreme circumstances. The morning after his "election" many people were missing, never seen again and fear began to sweep through the land. Germany's 13 year old democracy toast. Another government solution gone bust. Germany was one of the country's that agreed to disarm, so did ***an.
Are you implying that Paul is a complete fake and will turn a 180 if he gets into office?
States rights
