Seriously, the city-state model isn't as bad as you think...as long as we have the Constitution, different regions can usually be allowed to do what they want.
------------------ Frank's Home Page "People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall
posted
So what you are saying is that the federal government in DC are intervering too much in the local affairs of states. Like the gun issue that has been in the news a lot recently especially after all those shootings. In that case should the federal governent leave these deomestic issues to the individual states and instead concentrate on foreign affairs like Bosnia, Iraq and Europe.
------------------ "We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy
posted
Yes, but you do if you want to be able to take the gun home from the store, as you have to have a carry permit to leave the store with the gun, or transport it in your vehicle to your residence.
So saying there's a difference is nonsense.
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
posted
I didn't say to withdraw from the union, which is what the civil war was originally over. I said to sue the government. The states would have a legitimate complaint. They signed a contract with the government and with each other, stating various things can and can not be done by the parties involved. The tenth ammendment was one of those clauses. Any step beyond the powers granted the government in the constitution constitutes a breach of contract. Of course, you can't sue the national government unless they let you, which is really stupid.
'Personally, I rather like knowing that my civil liberties are preserved no matter what state I happen to be in.'
So do I. That's what some of the clauses in the constitution are for. The states can't revoke your civil rights.
I like the USA. I like the idea of a strong central authority. Just not THIS strong. The people and the states never gave the national government much of the authority that they have userped. Therefore, it has no right to it. The government's job is as stated in the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.
If those were questions, NX, you hit it right on the head. The federal government is there to prevent tyrrany in the states, to defend their people from external and certain internal threats, and to deal with foreign affairs. That's pretty much it. Anything beyond that is local business.
------------------ You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.
posted
Still, the original post sounds more like the process for getting a concealed weapons permit than anything else.
For the Constitutional scholars who may feel like they want to sue the government for too much interference, keep in mind that as interpreted by the courts the 14th amendment to the Constitution allows the federal government to room regulate business.
quote:The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State's competency."
------------------ Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya. ~C. Montgomery Burns
posted
(Damn you, Jay, for posting before I could finish!)
Omega, I think your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. I am now going to make my history professor quite proud and show why.
quote:I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Abraham Lincoln, first Inaugural Address.
In other words, the Constitution is not merely a contract, it is the highest law of the land. And if we DO treat it as a contract, any breach of it would have to be recognized by all parties. Specifically, every state would have to show evidence for their complaint. I don't see that. (Lincoln goes on to outline the just causes for revolt as he sees them, to illustrate why the southern states were not justified in their rebellion, but that's not important to our discussion at the moment.)
Moving on, since when have states been the most important part of the equation? The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, shares with the French Declaration of the Rights of Man the distinction of outlying the relationship of government to the people, not to smaller sections of itself.
Also, your interpretation breaks down exactly upon the issue of civil rights. To continue from the same source:
quote:No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
The Constitution is a document, a piece of paper. It has value only to the extent which it carries out the ideals upon which it rests. Foremost of these is the freedom of the individual. (At times from other individuals; libel and slander laws, etc.) The entire argument behind the right of states loses its focus here, proclaiming that somehow our freedom is better served by a smaller government than a larger one when the history of this nation shows anything but.
------------------ "What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity." -- Camper Van Beethoven
[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited April 04, 2000).]
posted
Well, a lot of people forget that there were any amendments after the tenth. Almost as many as forget that the mechanism for enforcing the other 26 lies solely in the Second.
It's not like there's no precedent. Drag out your almanac and look up the Supreme Court cases:
Northern Securities Co, v U.S. (1904) Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey et al v. U.S. (1911) Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935)
The Supreme Court has also limited the states' ability to interfere with business contracts. (1819)
But this is all besides the point. What's frightening is the state of affairs when it's legal to buy a gun, but not legal to take it home with you where you need it. (making a nudge back towards the original topic)
------------------ "Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi
[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 04, 2000).]
Almost as many as forget that the mechanism for enforcing the other 26 lies solely in the Second. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
