So basically Conservatives support states Rights as long as all those states pass conservative policies. :horse:
Rick perry is criticized for supporting the 10th amendment
- Thread starter accountantNOT
- Start date
Kingfisher
Here Zombie, Zombie, Zombie...
Unless I read it wrong, that would mean Federal Law would not trump State Law, once a law is passed inside the State, like legalizing marijuana. It still seems the separation of church and state is constantly thrown out the window. So religion constantly influences these so-called politicians decisions. What's best for "the people" is ignored for personal goals and conquests.
Personally, I don't care. You want to be married, that's your business.
Personally, I don't care. You want to be married, that's your business.
emceeemcee
Banned
well, conservatism is all about making sure the needs of the conservative individual are met, regardless of who might be adversely affected.
Not only do they seem to not like the 10th Amendment they also don't seem to grasp that 14 Amendment stuff when it doesn't suit them. You know, the one that states everybody has to be treated equally under the law and has to have equal protection from it.
(To be fair democrats don't really believe in that either considering their views on affirmative action among other things.)
(To be fair democrats don't really believe in that either considering their views on affirmative action among other things.)
The Feds here in Washington (both parties) used Civil Rights to give a death nail to States Rights in the 60s and have continued to conveniently ignore the 10th amendment and many other parts of the US constitution to grow their own power and control over the people. :2 cents:
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
Perry is not on our side. I would never vote for him.
He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
He's a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Which side is that?
This is what I can't stand about many "Liberals" here ...
Just because it took 100 years doesn't mean that the 10th Amendment is wrong. It just meant that too many people looked-the-other-way on the 9th Amendment for too long.
A big, continued issue is how would one deal with many aspects of opening marriage up to different and multiple parties? That's what gets lawyers going. I'm not saying that's a good reason. I'm just saying it's not as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
As a Libertarian, I long stated the antiquated ideas of male-female only marriage -- and divorce -- the concept of alimony and child support and other non-sense is way too unequal and, more importantly, self-defeating! As far as I'm concerned, the government should promote 2-adult households by any and all means possible. End the marriage penalty in taxes, promote 2-adult households, penalize welfare and other recipients for being single-parent households ("shack up," please do!).
It's a simple matter of fiscal responsibility to me, one where everyone benefits. The whole rulings that heavily favor women on alimony and child support are beyond horrendous. The statistics on women have been skewed, and most of the ended by the '80s. Half of the men I know who have been prosecuted for being "dead beat dads" are living far, far poorer than the women they support. And don't even get me started on the "right to choose" because it's women-only. You can't have it one way.
This is the foundation of the United States. States deciding for their constituents what is most important, not a strong, federal government. Other than denial of rights, which should have been addressed by the 9th Amendment a long time ago, what "harm" as the 10th Amendment done? Really? The precedents that the Clinton, W. and now Obama administrations have pushed with "Interstate Commerce" is really starting to piss me off.
Because what matters to Florida or Texas may not be the same as California or New York. And I'm just picking the top four, most populous states. They are greatly different in cultures and laws.
Is it really so "we git to oppress the blackies 'gain in Tejas 'caus New York has gay marry'd folk!" Really? What's the agenda?
Maybe it's because some Conservatives, like true Libertarians, believe the 10th Amendment is a value that should only be trumped by the 9th and other Amendments, not whatever political non-sense is coming from one, large, absolute Federal. I take a lot of issue with a lot of Conservatives. But if they are Constitutional, they are more Libertarians than simple Conservatives.
What I really dislike about the current President is that he forgets the 9th Amendment trumped the 10th Amendment, not that Federal trumps State in general. The states are autonomous. People forget this. I understand why many African-Americans do, because of the history, but the US Surpreme Court finally came around and put the nail in that coffin by the '60s.
Just because it took 100 years doesn't mean that the 10th Amendment is wrong. It just meant that too many people looked-the-other-way on the 9th Amendment for too long.
The problem is that many states have adhered to the traditional male-female parent definition of family. Take Utah for instance, that ended polygamy to become a state in the union. They were perfectly within their 10th Amendment rights to do otherwise. But they conformed.
A big, continued issue is how would one deal with many aspects of opening marriage up to different and multiple parties? That's what gets lawyers going. I'm not saying that's a good reason. I'm just saying it's not as simple as everyone makes it out to be.
As a Libertarian, I long stated the antiquated ideas of male-female only marriage -- and divorce -- the concept of alimony and child support and other non-sense is way too unequal and, more importantly, self-defeating! As far as I'm concerned, the government should promote 2-adult households by any and all means possible. End the marriage penalty in taxes, promote 2-adult households, penalize welfare and other recipients for being single-parent households ("shack up," please do!).
It's a simple matter of fiscal responsibility to me, one where everyone benefits. The whole rulings that heavily favor women on alimony and child support are beyond horrendous. The statistics on women have been skewed, and most of the ended by the '80s. Half of the men I know who have been prosecuted for being "dead beat dads" are living far, far poorer than the women they support. And don't even get me started on the "right to choose" because it's women-only. You can't have it one way.
Actually, it sounds like Rick Perry understands civics very well, better than most "Liberals" on this board. What Rick Perry is saying is that states have every right to represent their constituents as they see fit, instead of the Federal government telling citizens what they must believe.
This is the foundation of the United States. States deciding for their constituents what is most important, not a strong, federal government. Other than denial of rights, which should have been addressed by the 9th Amendment a long time ago, what "harm" as the 10th Amendment done? Really? The precedents that the Clinton, W. and now Obama administrations have pushed with "Interstate Commerce" is really starting to piss me off.
Because what matters to Florida or Texas may not be the same as California or New York. And I'm just picking the top four, most populous states. They are greatly different in cultures and laws.
And how does Perry's statements agreeing that the state of New York's right to legalize gay marriage further the conservative agenda?
Is it really so "we git to oppress the blackies 'gain in Tejas 'caus New York has gay marry'd folk!" Really? What's the agenda?
Maybe it's because some Conservatives, like true Libertarians, believe the 10th Amendment is a value that should only be trumped by the 9th and other Amendments, not whatever political non-sense is coming from one, large, absolute Federal. I take a lot of issue with a lot of Conservatives. But if they are Constitutional, they are more Libertarians than simple Conservatives.
Exactly! It still shocks me that some people advocate 1 and only 1 "supreme, federal authority." 1 place to lobby. 1 place to control. And, ironically, the same one that can declare war! Duh! "Liberals," please wake up! You're not exactly "Liberal."
Similar threads
