Author Topic: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)  (Read 7566 times)

Trip

  • Guest
"Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« on: August 01, 2013, 11:36:59 PM »
"FIFTY FLAVORS OF DEMOCRACY"

During the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary Debates in 2012, I was alarmed by what I believe to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment presented there, and not a one of the candidates challenged this view.

During those first Republican Primary Debates, Mitt Romney's defended Massachusetts' "RomneyCare", by indicating that it was supported by "3/4th's" of the State's citizens, a clear appeal to democratic majority tyranny. We are deliberately not a democracy, and our unalienable rights are definitively not subject to majority whim.

Romney went beyond this, describing the 10th Amendment's "States rights" as resulting in "fifty flavors of Democracy", in which each state would have the legitimate authority to create its own legislation, resulting in fifty variations or "flavors". So far this does not seem too unreasonable, at least on the surface.

However Romney even had the temerity to expand on this, indicating that an individual's "rights" allow them to go to some other state, if they don't like what is legislated. Perhaps we should give a fascistic salute to Romney's largess regarding Freedom, and be relieved that he has not compelled citizens to remain under his state-sponsored tyranny.

Mitt Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, and denigration of our constitutionally-guaranteed,"unalienable" individual rights, reduces American citizens to being refugees in our own country, having to flee from state-to-state in the vein hope that one state might still continue to recognize those individual rights. Such a representation of extremely "alienable" rights was not ever the vision of this Great Nation's founders, nor the U.S. Constitution itself.

This nation's  founders did not ever indicate it was "infinitely preferable to have our rights pilfered locally", rather than by a federal government. If our rights can become alienable by the states, then we have no real rights whatsoever.

  • "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

    Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776


First, the 10th Amendment nowhere establishes the states as having precedence over individual rights. That Amendment nowhere gives a superior authority to "states rights" over individual rights,  but rather concludes with recognizing the rights of the people, stating ".... or to the people", indicating no precedence whatsoever! 

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment is preceded by the 9th Amendment, which recognizes that individual rights exist beyond those enumerated by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment does not describe states "rights" at all, but rather "powers", which strongly implies that some things are indeed not an original power of the states, or might not be any sort of state power at all.

Beyond the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Federalist #33 and #44, all support the fact that individual rights are not, and cannot be, superseded by "states rights".

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates:

  •     This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
        and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The final clause of the Supremacy Clause, clearly indicates that the state laws must be pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and thereby have no legitimate "Power" to undermine and abrogate the individual freedoms guaranteed by that Document.

There can be no right more innate and unalienable to individuals, than the care and maintenance of their own bodies. If we do not have unquestioned ownership of our own bodies, then, by extension, all other rights become alienable, and subject to cancellation by government whim, as each of those rights are the result of our body acting upon other things.

It can be argued that every right we possess is predicated on, and a  result of the extension of the right of "ownership" over ourselves. The sovereign authority over one's own body is recognized as integral to, and the origin of, every unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming therefrom.

By these facts, RomneyCare is no less egregious than Obamacare itself.

I am particularly troubled by Romney's corruption of the Constitution, and thorough disregard for individual rights, given the fact that his deference to 10th Amendment "localism" also serves to enable such globalist, United Nations programs as Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, already being implemented by such corrupted local means,  in disregard to individual rights, and property, and in gross conflict to the U.S. Constitution!

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Romney that "states rights" allow the subversion of unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or do you believe that Romney's "fifty flavors" is nothing but a state-sponsored corruption of the Constitution?

« Last Edit: August 01, 2013, 11:42:49 PM by Trip »

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5622
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2013, 05:35:00 AM »
Your screed sounds 100% progressive.  Makes me wonder if you're not a carefully crafted persona, by a blueridge type.

They are the ones who hate states' rights over federal power.

The constitution overrules states' rights.  Not federal law.  Progressive liberal socialists keep writing new federal laws every day all day, toward a totalitarian state.

Prove that a state has done something unconstitutional, then put the screws to it.

The constitution needed to be written only once, and amended only once in a blue moon.

Continually liberalized and despotic and growing federal law....out of control and never meant to override states' rights.

Go ahead and tell us how Obamacare and global warming legislation should obliterate a state's rights to nullify them.

lol at the "waaahhhh I shouldn't have to move if I hate the state I'm in".  That's the whole philosophy behind living wage and unlimited welfare........you WILL give me 100K for flipping burgers, or 100K in WIC, if I want 10 kids and I like NYC.   And don't feel like ever actually working hard enough to earn or be worth 100K.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 05:44:49 AM by AndyJackson »

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5622
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2013, 05:39:50 AM »
"Refugees in our own country"

"extremely alienable rights"

"our rights pilfered locally"

"subversion"

"state-sponsored corruption"

A bunch of dramatic, activist crap that reads like something babbled by Sharpton, or Pelosi, or Barney Frank.

Impressive.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62385
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2013, 05:52:42 AM »
"FIFTY FLAVORS OF DEMOCRACY"

During the 2nd and 3rd Republican Primary Debates in 2012, I was alarmed by what I believe to be a gross corruption of the 10th Amendment presented there, and not a one of the candidates challenged this view.

During those first Republican Primary Debates, Mitt Romney's defended Massachusetts' "RomneyCare", by indicating that it was supported by "3/4th's" of the State's citizens, a clear appeal to democratic majority tyranny. We are deliberately not a democracy, and our unalienable rights are definitively not subject to majority whim.

Romney went beyond this, describing the 10th Amendment's "States rights" as resulting in "fifty flavors of Democracy", in which each state would have the legitimate authority to create its own legislation, resulting in fifty variations or "flavors". So far this does not seem too unreasonable, at least on the surface.

However Romney even had the temerity to expand on this, indicating that an individual's "rights" allow them to go to some other state, if they don't like what is legislated. Perhaps we should give a fascistic salute to Romney's largess regarding Freedom, and be relieved that he has not compelled citizens to remain under his state-sponsored tyranny.

Mitt Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment, and denigration of our constitutionally-guaranteed,"unalienable" individual rights, reduces American citizens to being refugees in our own country, having to flee from state-to-state in the vein hope that one state might still continue to recognize those individual rights. Such a representation of extremely "alienable" rights was not ever the vision of this Great Nation's founders, nor the U.S. Constitution itself.

This nation's  founders did not ever indicate it was "infinitely preferable to have our rights pilfered locally", rather than by a federal government. If our rights can become alienable by the states, then we have no real rights whatsoever.

  • "Why should I agree to swap one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"

    Benjamin Martin, "Patriot", paraphrase of Byles Mather, 1776


First, the 10th Amendment nowhere establishes the states as having precedence over individual rights. That Amendment nowhere gives a superior authority to "states rights" over individual rights,  but rather concludes with recognizing the rights of the people, stating ".... or to the people", indicating no precedence whatsoever! 

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment is preceded by the 9th Amendment, which recognizes that individual rights exist beyond those enumerated by the Constitution.

Furthermore, the 10th Amendment does not describe states "rights" at all, but rather "powers", which strongly implies that some things are indeed not an original power of the states, or might not be any sort of state power at all.

Beyond the proper interpretation of the 10th Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the 14th Amendment, and Federalist #33 and #44, all support the fact that individual rights are not, and cannot be, superseded by "states rights".

The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution indicates:

  •     This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof;
        and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.


The final clause of the Supremacy Clause, clearly indicates that the state laws must be pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, and thereby have no legitimate "Power" to undermine and abrogate the individual freedoms guaranteed by that Document.

There can be no right more innate and unalienable to individuals, than the care and maintenance of their own bodies. If we do not have unquestioned ownership of our own bodies, then, by extension, all other rights become alienable, and subject to cancellation by government whim, as each of those rights are the result of our body acting upon other things.

It can be argued that every right we possess is predicated on, and a  result of the extension of the right of "ownership" over ourselves. The sovereign authority over one's own body is recognized as integral to, and the origin of, every unalienable right, with all rights, inclusive of rights of speech, religion, assembly, and property, and all which that body acts upon, stemming therefrom.

By these facts, RomneyCare is no less egregious than Obamacare itself.

I am particularly troubled by Romney's corruption of the Constitution, and thorough disregard for individual rights, given the fact that his deference to 10th Amendment "localism" also serves to enable such globalist, United Nations programs as Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, already being implemented by such corrupted local means,  in disregard to individual rights, and property, and in gross conflict to the U.S. Constitution!

What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Romney that "states rights" allow the subversion of unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, or do you believe that Romney's "fifty flavors" is nothing but a state-sponsored corruption of the Constitution?
Trip, bullet points are fine for personal notes, but terrible for the reader on the forum.
Please use the quote function in the future.
#WWG1WGA

Offline daidalos

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4215
  • Gender: Male
  • “Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2013, 11:16:18 AM »
Your screed sounds 100% progressive.  Makes me wonder if you're not a carefully crafted persona, by a blueridge type.

They are the ones who hate states' rights over federal power.

The constitution overrules states' rights.  Not federal law.  Progressive liberal socialists keep writing new federal laws every day all day, toward a totalitarian state.

Prove that a state has done something unconstitutional, then put the screws to it.

The constitution needed to be written only once, and amended only once in a blue moon.

Continually liberalized and despotic and growing federal law....out of control and never meant to override states' rights.

Go ahead and tell us how Obamacare and global warming legislation should obliterate a state's rights to nullify them.

lol at the "waaahhhh I shouldn't have to move if I hate the state I'm in".  That's the whole philosophy behind living wage and unlimited welfare........you WILL give me 100K for flipping burgers, or 100K in WIC, if I want 10 kids and I like NYC.   And don't feel like ever actually working hard enough to earn or be worth 100K.

The Constitution supersedes both Federal law, and State law.

If those laws are in conflict with something established or enumerated by the Constitution.

Remember ladies and gents, that document was not created to list everything Government (meaning Fed there) can do.

But rather it's a document that establish's the limitations on Government, or tells us all what it cannot do.

One of every five Americans you meet has a mental illness of some sort. Many, many, of our veteran's suffer from mental illness like PTSD now also. Help if ya can. :) http://www.projectsemicolon.org/share-your-story.html
And no you won't find my "story" there. They don't allow science fiction. :)

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2013, 01:05:00 PM »
Trip, bullet points are fine for personal notes, but terrible for the reader on the forum.
Please use the quote function in the future.

Actually I use bullet indentation because there is no other method in this software to indent extended passages of quoted material, which is the proper way to quote material.

Whereas quoting material inside the quote tags results in the quote disappearing from the post when that post is itself quoted, and thereby makes it more difficult for the quoter.  As such it is better for the reader, and quoter, and done for both clarity and courtesy.





Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2013, 01:15:38 PM »
The Constitution supersedes both Federal law, and State law.

If those laws are in conflict with something established or enumerated by the Constitution.

Well that's sort of true.  The Constitution does not really supersede state law, but state law does have to be "pursuant to" and not in conflict with, the Constitution.


Remember ladies and gents, that document was not created to list everything Government (meaning Fed there) can do.


Well, actually, ladies and gents,  the entire purpose of the Constitution is in fact to list everything the government can do, via enumerated powers, with only those things necessary for executing those specific powers being implied.

  • "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."

    ~ Madison, Federalist #45, 1788

However nowhere in those "numerous and indefinite" powers of the States is their authority to transgress upon or deny individual freedoms.   

"Indefinite" in the Constitution does not equate to "infinite" in terms of the  States actual legitimate authority.

But rather it's a document that establish's the limitations on Government, or tells us all what it cannot do.

The Constitution establishes what the federal government can and cannot do by positive  inclusion, negative prohibition,  and sometimes by implication, or process of elimination.


Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #7 on: August 04, 2013, 01:22:17 PM »
"Refugees in our own country"

"extremely alienable rights"

"our rights pilfered locally"

"subversion"

"state-sponsored corruption"

A bunch of dramatic, activist crap that reads like something babbled by Sharpton, or Pelosi, or Barney Frank.

Impressive.

Uh, the Constitution's terms were only "dramatic" and "activist" more than 200 years ago.

However you yourself would be shoulder to shoulder with Sharpton, Pelosi, and Frank in advocating State tyranny and Social Engineering dictate, creating horrors such as California, Chicago, Detroit and New York, and enabling U.N. programs like Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Truly "Impressive."   Does this Frankenstein monster actually call itself "Conservative"?

You got anything more than empty blather. and corrupt false association tactics  to support your position?  I'm referring to any sort of actual constitutional reference here.

« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 01:35:32 PM by Trip »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62385
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #8 on: August 04, 2013, 01:48:41 PM »
Actually I use bullet indentation because there is no other method in this software to indent extended passages of quoted material, which is the proper way to quote material.

Whereas quoting material inside the quote tags results in the quote disappearing from the post when that post is itself quoted, and thereby makes it more difficult for the quoter.  As such it is better for the reader, and quoter, and done for both clarity and courtesy.
Absolutely disagree, I have always done it that way, as well as everyone that posts here and every forum on the web.
Just do me and others the favor, and do like the rest.
One other note, I actually skip most of your posts for this very reason, it's much more easy to distinguish where your comments end and your quote begins, or the authors.
Just humor me. :wink:
#WWG1WGA

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #9 on: August 04, 2013, 02:49:44 PM »
Absolutely disagree, I have always done it that way, as well as everyone that posts here and every forum on the web.
Just do me and others the favor, and do like the rest.
One other note, I actually skip most of your posts for this very reason, it's much more easy to distinguish where your comments end and your quote begins, or the authors.
Just humor me. :wink:


So you don't get that the quote is indented, with the source stated beforehand?  Have you the same concern about all the non-idented quotes on the forum?

And you actually skip "most of my my posts" because of that? That's rather silly.

And you want me to give up decades of writing and publishing to use quote tags, which really are not intended in forum software for quoting source material?

Just one last question: is this a request or a command?

« Last Edit: August 04, 2013, 02:55:06 PM by Trip »

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62385
  • Gender: Male
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2013, 04:20:14 PM »

So you don't get that the quote is indented, with the source stated beforehand?  Have you the same concern about all the non-idented quotes on the forum?

And you actually skip "most of my my posts" because of that? That's rather silly.

And you want me to give up decades of writing and publishing to use quote tags, which really are not intended in forum software for quoting source material?

Just one last question: is this a request or a command?
Look, if you want to be different, that's your choice, the rest of the country has moved on from bullet type in forums.
The rest of the members don't seem to have any problem with the social agreement of posting in quotes, just don't expect this old dyslexic to strain his eyes/brain reading your posts.

Seriously, it may be standard for you, but for me, it's one long running post, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Like I say, do as you please, it's your call.
#WWG1WGA

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24653
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2013, 09:21:00 PM »
Look, if you want to be different, that's your choice, the rest of the country has moved on from bullet type in forums.
The rest of the members don't seem to have any problem with the social agreement of posting in quotes, just don't expect this old dyslexic to strain his eyes/brain reading your posts.

Seriously, it may be standard for you, but for me, it's one long running post, and I'm sure I'm not alone.
Like I say, do as you please, it's your call.


Hmm...When in Rome do as the Romans.  When writing a book do it your way.  When on the net do it the best way the average person with a laptop or IPod would have no problems following it.   You are working very hard to hold on to people that don't understand what your even saying.  Or they would have learned it in school and told the college professor there full of shit!  As an old fool who has been on the net now for 20 years.   Just remember who you're preaching to out there.    That's just my way of thinking. 
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #12 on: August 05, 2013, 04:13:28 AM »

Hmm...When in Rome do as the Romans.  When writing a book do it your way.  When on the net do it the best way the average person with a laptop or IPod would have no problems following it.   You are working very hard to hold on to people that don't understand what your even saying.  Or they would have learned it in school and told the college professor there full of shit!  As an old fool who has been on the net now for 20 years.   Just remember who you're preaching to out there.    That's just my way of thinking.

After doing some research, and a lot of frustration with EZPortal's fairly unique disregard for indenting text in the forum world, I discovered a remedy that does not use a bullet list box for quotes, but it sure as hell was not in their help section.

  • A block quotation (also known as a long quotation or extract) is a quotation in a written document, that is set off from the main text as a paragraph, or block of text, and typically distinguished visually using indentation and a different typeface or smaller size quotation. (This is in contrast to a setting it off with quotation marks in a run-in quote.) Block quotations are used for the long quotation.

    There can even be more than one paragraph in block quotations.

I assume this is acceptable to you guys, unless you're relying on the Dinosaur's Manual of Style, which involves using a chisel on a stone tablet, and does not apply any sort of indentation, wanting to use as much of that stone as possible.   :wink:

Btw, Walkstall, sincerely, if you or anyone has any question about anything I might assert, particularly what you believe may be in conflict with any one of those college professors, or you just want to know  why/how I am making any sort of assertion about the Constitution (or anything), please don't hesitate to ask.   Or just challenge me and say you think i am F.O.S. (which is probably true, given I'm Irish) but I would appreciate some specification as to why or where I might be, in that particular instance.

The Constitution was not written to be some sort of obscure, complex document only able to be understood by lawyers and judges.

« Last Edit: August 05, 2013, 04:24:34 AM by Trip »

Offline AndyJackson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5622
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #13 on: August 05, 2013, 09:18:20 AM »
Uh, the Constitution's terms were only "dramatic" and "activist" more than 200 years ago.

However you yourself would be shoulder to shoulder with Sharpton, Pelosi, and Frank in advocating State tyranny and Social Engineering dictate, creating horrors such as California, Chicago, Detroit and New York, and enabling U.N. programs like Agenda 21/Sustainable Development.

Truly "Impressive."   Does this Frankenstein monster actually call itself "Conservative"?

You got anything more than empty blather. and corrupt false association tactics  to support your position?  I'm referring to any sort of actual constitutional reference here.

Sorry, I don't do double-blind reverse-mojo flip-it-around on you.....kiddie nonsense.

The "nuh-uh you do" things is a blatantly liberal habit.

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

We get it that you don't like states being able to tell the feds to pound sand.  Too bad that's the most pure and potent ingredient of America and the constitution.

You are a closeted lib, I swear.  Whether an illness, or just to give your buddies some laughs as they read your adventures behind enemy lines.

Trip

  • Guest
Re: "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" (10th Amendment)
« Reply #14 on: August 05, 2013, 03:24:16 PM »
Sorry, I don't do double-blind reverse-mojo flip-it-around on you.....kiddie nonsense.

The "nuh-uh you do" things is a blatantly liberal habit.

America, and the constitution, are built on a loose, almost impotent federation of unassailable state sovereignty and independence.  This was the only way to create a country that couldn't become despotic, if the constitution is actually followed.  As all other countries had fallen into before, hence the grand experiment to create something different.

The federation is only supposed to do, or coordinate, those things that 50 isolated independent states can't do for the entire land mass.  Virtually nothing, save a few important things involving continental security, defense, and interstate concerns.  And enforcing all aspects of the constitution on everyone.  Just about nothing else.  That's why you'll notice that about 98% of the damned federal govt. today is completely redundant with state agencies that do the same thing, and should be doing so without a federal clone to interfere.

I agree entirely with all the above.

I agree that the compact that is the Constution is between the sovereign states, and created the fiction that is the federal government.

I agree that the authority that is granted the federal government is limited enumerated powers.

I have repeatedly stated that the Federal government has no authority whatsoever to dictate terms, nor laws, that are applicable within the territory that comprises  the several States themselves.

What I do not agree with that any part of that sovereign authority is the ability to transgress, impinge and nullify upon individual rights.

  • That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Note that the DOI references "any form of government", which does not just limit its reference to the "federal government",  but extends it to any form of government, inclusive of State governments.

We get it that you don't like states being able to tell the feds to pound sand.  Too bad that's the most pure and potent ingredient of America and the constitution.

You are a closeted lib, I swear.  Whether an illness, or just to give your buddies some laughs as they read your adventures behind enemy lines.

Of course the States are able to tell the feds to pound sand, and they should actually do that with regard to things like ObamaCare, or environmental dictates like shutting down coal plants.  And some of them have, but too few and too rarely. 

Somehow you're suffering from the mental incapacity that the state sovereignty involves the tyrannical authority of little fiefdoms, and authority to dictate every aspect of individual's lives.   You evidently  believe somehow the United States is comprised of 50 little dictatorships. 

Yet nowhere are you yet  able to provide any sort of credible evidence for this belief that the State "powers" of sovereignty involve the legitimate authroty to deny individual rights, even over oneself, one's own body. 

And you won't, because no such authority exists.  It's not a part of state sovereignty, and not a philosophy of this country.

This has nothing to do with being a "lib", except for vaguely the idea of what "Liberal" meant, when it was actually compatible with this country's principles, and supported individual rights, and rejected Big Brother government, but that's probably before when you were born.     

If that's not the case, and you're not that young, then you missed the damn boat, and there's no damn excuse for you having such a very corrupt view of this country's founding principles!  None!

Instead what you're likely representative of is the common ignorance of many in this country, and ignorance that populates the Republican party, and even has the audacity to call itself Conservative, when what they actually promote is entirely not the principles of this country, but rather a corruption born of abject ignorance and half-understandings.



 

Powered by EzPortal