States Rights: What do you think?

[Greed and Death]

Unless we have another civil war.

Sure. If the South wins this time around, it can paint its fight as some sort of "liberty-quest" and not a crusade against the Blacks/homosexuals/foreigners, what have you.

The new Texas history book to be sued in the event of another civil war describes the first civil war as.
" War of damn Yankee aggression because the South wanted to treat African Americans equally but the North did not."

[Genivaria]

States' rights is a false lie instigated by the American right and their southern heartland to deny the true meaning of the war.

It was the ownership of Blacks. Not some fundamental disagreement about the prerogatives of the State.

No it wasn't....

I like a statement by Winston Churchill; "war, is written by the victors". Since the US won the civil war, they have manipulated the history, and have changed it to look like the US was the good guy. I remember in elementary school, they talked about how the Civil War was about slavery, which corrupted the actual meaning of the war to young ones, who always thought that it was indeed about slavery. But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

No revision fucking needed for that.
When you assault an American fort because you rage-quit democracy because a pro-abolitionist President was elected, it's because of slavery.
Also they were unAmerican traitors who deserved the noose for betraying democracy itself.

[Eastern Equestria]

Like I said before, it was not about slavery

Let me just stop your tragically misinformed bullshit right there.

In what later became known as the Cornerstone Speech, C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the "cornerstone" of the new government "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth". After the war, however, Stephens made efforts to qualify his remarks, claiming they were extemporaneous, metaphorical, and intended to refer to public sentiment rather than "the principles of the new Government on this subject."

(I will repost this as many times as I need to)

[Olerand]

Sure. If the South wins this time around, it can paint its fight as some sort of "liberty-quest" and not a crusade against the Blacks/homosexuals/foreigners, what have you.

The new Texas history book to be sued in the event of another civil war describes the first civil war as.
" War of damn Yankee aggression because the South wanted to treat African Americans equally but the North did not."

I would expect nothing less from the state who saw petitions to secede when the Black president was reelected in 2012.

[Zorga]

But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

A bunch of CSA wannabes yelling on the Internet does not a debate make, let alone a huge one.

Im saying, this continues to be a big debate, especially in the US. I dont support slavery, and im not a racist, however, I do support the souths reasons for states rights and more self government. I simply educate people that it wasnt about slavery. The "southern cause" was about states rights, not about slavery. Yes, slaves were in the south, but they were also in the north. Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states still in the union at the time, lets not forget that.

[Olerand]

A bunch of CSA wannabes yelling on the Internet does not a debate make, let alone a huge one.

Im saying, this continues to be a big debate, especially in the US. I dont support slavery, and im not a racist, however, I do support the souths reasons for states rights and more self government. I simply educate people that it wasnt about slavery. The "southern cause" was about states rights, not about slavery. Yes, slaves were in the south, but they were also in the north. Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states still in the union at the time, lets not forget that.

21st century version of Confederates.

It's good that they have been reduced to this though.

[Liberated Duloc]

Im saying, this continues to be a big debate, especially in the US. I dont support slavery, and im not a racist, however, I do support the souths reasons for states rights and more self government. I simply educate people that it wasnt about slavery. The "southern cause" was about states rights, not about slavery. Yes, slaves were in the south, but they were also in the north. Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri were all slave states still in the union at the time, lets not forget that.

21st century version of Confederates.

It's good that they have been reduced to this though.

Insulting people doesn't make your side any better.

[Zorga]

No it wasn't....

I like a statement by Winston Churchill; "war, is written by the victors". Since the US won the civil war, they have manipulated the history, and have changed it to look like the US was the good guy. I remember in elementary school, they talked about how the Civil War was about slavery, which corrupted the actual meaning of the war to young ones, who always thought that it was indeed about slavery. But, it wasn't, and it continue to be a huge debate today.

No revision fucking needed for that.
When you assault an American fort because you rage-quit democracy because a pro-abolitionist President was elected, it's because of slavery.
Also they were unAmerican traitors who deserved the noose for betraying democracy itself.

The confederacy was a republic government, somewhat molded after the US government. They were still democratic. I think that South Carolina was stupid for firing on Ft. Sumter, because their hot headed attitude fucked over the CSA's future. And for the last time, Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist, or for abolition. The Confederate citizens were still Americans. They just had a different society and culture in the south.

[Qubec]

The states do need more rights. State law should trump federal law in almost every case.

[Olerand]

21st century version of Confederates.

It's good that they have been reduced to this though.

Insulting people doesn't make your side any better.

My side is history. I'm not American and couldn't care less for this debate.

I am strongly for the respect of historical honesty however, and will oppose attempts to rewrite history wherever I see them.

[Genivaria]

21st century version of Confederates.

It's good that they have been reduced to this though.

Insulting people doesn't make your side any better.

Not really an insult.

[Zorga]

The states do need more rights. State law should trump federal law in almost every case.

As a Libertarian, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Olerand]

The states do need more rights. State law should trump federal law in almost every case.

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

[Greed and Death]

The new Texas history book to be sued in the event of another civil war describes the first civil war as.
" War of damn Yankee aggression because the South wanted to treat African Americans equally but the North did not."

I would expect nothing less from the state who saw petitions to secede when the Black president was reelected in 2012.

Texas seeks to secede every time there is not a Texan in office.

[Zorga]

The states do need more rights. State law should trump federal law in almost every case.

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

In my opinion, the US federal government should be there for:

1) Military Protection
2) Economy
3) US Constitution and enforcement

Those are the main reasons. Im not saying to go Articles of Confed. on it, but States in the US should have more powers and rights than the fed government.

[Olerand]

I would expect nothing less from the state who saw petitions to secede when the Black president was reelected in 2012.

Texas seeks to secede every time there is not a Texan in office.

I find that hard to believe, considering that all but 3 presidents were non-Texan.

Granted, I don't live in America, but I've never heard of secessionist sentiments when Clinton was president, or Reagan, or JFK etc.

Seems odd there would be secessionist measures in the South when a Black man is president.

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

In my opinion, the US federal government should be there for:

1) Military Protection
2) Economy
3) US Constitution and enforcement

Those are the main reasons. Im not saying to go Articles of Confed. on it, but States in the US should have more powers and rights than the fed government.

But that's not what it's for, as written back in the 1700s.

Therefore, you would need to scrap it and start anew. Many states will not join this new "United States". So be it.

[Confederate Ramenia]

I would expect nothing less from the state who saw petitions to secede when the Black president was reelected in 2012.

Texas seeks to secede every time there is not a Texan in office.

The only time Texas had more than 50% of citizens support independence was in the Civil War, and then not everyone was free.

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

In my opinion, the US federal government should be there for:

1) Military Protection
2) Economy
3) US Constitution and enforcement

Those are the main reasons. Im not saying to go Articles of Confed. on it, but States in the US should have more powers and rights than the fed government.

Pretty much. The states are too different, so they shouldn't be able to force laws on each other.

[Zorga]

Texas seeks to secede every time there is not a Texan in office.

I find that hard to believe, considering that all but 3 presidents were non-Texan.

Granted, I don't live in America, but I've never heard of secessionist sentiments when Clinton was president, or Reagan, or JFK etc.

Seems odd there would be secessionist measures in the South when a Black man is president.

Whoa, there buddy. Are you saying the south is racist over a black man in office? Here we go:

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat. They don't like him in office because he is a democrat, not because he is black. They, me included, dislike a lot of his policies, and dislike what he is doing in office. BUT, if he was a republican, there would be no secessionist movements in the south. Just, don't jump to conclusions like that, they are not true and are made up.

Besides, political division is driving this country into the ground, not racism. Both idiots in the US government cant agree on anything, and the people have had enough. Im sure our founding fathers would be ashamed of what they created, looking at the US now.

[Seleucas]

I don't support the CSA's root cause for war (slavery), but a lot of trouble would have been avoided by breaking up the Union before it could venture much further into imperialism. 'State's rights' seems to be the lesser of two evils.

[Twilight Imperium]

The confederacy was a republic government, somewhat molded after the US government. They were still democratic. I think that South Carolina was stupid for firing on Ft. Sumter, because their hot headed attitude fucked over the CSA's future. And for the last time, Lincoln wasnt an abolitionist, or for abolition. The Confederate citizens were still Americans. They just had a different society and culture in the south.

It's okay to want a different system in America than the one we have now, but hitching your wagon to the ghost of the CSA won't bring you there, son.

[Talonis]

It does now, though. Also, technically, anything it does not expressly give the federal government permission for is a state right.
Those who say that it is a guideline rather than a legal document are out of their minds, and clearly have no idea what a contract is. It's a legal document, thus, it is to be followed by those who agreed to it. These parties continue to do so, and so, the document is still in full theoretical force.

Whether it is observed in practice is to be seen, and it's largely ignored in a wide number of cases.

To cut in here for a moment, I would like to point out one of your words there - "expressly". Generally, the divide is over exactly that sort of word - after all, what, precisely, constitutes "expressly" giving a power? Many of the powers granted by the Constitution are very, very broad, such as "regulate[ing] interstate commerce" - does that mean regulating any commerce that occurs between states, or regulating all commerce that may be between states?

'twould mean as it says. If the commerce passes state borders, it is by definition interstate.
It didn't go into ninety pages of specifications because that would've been hell for those making it, and they knew they couldn't anticipate every mode of moving object X from point A to B. Heck, we've got atomic teleporters now, and who saw that coming in 1776?

[Liberated Duloc]

Texas seeks to secede every time there is not a Texan in office.

I find that hard to believe, considering that all but 3 presidents were non-Texan.

Granted, I don't live in America, but I've never heard of secessionist sentiments when Clinton was president, or Reagan, or JFK etc.

Seems odd there would be secessionist measures in the South when a Black man is president.
/quote]

People like you are more racist than the conservatives and southerners you accuse of being racist. You always act like black people have to support the Democrats, you say the only reason anyone could have any problems with Obama is because he's black. That's ridiculous.

[Ripoll]

For the past three-hundred years, the United States has been quarreling about the same old issue: States Rights. I have put a lot of thought into the topic, and, based on my biases(my opinion may not be the best), that the States need to receive more rights, and, most of all, State law should definitely supersede Federal law. Developing this theory however, does indeed, put up quite a bit of controversy. There is always the argument that the Federal government is the only thing keeping the Union together, and that it is dire that the Federal law reigns supreme, but, what if the current domestic policies are not the best? What if the constitution needs to be edited and once again, amended?

What do you think?????

Horrible idea, this lunacy is what led to countless economic hardships. The articles of confederation was terrible. States could print their own money which led to it being worthless because frankly competing currencies within the same nation is a terrible idea. States placed tariffs on each other.......yea let that sink in. The federal Government couldn't tax, the federal Government couldn't realistically raise a national army. Businesses struggled and the states refused to promote a national agenda and just focused on "improving" their societies by trying to bring down the rest of the nation around them. States as of right now are still the most powerful individual actor in any political system in the world. These radical thoughts are ridiculous and counter productive. It's simply not feasible militarily, economically, or politically. Different states promoting different agendas abroad also leads to diplomatic confusion and discourages other countries to develop close knit ties with our nation furthermore destroying any reputation we have ever had or ever will have abroad.

Take this trash somewhere else.

[Olerand]

I find that hard to believe, considering that all but 3 presidents were non-Texan.

Granted, I don't live in America, but I've never heard of secessionist sentiments when Clinton was president, or Reagan, or JFK etc.

Seems odd there would be secessionist measures in the South when a Black man is president.

Whoa, there buddy. Are you saying the south is racist over a black man in office? Here we go:

The south is predominately republican, while Obama is a democrat, a pretty left democrat. They don't like him in office because he is a democrat, not because he is black. They, me included, dislike a lot of his policies, and dislike what he is doing in office. BUT, if he was a republican, there would be no secessionist movements in the south. Just, don't jump to conclusions like that, they are not true and are made up.

Besides, political division is driving this country into the ground, not racism. Both idiots in the US government cant agree on anything, and the people have had enough. Im sure our founding fathers would be ashamed of what they created, looking at the US now.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.

Obama is no "left-wing Democrat", even for a Democrat he is centrist. Democrats are also not of the "left", as recognized by the rest of the developed world.
He happens to be Black, however, something centrist Clinton was not.

Political division and racism go hand in hand in American politics, along with identity politics too.

I find that hard to believe, considering that all but 3 presidents were non-Texan.

Granted, I don't live in America, but I've never heard of secessionist sentiments when Clinton was president, or Reagan, or JFK etc.

Seems odd there would be secessionist measures in the South when a Black man is president.
/quote]

People like you are more racist than the conservatives and southerners you accuse of being racist. You always act like black people have to support the Democrats, you say the only reason anyone could have any problems with Obama is because he's black. That's ridiculous.

Once again, I am not American. I wouldn't support the Democrats even if they existed in Europe.

[WestRedMaple]

The states do need more rights. State law should trump federal law in almost every case.

Then the United States and its Constitution need to be dissolved, and all the states can be independent and do what they want.

If they don't want that, then they have to accept federal supremacy, as is the case in all other federal nations on Earth.

Why dissolve the country or Constitution just for functioning as planned?

The American system is designed to have federal supremacy for everything the federal government has the authority to do.