4588686 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1304952001' post='2239045'] States rights win over federal rights, IF our govt actually followed the Constitution. [/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305073572' post='2239872'] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause"]http://en.wikipedia....upremacy_Clause[/url] [/quote] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305074256' post='2239877'] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution"]http://en.wikipedia....es_Constitution[/url] [/quote] I'm well aware of the 10th ammendment. One thing the 10th ammendment does not state is that states rights 'win' over federal rights. Unless you're a 19th century South Carolinian Governor, there should be no dispute over this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groo the Wanderer Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305073572' post='2239872'] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause[/url] [/quote] again...EPIC FAIL look again at what i said..."states rights win over federal rights". your source talks about laws, not rights....different thing entirely yer wiki is hanging out....tuck it back in plz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Groo the Wanderer' timestamp='1305082206' post='2239908'] again...EPIC FAIL look again at what i said..."states rights win over federal rights". your source talks about laws, not rights....different thing entirely yer wiki is hanging out....tuck it back in plz [/quote] Well, please explain exactly which facet of constitutional law says that state's rights 'win' over federal rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305082537' post='2239915'] Well, please explain exactly which facet of constitutional law says that state's rights 'win' over federal rights. [/quote] States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government. The supremecy clause only applys to things the Federal government is actually authorized to do, since that is a very small number of things, in general the States rights should trump. However, I would argue that the States rights win over Federal persumption and by the same token Federal rights win over State disobediance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305073143' post='2239868'] Well to say that Saudi Arabia has a pure Islamic Law and that they speak for everyone is also not a good source to understanding Islamic Law. They are in the sense that The Saudis do not represent all of Islamic Law, or even practice the particular school of thought for which they proclaim purely. It was a refutation because you severely distorted what their laws are regarding abortion. Your point was that abortion is not prohibited in Islam and you tried to point to the Saudi Royals are you example. Sorry but read what the Islamic Schools of thought say, not what individuals might chose to do. The Saudi Royals do not keep with Islamic Law. IE: Islamic Law prohibits the profiting from income that comes from usury, yet the Saudi Royals have investments in many companies that profit from usury. [/quote] I concede your point, however, as they do not have a magestirum therefore when Scholars say things not in keeping with the traditional schools of thought there is no way to say that their position ( suchas the theologians in the UAE) are any more or less representitive of Islam or even more or less correct. Islam would be better off with a Caliph to arbitrate what is and is not representitive of Islam. Without such a position it is very hard to say modern scholars are less Islamicly correct when they diverge from traditional thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305087267' post='2239957'] States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government. [/quote] Also incorrect. But even so, how would that be state rights 'winning' over federal rights? There are powers reserved for the states. That does not mean that state's rights 'win' (that is have some relationship of superiority) against federal rights. Both of you are using language too vague to be translated cleanly into the language of constitutional law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305088106' post='2239964'] Also incorrect. But even so, how would that be state rights 'winning' over federal rights? There are powers reserved for the states. That does not mean that state's rights 'win' (that is have some relationship of superiority) against federal rights. Both of you are using language too vague to be translated cleanly into the language of constitutional law. [/quote] No I am not incorrect nor am I being vague. Please read the entirety of my post. I stated quite specifically that i didn'tthink States rights trumped federal rights, that defeats the entire idea of rights. I said. ". However, I would argue that the States rights win over Federal [i]persumption[/i] and [i]by the same token [/i]Federal rights win over State [i]disobediance[/i]." italics added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Don John of Austria' timestamp='1305088380' post='2239966'] No I am not incorrect nor am I being vague. [/QUOTE] No. First the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states [i]and the people[/i]. Not just the states Much more importantly, to claim that "States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government". Is just wrong. The Constitution clearly places limits on state power as well. They do NOT have the power to do 'everything' not specifically granted to the federal government. I suspect that there is a lot more that is incorrect in your understanding of the federalism of the constitution but your claims are too vague to be sure. [QUOTE] Please read the entirety of my post. I stated quite specifically that i didn'tthink States rights trumped federal rights, that defeats the entire idea of rights. I said. ". However, I would argue that the States rights win over Federal [i]persumption[/i] and [i]by the same token [/i]Federal rights win over State [i]disobediance[/i]." italics added [/quote] I did read the rest of what you wrote. I did not quote it as being wrong because it was generally/arguably correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 [quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1305088895' post='2239968'] No. First the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states [i]and the people[/i]. Not just the states Much more importantly, to claim that "States have the right to do EVERYTHING not specifically granted to the Federal government". Is just wrong. The Constitution clearly places limits on state power as well. They do NOT have the power to do 'everything' not specifically granted to the federal government. I suspect that there is a lot more that is incorrect in your understanding of the federalism of the constitution but your claims are too vague to be sure. I did read the rest of what you wrote. I did not quote it as being wrong because it was generally/arguably correct. [/quote] Look we agree on something.. this should be recorded in the Annals of Phatmass Hasan and Don john areed on a matter of some minimal substance... May 11, In the Year of Our Lord 2011! While the 9th and 10th amendments do reserve rrights to the people as well as the States, however, there were previous tothe 13th and 14th amendments no limits on what the states could do within their own borders, they could take away all of those rights that the Constitution allowed to be retained. Can you name me a restriction on the powers of States that was independent of a comparable grant of power to the federal government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RezaMikhaeil Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 There is a delicate balanace of power between the Federal Government and the State governments. They both often overstep themselves. The Founding Fathers believed in a small federal government and larger state governments. If the Federal Government trumped state laws, that would be no different then what they were trying to get away from. This is why the federal government can rule that the death penalty is legal, but individual states can decide weather they want it or not. Wisconsin [where I live] has ruled that it's not legal, while texas has ruled that you don't even get a fair trial and accusations will have you executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papist Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 What is ideal is that government at every level handles abortion for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I'm generally a believer in states' rights and limited federal government, but I also believe the right to life is so fundamental and so vital to any justice in law that I believe concern for protecting the right to life should trump concerns with federalism and limited government, and a human life amendment to the Constitution would have my full support, and I believe is a goal towards which pro-lifers should work. I think it would be the only thing which would finally end the monstrosity which is the Roe v. Wade decision. I also believe that Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision on not just moral, but Constitutional grounds, and directly violates that Tenth Amendment. It essentially imposes protection of murder on all the states, without even going through the due legal process of amending the Constitution. Judicial activism at its absolute worst. I would support overturning Roe v. Wade, and returning control over abortion laws back to the states, though that would be an incomplete victory. However, it would certainly be an improvement over federally-mandated abortion on demand as the law of the land. Section I of the 14th Amendment states in part that "nor shall any State deprive any person of[b] life[/b], liberty, or property, without due process of law." While you could argue that abortion laws do not involve the state directly depriving people of life, allowing a class of persons to be killed at will certainly amounts to that. How many here would argue in favor of state laws allowing for the killing of people of a certain minority any time for any reason? In that hypothetical case, would you be opposed to the federal government intervening against those laws? I think that's ultimately what's at stake here. [quote name='Papist' timestamp='1305136200' post='2240132'] What is ideal is that government at every level handles abortion for what it is. [/quote] This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) [quote name='RezaMikhaeil' timestamp='1305125628' post='2240067'] . Wisconsin [where I live] has ruled that it's not legal, while texas has ruled that you don't even get a fair trial and accusations will have you executed. [/quote] can you please cite a case regarding what you are talking about? I ask becuase Texas Capital murder law is very, very demanding. Having read Wisconsin's statue from first degree intentional homicide I would much, much rather be tried in Texas. Edited May 12, 2011 by Don John of Austria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now