[Herra Tohtori]

Suicide bombers are also a minority, or the Middle East problems would have solved themselves a long time ago...

[karajorma]

There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.

When you find yourself agreeing with white supremacists, it's time to start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Cause you can bet they sure as **** don't.

[Bob-san]

There's a lot of valid points. And do realize just how much states are being restricted by the Federal gov't. Some states will fight back.

When you find yourself agreeing with white supremacists, it's time to start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Cause you can bet they sure as **** don't.

Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points. Anyways--on the topic of this particular nutjob. He has some points--some states need to take a stand and oppose further restriction on rights. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that there are states willing to stand up for their rights is powerful enough. And also realize that our founding fathers most likely expected revolutions every few decades. They gave us a framework, and it's our job to maintain it.

[karajorma]

Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points.

Sometimes. More often than not though they have a rather poorly thought out argument that looks sensible until you look more closely at the problem. At which point it falls apart.

My earlier joke about the FBI was actually semi-serious. If you went back to giving the federal government only the powers in the constitution how much damage would that do to fighting crimes that cross state borders?

[blackhole]

Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points.

Until you realize that the federal government has all the powers it has because its citizens expect it to fix everything. Society has caused the federal government to increase it's powers for a reason. If we take away all those powers, the government will simply not be able to do what it needs to do.

Except the patriot act. That's just stupid.

[Slasher]

I've always wondered which section of the US would play the role of Serbia were the country to be Balkanized.  Would "battleground states" become the new Kosovo?  Would NATO bomb us?  What would Canada make of all of it?  Oh no!

[iamzack]

Too bad it's not as easy as the last civil war. The Mason-Dixon line = very convenient. But now the retard states are in the middle of everything.

I don't imagine anyone will actually secede, though. The south lasted as long as it did because of the southren military tradition. And probably because they managed to completely surround NC, making it secede. ^^; The states with people crazy enough to commit treason just don't have the kind of population secession would require.

But imagine if all the US military people from those states went with their states. It would really be like the civil war of a new era. Only instead of five years and millions dead, it would be more like... :\ I don't even know, actually. Would we really bomb ourselves?

[Flipside]

Quite frankly, if it happened, it would be the first step of America falling apart from the inside out.

Fortunately, I very highly doubt such a thing would be passed, I certainly hope that the majority of New Hampshires' politicians are bright enough to realise that by being selfish, they could destroy the very thing they are claiming to protect.

[iamzack]

I don't think the goal is to pass it. I think it's a political stunt. :\

[Flipside]

I'm not so certain, from some of the comments, I think it's about, horror of horrors, a non-white president!

Frankly my first thought when I read some of those comments was 'Hmmm.. Someone's afraid Karma is gonna get 'em'

[iamzack]

Generally, I think this is a pretty good rule:

If they grew up in America and are still dumb enough to be racist to the point of calling for civilwar/assassination/etc, then they are not capable of pulling off whatever it is they are calling for.

[NGTM-1R]

Take a look at how many rights that states had that they no longer have. We have a 240 year history and the states went from being nearly autonomous to now closing in on pointless. Now then--if you can't find any truth in any person's statement, perhaps you should start questioning whether you really do understand what is going on. Even complete and total nutjobs have pretty good points. Anyways--on the topic of this particular nutjob. He has some points--some states need to take a stand and oppose further restriction on rights. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that there are states willing to stand up for their rights is powerful enough. And also realize that our founding fathers most likely expected revolutions every few decades. They gave us a framework, and it's our job to maintain it.

This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.

He has no points. Not one. If he had perhaps mentioned California's stand on setting tougher emissions restrictions, he might have had a point. But he didn't. He's bat-**** crazy, and this is not a rabbit hole you want to go down. States are hardly useless, and it struck me very abruptly that Kara's comment about the FBI is, in fact, a telling one that he doesn't quite understand how the Federal system works. Counties police themselves, and there are state police as well, and they handle the majority of the law-enforcement work in a state, and they have effective liason with other states around them, and they have for a long time. There just isn't enough of the FBI to make a great difference on this, they are primarily meant to handle high-profile and high-impact crime. A state is hardly like some kind of useless middle management layer. It does a lot of things. If you doubt that, move to California while the state government is falling apart and watch for things that break and aren't getting fixed because the state government can't fix them.

[MP-Ryan]

This is what kills me - relying on a document, word for word, that's hundreds of years old to define how modern governance should work is foolhardy.  The needs of a country change.  The needs of a populations change.  It's ridiculous to think that a model laid down in the 1770s could apply EXACTLY AS IT WAS WRITTEN today.

This is the problem with Constitutions - they don't get updated frequently enough because of the amount of political bickering that goes on whenever someone tries to make a needed and important change.  One thing that does help in the American's case is the existence of amendments, but even then we see how irrationally they can be taken (the 2nd amendment is now being used to justify things that fall well beyond its original scope - but it will never be properly updated and clarified because no one can agree).

It's further interesting that the proposed bill states that the US federal government was limited to lawmaking on certain defined acts in the original Constitution.  In point of fact, the original Constitution left that open-ended:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

and allowed for Congress to make additional laws as became necessary.  This was then adjusted by the 10th Amendment:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Blame the Bill of Rights?

[Kosh]

This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.

Not that I'm siding with the nutters but do you have any examples of this? I haven't been keeping up on any of this for a long while....

[karajorma]

States are hardly useless, and it struck me very abruptly that Kara's comment about the FBI is, in fact, a telling one that he doesn't quite understand how the Federal system works. Counties police themselves, and there are state police as well, and they handle the majority of the law-enforcement work in a state, and they have effective liason with other states around them, and they have for a long time. There just isn't enough of the FBI to make a great difference on this, they are primarily meant to handle high-profile and high-impact crime. A state is hardly like some kind of useless middle management layer. It does a lot of things. If you doubt that, move to California while the state government is falling apart and watch for things that break and aren't getting fixed because the state government can't fix them.

I don't doubt they do. However the article was calling for an end to all federal crimes apart from the ones mentioned in the constitution. Now I wasn't on about simply catching the criminals. In fact although it probably reads that way the problem that immediately came to mind was prosecuting them not catching them.

If you make all federal crimes illegal you're going to have to replace all of them with state laws. Many of the newer crimes may not even have suitable non-federal versions or ones that are hugely out of date. You're not going to be able to make a major change like that without serious problems. Not to mention that almost every single criminal currently held under federal charges would instantly have the right to appeal their sentence on the grounds that it was illegal. Basically I can't see any way you can do this without completely swamping the judiciary.

[BengalTiger]

This is madness of the first order. The Federal government has assumed these powers from the states because it needed to, because the states cannot be trusted to use them properly, because leaving these things to the states will result in fragmentation of the country, because we would end up not being one nation but many.

What is the reason to trust the Feds more than the States?


"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

~John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, 1887

[karajorma]

You can't have Texas decide to legalise cocaine while the other states that border it want to keep it illegal for instance.

Having a single rule for the entire country makes more sense than each state making up their own mind when it comes to things like these.

[Bob-san]

The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 535 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.

[Polpolion]

The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.

[Bob-san]

The problem is that we're putting too much blind trust into one of the biggest bureaucracies that ever existed. Our elected representatives should wear racing jumpsuits, so that we know who their corporate sponsors are! The problem really is that you have 100 senators and 435 representatives. Very few senators at least had reached their office with all due honesty. When you start yanking open states like New York, Illinois, and Florida, you start seeing just how corrupt big government is. One scandal after another. In New York, we had a self-righteous turn-the-other-cheek governor, elected on the grounds of cleaning up the NY political system, get caught with classy whores. We've got former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, trying to replace Obama in the Senate. The problem is nobody pays attention to these guys--until they get caught. These guys are prime examples of why the Fed is so dangerous. They're at state level, but they are very limited in people they can trust. So look up a level--what are these guys doing that will never come to light? They're prime examples of how states are corrupt, but it's the same exact institutions that will send people to Washington. At best, Washington is corrupt. At worst, they're forcing continuing expansion.

435 reps. Sorry.