Bachmann - Take away states rights...

Jarod said:
I aware of the requirements to pass a Constitutional Amendmen. What you seem to b e saying is that you are okay with a larger Federal Government and less states rights as long as its done in the form of a Constitutional Amendment?
Click to expand...

How is setting a standard, that a foot is 12 inches, a pound is 16 ounces, or marriage is between one man and one woman a larger Federal government?
 
Jarod said:
But you would support an Amendment doing away with the Tenth because 3/4th of the states would have agreed?
Click to expand...

Straw Man. The issue here is setting a standard not eliminating the basic premise of our Constitution, that power comes from the people who in turn delegate certain enumerated authority to the feds, and all powers not specifically delegated to the feds don't belong to the damn feds.
 
Annie said:
A Constitutional Amendment he agrees with. Anyone really 3/4 of states going along with that? Now, like NY if they put it up by referendum, the people might turn it down. Then again, referendums were a progressive reform, remember?
Click to expand...

Capital "P" Progressives don't like referendums because they rarely get them the policies that they want. Gay marriage has failed in 31 of 31 times that the people voted on it directly. That's why Progressives have used the courts to shove it down our throats, Activist mayors to ignore existing laws, or simple majorities in state legislatures.
 
Return of Dune said:
Doesn't matter what kind of majority it is, Sophist. What matters is that 12 states will have lost their rights to decide. That is anti-state's rights, no matter how you word it.
Click to expand...
You actually stumbled upon an argument that is vastly more intelligent than Jarod's, the brilliant attorney. :good4u:
 
Flake N' Bake

flake_n_bake.jpg
 
Yurt said:
dune's contention is that a 3/4 ratification takes the rights away from 12 states
Click to expand...
That would depend on what the amendment was. If it was something that takes away right of the states then he'd have a point. But so far no ones' been able to say how defining a standard does that.
 
Damn Yankee said:
That would depend on what the amendment was. If it was something that takes away right of the states then he'd have a point. But so far no ones' been able to say how defining a standard does that.
Click to expand...

the constitution, including amendments, took some rights away from the states and gave the states left over rights in the 10th and even after that, the US constitution continued to take certain rights away from states, namely the 14th amendment. one could also argue the 18th and i'm sure some others. so does he have a point?

i don't know if there is a bright line standard, do you have something in mind?
 
Yurt said:
the constitution, including amendments, took some rights away from the states and gave the states left over rights in the 10th and even after that, the US constitution continued to take certain rights away from states, namely the 14th amendment. one could also argue the 18th and i'm sure some others. so does he have a point?

i don't know if there is a bright line standard, do you have something in mind?
Click to expand...

I think you've made my point, that an amendment doesn't take away states rights just because its an amendment; it depends what the amendments about. And again, I don't see how Bachmann's proposed standard does that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top