NationStates Jolt Archive

There are some outdated religion-based laws in the Southeastern US state of Kentucky. The language reminds me of what one might expect to find in one of those backward sharia-based nations. For example, in the schools "infidel" books are illegal as well as "sectarian" books. Christian literature is not considered sectarian under their law. Isn't it about time we got rid of such laws and start acting in a more modern and civilized manner? Shouldn't all the states live up to the ideals of the nation?

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/living/religion/15195224.htm

They don't actually enforce these laws, do they? Many states have antiquated laws they don't enforce, but haven't gotten around to getting rid of yet.

They don't actually enforce these laws, do they? Many states have antiquated laws they don't enforce, but haven't gotten around to getting rid of yet.According to the article, there's a school in Lexington that still uses it in its policies...

They don't actually enforce these laws, do they? Many states have antiquated laws they don't enforce, but haven't gotten around to getting rid of yet.
The prohibition on "infidel" books is at least 100 years old. But it is not just a dust-covered relic. Schools across the state, including those in Lexington, have added the book ban to their official policy manuals.

We might have been better off letting the confederate states go.

Well, there's another state to add to my list of "states to expel from the Union". I think we're down to Vermont, Michigan, and Wisconsin being allowed to stay.

Well, there's another state to add to my list of "states to expel from the Union". I think we're down to Vermont, Michigan, and Wisconsin being allowed to stay.

Dude what's wrong with Massachusettes? We're like Vermont but with a cool city.

We might have been better off letting the confederate states go.

Noooo.


Those people are the only possible justified targets of genocide.:)

They don't actually enforce these laws, do they? Many states have antiquated laws they don't enforce, but haven't gotten around to getting rid of yet.

You think this is crazy? I've read articles about certain communities using their outdated Fornication Laws to imprision pregnant teens.

You think this is crazy? I've read articles about certain communities using their outdated Fornication Laws to imprision pregnant teens.
The Majority is quite crazy most of the time

there are books out with all of these strange laws in all 50 states

i think there is a website too.

I generally agree with you, If these are public schools then it doesnt seem right. I'll have to check the Kentucky constitution.

Shouldn't all the states live up to the ideals of the nation?

I do not agree with statements like this, I prefered the United states back when entering a new state was judiciously like entering a new country. Back before "highway funds" and such manipulative measures.

I do not agree with statements like this, I prefered the United states back when entering a new state was judiciously like entering a new country. Back before "highway funds" and such manipulative measures.

Huh? That would defeat the entire premise of the country. States are not independant, they are at best semi sovereign. We are one singular nation, split into semi autonomous parts, but all answering to the fundamental laws that are laid down as foundation for the whole thing.

I do not agree with statements like this, I prefered the United states back when entering a new state was judiciously like entering a new country. Back before "highway funds" and such manipulative measures.

I agree with you on that, but there are some very basic standards states must follow to be a part of this club.

The past is a different country, indeed.

Come on now... we all know that a hundred year old law like this wouldn't stand a challenge in court. It'd just go "poof".

Well, there's another state to add to my list of "states to expel from the Union". I think we're down to Vermont, Michigan, and Wisconsin being allowed to stay.

Feel free to take those 3 and make your own little country, they will not be missed...

Huh? That would defeat the entire premise of the country. States are not independant, they are at best semi sovereign. We are one singular nation, split into semi autonomous parts, but all answering to the fundamental laws that are laid down as foundation for the whole thing.

The country was not always like it is now. In original context far more governing was meant to be achieved at local levels that at federal levels. I think it was better that way, locals are more receptive to their needs that the federal gvernment.

It is an amendment in fact, that "powers not reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people." This meant that what the government could not literally (as in defined in the constitution) do, was left to state governments. We still are "United States" more than a solid one. California and texas both have random spurts of independence where they claim their superiority over the rest of the union.

There are some outdated religion-based laws in the Southeastern US state of Kentucky. The language reminds me of what one might expect to find in one of those backward sharia-based nations. For example, in the schools "infidel" books are illegal as well as "sectarian" books. Christian literature is not considered sectarian under their law. Isn't it about time we got rid of such laws and start acting in a more modern and civilized manner? Shouldn't all the states live up to the ideals of the nation?

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/living/religion/15195224.htm
Yeah, our public education system is in the crapper right now. The state legislature may or may not end up taking a look at this law, mostly because no big stink has been raised over it, yet, and the state legislature has much bigger problems of its own. Although, I would like to see a list of which schools actually enforce this law or just pay it lipservice. I'ved in central Kentucky my whole life and never heard it used before to get any books banned. Most Kentuckians probably didn't know it existed before that article was printed.

It is an amendment in fact, that "powers not reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states or the people." This meant that what the government could not literally (as in defined in the constitution) do, was left to state governments. We still are "United States" more than a solid one. California and texas both have random spurts of independence where they claim their superiority over the rest of the union.

Well yes, the 10th amendment. However that is the point of those "not reserved", where the constitution does reserve very specific powers to the fed gov't.

Now to argue whether or not they cross those powers is one thing, but since inception we still have been "one nation", which is to say that in areas that the fed government can control, they are supreme.

Feel free to take those 3 and make your own little country, they will not be missed...

Meh, I don't want the other two to be part of my hypothetical seperate country. They can go do whatever they want.

Well yes, the 10th amendment. However that is the point of those "not reserved", where the constitution does reserve very specific powers to the fed gov't.

Now to argue whether or not they cross those powers is one thing, but since inception we still have been "one nation", which is to say that in areas that the fed government can control, they are supreme.

Yes, but where the states have authority they are (nominally) supreme. The US has a very interesting form of shared sovereignty.

The way I see it the people, who are sovereign, in keeping with social contract theory delegated parts of their sovereignty to the states. However, when the US was being formed the sovereign people directed the states to further delegate other parts of their sovereignty to the US through the Constitution. Note the usage of the word "delegated" in the 10th Amendment.

So, in essence, the people, states, and Fed all exercise some degree of sovereign power, but the states and Fed only do so on the sufferance of the people. Theoretically, that is.

We might have been better off letting the confederate states go.

What would we bitch about if the Stupid States weren't around? :D

Yes, but where the states have authority they are (nominally) supreme. The US has a very interesting form of shared sovereignty.

The way I see it the people, who are sovereign, in keeping with social contract theory delegated parts of their sovereignty to the states. However, when the US was being formed the sovereign people directed the states to further delegate other parts of their sovereignty to the US through the Constitution. Note the usage of the word "delegated" in the 10th Amendment.

So, in essence, the people, states, and Fed all exercise some degree of sovereign power, but the states and Fed only do so on the sufferance of the people. Theoretically, that is.

I agree. I also think this is certainly interesting enough to warrant its own thread.

Yes, but where the states have authority they are (nominally) supreme. The US has a very interesting form of shared sovereignty.

The way I see it the people, who are sovereign, in keeping with social contract theory delegated parts of their sovereignty to the states. However, when the US was being formed the sovereign people directed the states to further delegate other parts of their sovereignty to the US through the Constitution. Note the usage of the word "delegated" in the 10th Amendment.

So, in essence, the people, states, and Fed all exercise some degree of sovereign power, but the states and Fed only do so on the sufferance of the people. Theoretically, that is.

Well generally that's the theory of any democracy, the people delegate the authority to the government to govern. That is, as you said, social contract theory (yay Hobbes!). The US just sorta takes it further, with the multiple layers of deligation. The people delegated to the States, and the states, acting with that given power, futher delegated to the fed gov't. Of course it all goes down to the people who can in theory change that power structure (of course, not literally, as it is state legislatures that modify the constitution, unless you're talking real "power of the people" to say fuck it, and overthrow the government).

However the fed gov't still acts within the powers given to it by the states, which did so acting within the powers given to them by the people. When the gov't tends to move beyond that, SCOTUS has done a pretty good job in the past of smacking them down.

In fact you mention highway funding (which I assume you meant in terms of tying it to a drinking age). In this sense I see this in a way of giving MORE sovereignty to the states, not less. It acts almost like a treaty (we give you this if you do that, if you don't do that, we don't give you anything) rather than a fully sovereign government saying "you will do this". The fact that the states COULD in theory refuse does grant them a greater degree of self governance than would be typical in...say...Britain where local governments only have control in the areas where the national government choses not to enter.

The Majority is quite crazy most of the time
To quote Norman Bates, "We all go a little mad sometimes."

There are often old statutes like these on the books in places, because society moves on but it takes a real person to take real action to get a law repealed. Witness the flap in Colorado when the state supreme court pointed out that the legislature had never addressed the issue of minimum ages in common law marriages. You would have thought there were thousands of pedophiles rampaging through the state marrying twelve-year-old girls just as fast as they could rope 'em and tie 'em (with the permission of the "activist" judges would made the ruling, of course).

The people of the great state of Kentucky need to get their elected officials to take action and remove the old laws. Or not, if they think them still applicable. Ah, the beauty of our republic, the states get to regulate themselves!

We might have been better off letting the confederate states go.
Kentucky wasn't part of the Confederacy, DCD. We had some factions that tried to create a secessionist government, but it didn't work.

Kentucky wasn't part of the Confederacy, DCD. We had some factions that tried to create a secessionist government, but it didn't work.

Didn't Kentucky declare neutrality at the beginning of the war?

Feel free to take those 3 and make your own little country, they will not be missed...


Or, even better, the Confederacy leaves again. This time, please take those Western millitia states with you, and do let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.

Didn't Kentucky declare neutrality at the beginning of the war?



Yes. Not sure why they thought that would work...

Didn't Kentucky declare neutrality at the beginning of the war?
Until 1861, Kentucky was officially neutral, with strong Union sympathies. On Sept. 4 1861, Confederate Gen. Polk invaded the town of Columbus, KY, and three days later Kentucky officially sided with the Union. The secessionist movement came a month or two later, but it failed to displace the state government and the state remained on the Union's side unti the war ended.

Or, even better, the Confederacy leaves again. This time, please take those Western millitia states with you, and do let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
Nah, too much oil out west. We could let them go, then invade 'em!

Kentucky wasn't part of the Confederacy, DCD. We had some factions that tried to create a secessionist government, but it didn't work.
Ok, my bad. Maybe we should have forced you to join the confederacy. Seriously though, those are some screwed up laws.

Ok, my bad. Maybe we should have forced you to join the confederacy. Seriously though, those are some screwed up laws.
One law that I haven't heard used in the two decades I've lived here. Every state has had repressive laws in the past, Kentucky just hasn't gotten around to ours yet. The next legal challenge to the law will likely bring it enough attention to get a local movement started against it, but until our most recent state government scandal cools off, it will probably stay on the books because of apathy.

Feel free to take those 3 and make your own little country, they will not be missed...

I'll miss them. Maple syrup, cheese and...um... what does Michigan do? ...Crappy cars!

I'll miss them. Maple syrup, cheese and...um... what does Michigan do? ...Crappy cars!

We make fudge! It's like chocolatey mud!

http://www.gourmetfoods-gourmetfoods.com/images/products/0211.jpg

I'll miss them. Maple syrup, cheese and...um... what does Michigan do? ...Crappy cars!
It's vomit-rific! :)

Arent outdated laws called blue laws? I know NJ and PA have some weird ones.

We make fudge! It's like chocolatey mud!

http://www.gourmetfoods-gourmetfoods.com/images/products/0211.jpg

YAY! :D

It's vomit-rific! :)

Arent outdated laws called blue laws? I know NJ and PA have some weird ones.

Blue laws are laws that stop "sinful" behavior, such as sodomy and buying liquor on Sunday.

I'll miss them. Maple syrup, cheese and...um... what does Michigan do? ...Crappy cars!

Michgan has Tourism! AND I'M SICK OF IT! Every summer my town is flooded with people from out of state, and they are some of the rudest people I've ever come in contact with. They're the worst drivers, too.

Michgan has Tourism! AND I'M SICK OF IT! Every summer my town is flooded with people from out of state, and they are some of the rudest people I've ever come in contact with. They're the worst drivers, too.

Yeah, I lived in the Soo for a while, and those damned Ohioans and Hoosiers always drove about 10mph under the speed limit. Infuriating.

Well, there's another state to add to my list of "states to expel from the Union". I think we're down to Vermont, Michigan, and Wisconsin being allowed to stay.

Mass., CT, and NJ are fine. I also want NY to stay because I <3 NYC.

Everyone else can go.

All we have to worry about is Vermont, Wisonsin, and Michigan breaking off from the United States. To go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come, too. The End!

*cookies for everyone who gets that reference*

All we have to worry about is Vermont, Wisonsin, and Michigan breaking off from the United States. To go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come, too. The End!

*cookies for everyone who gets that reference*

Those chinese bastards are going down!

Where's my cookie?

Those chinese bastards are going down!

Where's my cookie?

*tosses Arthais a cookie*

All we have to worry about is Vermont, Wisonsin, and Michigan breaking off from the United States. To go hang with Hawaii. Alaska can come, too. The End!

*cookies for everyone who gets that reference*

Get the reference? But Im le Tired!

Mass., CT, and NJ are fine. I also want NY to stay because I <3 NYC.

Everyone else can go.
New Jersey: Our Highest Point is a Landfill!

and

New Jersey: Come get some of this rainbow!

*rainbow shaped cookie to who gets the reference*
Its bedtime! And by 'bed; I mean 'ethnic' and by 'time' I mean 'cleansing'!

I'll miss them. Maple syrup, cheese and...um... what does Michigan do? ...Crappy cars!

They make us look better too. Have you ever been to Detroit?