NationStates Jolt Archive

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

Damnit, sorry, please delete this. It didn't add a poll. :(

Thread tools.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

Damnit, sorry, please delete this. It didn't add a poll. :(

The whole 9th amendment.

The twenty dollar one.

The right to keep an bare thread

Thread tools.

Thank you. :)

Like I said, the twenty dollar lawsuit one.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

Probably the 10th amendment, because we don't bother with it anyway.

Giving the vote to the goddamn woman folk.

The 'right' to be charged income tax.

Likely the 2nd

While I support the right to have arms as it is in the constitution, I do not feel it is important and that our nation will be lacking because of it.

After all Britain seems to do just fine without it.

Moreover I find the system of "state's rights" to be antiquated in this era.

I'd dump the 16th, but I hardly see how income tax qualifies as a "right" that I possess.
If I were actually abandoning something that I possess as a "right", then I'd scrap the 15th and 19th. Which, as a white male, is still something of a cop-out choice for me, but I feel like cheating anyway.

Oh boy, I have a right to be taxed based on my income. :rolleyes:

I choose the second amendment. The most important reason the founding fathers put that in was that they wanted states to be able to maintain their own militias--which they don't anyway.

Oh boy, I have a right to be taxed based on my income. :rolleyes:

Indeed. Where, oh, where would this country be if we didn't have that vital right?!

Indeed. Where, oh, where would this country be if we didn't have that vital right?!

Elsewhere.

1

Cruel and unusual punishment, just becasue I think the chance of being whipped is well worth being able to see poetic justice done through our legal system.

I'd say 2nd amendment is the most important becasue it allows me to protect all the other rights. (Screw the 'Founders intent' when the Govvie takes away my right to freedom of speech, or my right to a fair and impartial trial, I want to be able to tell the gub'nent where to stick itself, preferably with large caliber fire-arms.)

I can't believe more people aren't voting for the right to be taxed based on your income. I want to know what kind of people consider that a right.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?
The 2nd Amendment.

I can't believe more people aren't voting for the right to be taxed based on your income. I want to know what kind of people consider that a right.
Accountants.
Apparently, you, I, and some unidentified third party are the only NSers who are not members of Messrs H & R's evil empire.

10th ammendment.

Fuck the states.

21st. All the others serve a purpose.

21st. All the others serve a purpose.

Seems like that one served a purpose as well.

Seems like that one served a purpose as well.

Feh. People were doing just fine without it. If we forget about enforcing the other one it's useless.

The 21st. I don't drink, so while I don't like the idea of Prohibition, I don't find its repeal to be particularly important.

I can't believe more people aren't voting for the right to be taxed based on your income. I want to know what kind of people consider that a right.It's preferable to other forms of taxation.

Congrats. You just voted against the 1st through 8th rights by proxy. :(

I can't believe more people aren't voting for the right to be taxed based on your income. I want to know what kind of people consider that a right.

I think the main point of the amendment is to prevent flat monetary tax rates. Say, if you had to pay a flat tax rate of say $150,000 (I know, I know, totally unrealistic) then the obscenely wealthy would survive quite well, ( as long as they had a steady, Bill Gates/G.W.Bush-like income and were not merely inheritors) as that would not actually be a whole lot of their money, and they could usually make a profit at the end of the year. However, the lower and middle classses would be totally bankrupt in just a few years. Whereas, a flat percentage tax rate insures that everyone is taxed based on only a fraction of money they make each year, and not just a huge chunk that is the same for every household every year.

The 21st. I don't drink, so while I don't like the idea of Prohibition, I don't find its repeal to be particularly important.
Even if you aren't a coke-user, the fact that cocaine is illegal is still negatively influencing your quality of life by breeding organized crime, distracting the police from dealing with serious matters, and making otherwise decent citizens into increasingly desperate criminals.
The same would go for re-illegalized alcohol.

I think the main point of the amendment is to prevent flat monetary tax rates. Say, if you had to pay a flat tax rate of say $150,000 (I know, I know, totally unrealistic) then the obscenely wealthy would survive quite well, ( as long as they had a steady, Bill Gates/G.W.Bush-like income and were not merely inheritors) as that would not actually be a whole lot of their money, and they could usually make a profit at the end of the year. However, the lower and middle classses would be totally bankrupt in just a few years. Whereas, a flat percentage tax rate insures that everyone is taxed based on only a fraction of money they make each year, and not just a huge chunk that is the same for every household every year.

The amendment is as follows:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Unforunately, it does not dictate in what manner income tax is going to be taken. Our leaders simply interpret it as a progressive income tax rate. Nothing in the actual amendment keeps it from being a flat tax.

Oh STFU. Drinking is not free speech, or freedom of the press. And this has nothing to do with the right to bear arms or to a fair trial. Those are the important ones.

Um, what? My copy of the Constitution lists Prohibition as the 18th Amendment. WTF are you STFUing about?

the problem with this thread is that it confuses "right" with "amendment"

all a constitutional amendment is, in a literal sense, is something that adds text to the constitution that wasn't there when it was written.

Among detailing our civil liberties, the constitution also outlines the powers of the various branches of the federal government.

Thus the 16th amendmentment, while it does not add any affirmative rights, grants the legislative branch a power it did not have before, the power to levy income tax.

Although many amendments do grant us rights, it is a mistake to equate an amendment with a right, an amendment merely amends the constitution, it need not necessarily add a right, as is the case with the 16th and 18th amendment. Additionally the 21st amendment didn't add a right in the literal sense, it merely said that the 18th amendment was no longer in force.

an amendment does not equal a right, an amendment is merely a change from the original text, which either adds on to the text, or renders some part of it invalid.

Um, what? My copy of the Constitution lists Prohibition as the 18th Amendment. WTF are you STFUing about?

You said I (we) were voting against the 1st-8th rights by proxy. I was saying STFU.

Even if you aren't a coke-user, the fact that cocaine is illegal is still negatively influencing your quality of life by breeding organized crime, distracting the police from dealing with serious matters, and making otherwise decent citizens into increasingly desperate criminals.
The same would go for re-illegalized alcohol.My life would be influenced even more negatively if it were legal, as the legality of cocaine would vastly increase its use, and being around cokeheads would negatively influence me.
Additionally, I said I didn't support prohibition, so I wouldn't want the government to make alcohol legal, even though I don't drink it.

What amendment to your constitution says what?

You said I (we) were voting against the 1st-8th rights by proxy. I was saying STFU.


Originally Posted by Free shepmagans
Oh STFU. Drinking is not free speech, or freedom of the press. And this has nothing to do with the right to bear arms or to a fair trial. Those are the important ones.

So: Please clarify the whole drinking thing.

And yes, by voting for the 2nd you ARE voting against the 1st - 8th by proxy. They're all pretty much the same: defined rights of the individual.

And yes, by voting for the 2nd you ARE voting against the 1st - 8th by proxy. They're all pretty much the same: defined rights of the individual.

absolute nonsense. While they may be rights of the individual, they are different things and, in my opinion, are of different importances.

My right to free speech is, to me, FAAAAR more important than my right to keep a firearm.

Uh huh. Why are we talking about firearms, I voted against repealing prohibition...

That's...nice. I wasn't quoting you. Read the post I was quoting.

Owning a weapon is a defined right... just to clear things up, you do know we both voted to get rid of the 21st, not the 2nd right? I love the second.He was talking about the 2nd. Did you see the black text above his post?

... Dammit! I'm an idiot. I didn't see the title thing, I figured he was responding to the post directly above his. Gah. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: Sorry.:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Universal suffrage. If we have a leadership sympathetic to the other rights, there isn’t a need for that one.

Myrth. Of course.

Goddamit!

Am I the only one who thinks the most worthless right is the twenty dollar lawsuit minimum?

Universal suffrage. If we have a leadership sympathetic to the other rights, there isn’t a need for that one.

Unfortunately leaderships often aren't that sympathetic to the other rights without suffrage.

Congrats. You just voted against the 1st through 8th rights by proxy. :(
What do I care? I'm Canadian!

The choice was difficult, but eventually I settled on the repeal of Prohibition. Compared to the others, victimless crimes are not that grave an injustice.

I think the main point of the amendment is to prevent flat monetary tax rates. Say, if you had to pay a flat tax rate of say $150,000 (I know, I know, totally unrealistic) then the obscenely wealthy would survive quite well, ( as long as they had a steady, Bill Gates/G.W.Bush-like income and were not merely inheritors) as that would not actually be a whole lot of their money, and they could usually make a profit at the end of the year. However, the lower and middle classses would be totally bankrupt in just a few years. Whereas, a flat percentage tax rate insures that everyone is taxed based on only a fraction of money they make each year, and not just a huge chunk that is the same for every household every year.

The amendment that give congress the right to levy taxes has nothing to do with what kind of taxes.

Prior to its passing there was no federal income tax. If the federal government wanted money the states had to give that money to it. Voluntarily.

But by the end of the 19th century the US was becoming something of an empire and the feds realized that they couldn't support their growth without a constant supply of money, and tarrifs (their only constitutionally granted taxation power) just wasn't enough.

The 16th Amendment, I mean what kind of "right" is that?! :headbang:

The 16th Amendment, I mean what kind of "right" is that?! :headbang:
It certainly keeps people from starving.

It certainly keeps people from starving.

Yea, but it's money that I earned. It should go to me! Now sales taxes are acceptable, but not income taxes.

Yea, but it's money that I earned. It should go to me!

You were paid it. Why does that mean that you merit it?

Now sales taxes are acceptable, but not income taxes.

What's the difference, morally?

I'd say the cruel and unusual part of the 8th ammendment. If you're found guilty in a court of law, you'll likely remember a cruel and unusual punishment more than a regular one.

My life would be influenced even more negatively if it were legal, as the legality of cocaine would vastly increase its use, and being around cokeheads would negatively influence me.
Additionally, I said I didn't support prohibition, so I wouldn't want the government to make alcohol legal, even though I don't drink it.

Youi need to look at the results of Prohibition. The rise of the Sicilian/Italian mobs in the US has been directly attributed to the prohibition of alcohol. Also, alcoholism rates during that period skyrocketed.

Coke used to be legal. The usage rate was fairly low.

Once you ban something, demand for it has this tendency to go up. As does the price.

Yea, but it's money that I earned. It should go to me! Now sales taxes are acceptable, but not income taxes.

well then...um...get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree with you.

Other than doing that....suck up the fact that the amendment was passed in the proscribed method, and realize that in order to live in a free society, you have to pay for it.

You were paid it. Why does that mean that you merit it?

Because I'm the one that put in 40 hours every week to earn that money, I'm the one that has to get up every morning to go to the job that I sometimes like and sometimes hate. I may also have a family myself and will need that 30% of the money that's taken out of my paycheck for me and for my family. Also if I am "paid" it, then how come I never see it?

What's the difference, morally?

One of them tax a person's worth in the work world, which is wrong because it's like saying you work hard on a project, and you have some people that were lazy and didn't contribute, however they were given credits anyways even if it's small amount, it's still not fair. The sales tax is more acceptable because there you are taxing consurambles, thus you tax what you take from society's effort and produce.

Yea, but it's money that I earned. It should go to me!
That isn’t practical at all. In order for the average individual to thrive, the society he lives in must thrive. Sometimes, sacrafices have to be made for the greater good.
Now sales taxes are acceptable, but not income taxes.
What?

well then...um...get 3/4 of the state legislatures to agree with you.

Other than doing that....suck up the fact that the amendment was passed in the proscribed method, and realize that in order to live in a free society, you have to pay for it.

Then it's not really free is it?

Then it's not really free is it?

There is a difference between free action, and free cost. A free society, as in one that protects fundamental civil liberties, prospers through taxation.

You gain by being in society, thus you pay for what you get.

I'd say Cruel and Unusual punnishments. let jails and punnishments, once more become things to stay the fuck away from.

There is a difference between free action, and free cost. A free society, as in one that protects fundamental civil liberties, prospers through taxation.

You gain by being in society, thus you pay for what you get.

Yea, but I don't really use much of Gov. Co. service. I use the roads, gas, and mail. That's pretty much my interaction with Gov. Co. So it really doesn't make sense that I pay so much for so little of the service that I use.

Because I'm the one that put in 40 hours every week to earn that money, I'm the one that has to get up every morning to go to the job that I sometimes like and sometimes hate.

You knew your income would be taxed before you took the job, didn't you? How can you complain? It's a simple exchange; you work, knowing you will get a certain amount of money for it, and you get exactly that amount. Where's the violation of your rights?

I may also have a family myself and will need that 30% of the money that's taken out of my paycheck for me and for my family.

Society should ensure that everyone's needs are met, but abolishing income taxes would not accomplish that.

Also if I am "paid" it, then how come I never see it?

If you really earn it, how come you never see it? Perhaps because you did not really earn it, but merely are demanding that society pay you extra?

One of them tax a person's worth in the work world, which is wrong because it's like saying you work hard on a project, and you have some people that were lazy and didn't contribute, however they were given credits anyways even if it's small amount, it's still not fair.

Why do you think that the amount of money you earn is proportionate to the amount of effort you put in? Even if it isn't, so what? No one makes you work hard.

The sales tax is more acceptable because there you are taxing consurambles, thus you tax what you take from society's effort and produce.

It is still a diminishing of the amount of money you have, it simply is reflected in higher prices instead of lower incomes. The difference is illusory.

10th ammendment.

Fuck the states.

As if the Federal government isn't worse.

You knew your income would be taxed before you took the job, didn't you? How can you complain? It's a simple exchange; you work, knowing you will get a certain amount of money for it, and you get exactly that amount. Where's the violation of your rights?

The violation comes in when government starts to tell me how much I get to keep of the money that I work for.


Society should ensure that everyone's needs are met, but abolishing income taxes would not accomplish that.

Actually it would, because if everyone actually got to kept the money that they made, and I mean all of it, then there would be more spending, people standards of living would grow up and it would simulate the economy!


If you really earn it, how come you never see it? Perhaps because you did not really earn it, but merely are demanding that society pay you extra?

I'm not demanding to be paid "extra" I am demanding what is rightfully mine.


Why do you think that the amount of money you earn is proportionate to the amount of effort you put in? Even if it isn't, so what? No one makes you work hard.

I do work hard because I know my ass can be replaced by someone who does if I don't work hard.


It is still a diminishing of the amount of money you have, it simply is reflected in higher prices instead of lower incomes. The difference is illusory.

Yes, but at least you would start off with all of the money that you earned.

Yea, but I don't really use much of Gov. Co. service. I use the roads, gas, and mail. That's pretty much my interaction with Gov. Co. So it really doesn't make sense that I pay so much for so little of the service that I use.

False:

You, as a citizen of America, are entered into the American social contract. You have left the state of nature, in which there were no taxes, and have entered into the contract. You have sacrificed your liberty for protection from those who would steal your property, harm you physically, or opress you more. Therefore, as long as you are part of hte Social Contract, taxation pays for much more than just a "corporate service", it pays for your benefits in the social contract (which are many and diverse).

As if the Federal government isn't worse.

I'm sick to death of "State's Rights" this and "State's Rights" that, and "Gee, State's rights mean that if I come from a small state, I matter more in a Presidential election than you". States Rights seem to mean that my vote is worth less than a Southerners.

False:

You, as a citizen of America, are entered into the American social contract. You have left the state of nature, in which there were no taxes, and have entered into the contract. You have sacrificed your liberty for protection from those who would steal your property, harm you physically, or opress you more. Therefore, as long as you are part of hte Social Contract, taxation pays for much more than just a "corporate service", it pays for your benefits in the social contract (which are many and diverse).

Eh I don't need Gov. Co. for protection, that is where my 12 gauge and .22 Semi Automatic and 9mm comes in.

Eh I don't need Gov. Co. for protection, that is where my 12 gauge and .22 Semi Automatic and 9mm comes in.

And when someone else has a bigger gun? What then? In the state of nature, you were just outcompeted. Sorry. Play again?

And when someone else has a bigger gun? What then? In the state of nature, you were just outcompeted. Sorry. Play again?

Eh, it's not the size of the gun that matters, it's how you use it. A guy can put me in the hospital with a musket!

The violation comes in when government starts to tell me how much I get to keep of the money that I work for.

Actually, it doesn't.

Since you knew before you took the job that your income would be taxed, the "money that [you] work for" is what your employer pays you minus tax.

You might want more, but so what? So does everyone.

Actually it would, because if everyone actually got to kept the money that they made, and I mean all of it, then there would be more spending, people standards of living would grow up and it would simulate the economy!

What do you think the government does with the money? Perhaps it eats it?

I'm not demanding to be paid "extra" I am demanding what is rightfully mine.

Why is it rightfully yours? You knew you weren't going to get it when you agreed to the deal; you are demanding that the deal be changed, after the fact, to suit you more.

I do work hard because I know my ass can be replaced by someone who does if I don't work hard.

If you think some people are lazy and are getting off easy, why continue to work hard? Let your boss fire you; get an easier job, or no job at all, and live off other people's hard work.

Or do you think that such a life may not really be as great as demagogy might indicate?

Yes, but at least you would start off with all of the money that you earned.

Money is just a symbol of value. The wealth represented by a given quantity of money is relative to prices. The government raising prices has the same effect on the actual value of my money as the government directly taxing my income.

And when someone else has a bigger gun? What then? In the state of nature, you were just outcompeted. Sorry. Play again?
The state of nature only exists in the paranoid fantasies of an overwrought monarchist.

Eh, it's not the size of the gun that matters, it's how you use it. A guy can put me in the hospital with a musket!

Of course. Also many individuals with one or more gun each could come at you from different directions, you do need to sleep. Your gun is of little use if you cant use it.

Yea, but I don't really use much of Gov. Co. service. I use the roads, gas, and mail. That's pretty much my interaction with Gov. Co. So it really doesn't make sense that I pay so much for so little of the service that I use.

The military still protects you, you still gain access to technology developed under government grants, you still enjoy arts supported by the government, and, most importantly, you still have basic democratic freedoms.

Eh I don't need Gov. Co. for protection, that is where my 12 gauge and .22 Semi Automatic and 9mm comes in.

You best never sleep then. I gaurentee you, give me some time to plan and I could kill you without you ever getting the chance to fire a shot.

Youi need to look at the results of Prohibition. The rise of the Sicilian/Italian mobs in the US has been directly attributed to the prohibition of alcohol. Also, alcoholism rates during that period skyrocketed.

Coke used to be legal. The usage rate was fairly low.

Once you ban something, demand for it has this tendency to go up. As does the price.Do you have evidence of this? (Except about the mobs, I know that part.)

The state of nature only exists in the paranoid fantasies of an overwrought monarchist.

Hardly. Locke, for all of his other failings, was essentially correct about the state of man. When we are born outside of civilization, we are free. There are no restrictions upon us. However, when we leave nature, and become civilized, we enter into the social contract.

However, we can regain rights that we have put into the social contract by overthrowing an unjust, or abusive government. In fact, according to Locke, we have the duty to do so.

Nature is anarchic. That is, essentially, the state of nature: Anarchy, survival of the fittest, and competitive exclusion. When we enter into the social contract, we sacrifice some liberties in exchange for protection from the fittest.

TYes, but at least you would start off with all of the money that you earned.

If the differance is an illusion then how is there a differance morally? It makes everything u buy more expensive. It taxes u indirectly but its still taxing u. You start off with all the money u earn but your purchasing power is lower the results are the same.

I'm sick to death of "State's Rights" this and "State's Rights" that, and "Gee, State's rights mean that if I come from a small state, I matter more in a Presidential election than you". States Rights seem to mean that my vote is worth less than a Southerners.

And I'm sick of Washington trying to micromanage things from thousands of miles away. The point behind states' rights is to allow the state to handle their domestic affairs on their own, such as welfare policy, healthcare, education, etc. without Federal intervention. Some states would do better, some would do worse, but Federal involvement generally results in mediocrity at best. People would be fully able to vote with their feet and move to states who had laws and programs that people preferred.

And I'll just say right now that I think the Federal government should be fully capable of forcing the states to respect civil rights, as defined in the Constitution and the ones the Supreme Court finds in the 9th Amendment (such as the right to privacy). In fact, I see this and defence as the real legitimate uses for the Federal government.

16th

And I'm sick of Washington trying to micromanage things from thousands of miles away. The point behind states' rights is to allow the state to handle their domestic affairs on their own, such as welfare policy, healthcare, education, etc. without Federal intervention. Some states would do better, some would do worse, but Federal involvement generally results in mediocrity at best. People would be fully able to vote with their feet and move to states who had laws and programs that people preferred.

And I'll just say right now that I think the Federal government should be fully capable of forcing the states to respect civil rights, as defined in the Constitution and the ones the Supreme Court finds in the 9th Amendment (such as the right to privacy). In fact, I see this and defence as the real legitimate uses for the Federal government.

I'd pull out the federalist, and quote the parts where Madison argues that the existence of a strong, but three-part federal government is the strongest protection of liberty, but I'm too tired to find the proper quote.

Do you have evidence of this? (Except about the mobs, I know that part.)

No links I am afraid. It was in a print article I read several years back about the ongoing drug war and the parellels with the problems stemming from Prohibition.

You best never sleep then. I gaurentee you, give me some time to plan and I could kill you without you ever getting the chance to fire a shot.

Yea good luck getting past the security system that's in my home that was provided by a private company!

Universal suffrage. If we have a leadership sympathetic to the other rights, there isn’t a need for that one.

Living in Australia, I'd be quite happy to gain the right to not vote. Fucking John Howard.

I'd pull out the federalist, and quote the parts where Madison argues that the existence of a strong, but three-part federal government is the strongest protection of liberty, but I'm too tired to find the proper quote.

I know the part your thinking of, and I'd agree with the qualifier that it's strong in certain areas. I have no problem with the Federal government setting the basic standards of human rights to which the states absolutely must adhere. They could add to it, but can never take away. However, I don't see how the Federal government telling my state that if we don't set our speed limit to 55 they'll take our highway money protects my liberty.

If the differance is an illusion then how is there a differance morally? It makes everything u buy more expensive. It taxes u indirectly but its still taxing u. You start off with all the money u earn but your purchasing power is lower the results are the same.

ok, first off it's you, not u. There's a diffrence morally because you are only taxing what people take out, not put in.

Yea good luck getting past the security system that's in my home that was provided by a private company!

Unless your security company involves mounted machine guns, I'm pretty sure i can be in and out before anybody shows up.

The fact is, the reason people formed governments in the first place is that individuals are generally unable to protect themselves without a heirarchy.

And I'm sick of Washington trying to micromanage things from thousands of miles away. The point behind states' rights is to allow the state to handle their domestic affairs on their own, such as welfare policy, healthcare, education, etc. without Federal intervention. Some states would do better, some would do worse, but Federal involvement generally results in mediocrity at best. People would be fully able to vote with their feet and move to states who had laws and programs that people preferred.

And I'll just say right now that I think the Federal government should be fully capable of forcing the states to respect civil rights, as defined in the Constitution and the ones the Supreme Court finds in the 9th Amendment (such as the right to privacy). In fact, I see this and defence as the real legitimate uses for the Federal government.

State's rights are often used to justify the curtailment of civil rights. Banning abortion can be seen as attack on the property rights of women over their bodies. Gays can't marry in most states. Before the 14th amendment states weren't accountable to the constitution. They often had state churches. Yet improving civil rights by strenthening the federal government deprived the states of some of the rights they had.

State's rights are often used to justify the curtailment of civil rights. Banning abortion can be seen as attack on the property rights of women over their bodies. Gays can't marry in most states. Before the 14th amendment states weren't accountable to the constitution. They often had state churches. Yet improving civil rights by strenthening the federal government deprived the states of some of the rights they had.

And that is precisely why I preemptively said that I believe the Federal government should have the final word on civil rights. Most people use states' rights to diminish civil rights, but that's most definately not my intention.

Unless your security company involves mounted machine guns, I'm pretty sure i can be in and out before anybody shows up.

The fact is, the reason people formed governments in the first place is that individuals are generally unable to protect themselves without a heirarchy.

2 way voice communication and an alarm so loud that it'll wake up everyone within a 5 house radius of mine. I can get up pretty quickly and get my gun loaded cock and ready before you even take five steps in. I've praticed this several time at home and on the shooting range. Trust me if it came to pass, one of us will be leaving with a bullet wound, and it won't be me.

I know the part your thinking of, and I'd agree with the qualifier that it's strong in certain areas. I have no problem with the Federal government setting the basic standards of human rights to which the states absolutely must adhere. They could add to it, but can never take away. However, I don't see how the Federal government telling my state that if we don't set our speed limit to 55 they'll take our highway money protects my liberty.

That comes back to the other, more important, part of Federal government:

Interstate commerce.

Remember, the reason that all interstate commerce is regulated by the government (and not the states) is to prevent trade wars in between states over what the laws should be (like, just before the Constitutional Convention, the conflict between Virginia and Maryland that lead to the meeting at Washington's house). Basically, the reason that the speed limit and such thing belong to the national government in this case is because of interstate commerce: it is essential that commerce be safe in between states. This means that trade routes (Highways), must be regulated.

I take exception with the term: "States Rights", because it has created a system in which "States Rights" justify an uneven voting system for President, purposeful refulsal to fix major issues by holdout states, and a feeling of rivalry between states.

ok, first off it's you, not u. There's a diffrence morally because you are only taxing what people take out, not put in.

The results are the same. There is no differances in results. Therefore they are morally equivalent. And its u if I want it it to be.

The results are the same. There is no differances in results. Therefore they are morally equivalent. And its u if I want it it to be.

Ok, but it will bring your intelligence into question.

And that is precisely why I preemptively said that I believe the Federal government should have the final word on civil rights. Most people use states' rights to diminish civil rights, but that's most definately not my intention.

I know, but state rights are often in conflict with civil rights. The same can be said for federal rights and civil rights. The issue of state rights and curtailment of civil rights can't be totally seperated.

Ok, but it will bring your intelligence into question.

Ok, but your grammar nazism seriously puts your intelligence and historical knowledge at question. If English was good enough for Jesus...

Ok, but your grammar nazism seriously puts your intelligence and historical knowledge at question. If English was good enough for Jesus...

He spoke Aramaic.

He spoke Aramaic.

Of course. I was insulting you. Sorry if my humor is too subtle. Languages change. Its about as silly bitching about u being wrong and you being correct as saying color is wrong and colour is right. Few if anyone speaks and types perfect English. U understood what I meant. Bitching about it is silly.

That comes back to the other, more important, part of Federal government:

Interstate commerce.

Remember, the reason that all interstate commerce is regulated by the government (and not the states) is to prevent trade wars in between states over what the laws should be (like, just before the Constitutional Convention, the conflict between Virginia and Maryland that lead to the meeting at Washington's house). Basically, the reason that the speed limit and such thing belong to the national government in this case is because of interstate commerce: it is essential that commerce be safe in between states. This means that trade routes (Highways), must be regulated.

Ah yes, the commerce clause. The problem with the commerce clause is that it can be used to justify nearly anything. In Daniel vs. Paul, the Supreme Court found that it could regulate a recreational facility because at the snack bar some of the food items came from out of state. It's extremely silly things like this that I take issue with.

It's also things like Federal intervention in education, healthcare, and welfare policy that I take issue with. In the early 90s Michigan had a very effective welfare policy, but since Federal legislation supplanted our own we've seen the effectiveness drop dramatically. I'm sure it helped some states, but it hurt us, and without any real reason other than conformity's sake.

I take exception with the term: "States Rights", because it has created a system in which "States Rights" justify an uneven voting system for President, purposeful refulsal to fix major issues by holdout states, and a feeling of rivalry between states.

I take exception to the term "states' rights" too, but mainly because there is so much negative stigma attached to it, due to the actions of racists and bigots of the past and present. I would use a term like decentralization or autonomism, but I'd have to take a lot of time to explain every time I talked about it.

As for the uneven voting system for President, it makes sense if one believes that the US is a union of states, not a unitary state itself. While the US is techincally the former, it could be persuasively argued that practically it's the latter at this point.

With proper decentralization major issues outside of trade, foreign affairs, and civil rights would be state issues, and thus those holdout states would only be holding themselves back.

There will always be a rivalry among states. Such is the nature of tribalism, nationalism, whatever you want to call it. As long as people organize themselves into groups, there'll be rivalries.

I know, but state rights are often in conflict with civil rights. The same can be said for federal rights and civil rights. The issue of state rights and curtailment of civil rights can't be totally seperated.

Hence my insistence that the Federal government be given the last word in what constitutes civil rights, and their complete authority over the states in this regard.

I'd go with number eight. I hold that the punishment should fit the crime to begin with, especially if it's cruel and unusual.

He spoke Aramaic.

So can I:

Es ist Zeit für Rache!:)

Curel and unusual punishment. Sometimes I think some people deserve a lashing. Just like some people deserve to die.

Curel and unusual punishment. Sometimes I think some people deserve a lashing. Just like some people deserve to die.

Cruel and unusual are very vague terms. Executions hasn't been unusual in the US, and electrocutions haven't been deemed cruel.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

The only one I'd be willing to give up is the "right" to be charged income tax.

In other words: fuck giving up rights. I refuse to surrender any real right for ANY reason. That includes the right to bear arms, damn it. That's a governmental check, you gun control buffoons.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

i went with the 8th,cause i dont care if we take a drill to your legs...as i know that the benevolent muzzies would do the same to me.i keep forgetting we play by the same rules....

oh...we dont...then nevermind...i'll go with the religion one...as they respect my right to worship my god,even my no god!
nevermind...that dont work either..how about freedom of speech...that gets everyones panties in a bunch..but i like that one.

kill me for not bending a knee to allah or christ...

that dont work...

how about the gun thing....doubt that....i like my guns and dislike gov

ok..we can all agree to this...the right to privacy...england has rolled over like a bitch in a whorehouse....why not us?

ummm...hmmmm...england rolled like a 2 dollar whore...why not the u.s.?

umm i guess we like our rights,rather then some retard that is scared of life telling me whats good for me.

some may like being coddled...i dont.

Of course. I was insulting you. Sorry if my humor is too subtle. Languages change. Its about as silly bitching about u being wrong and you being correct as saying color is wrong and colour is right. Few if anyone speaks and types perfect English. U understood what I meant. Bitching about it is silly.

It just seems stupid to not type 2 extra letters, I mean comon, Y-O-U.

It just seems stupid to not type 2 extra letters, I mean comon, Y-O-U.

It seems much more stupid when someone admits the differances between 2 types taxes are largely illusory but thinks one is more moral than the other.

Right to bear arms.

It seems much more stupid when someone admits the differances between 2 types taxes are largely illusory but thinks one is more moral than the other.

That because one is more moral to the other. I don't mind paying for taxes, but only when the taxes make sense.

Its obvious.
The 16th, as it is not a Right of the People to more greatly extend freedom and Equality but it is a Right of the State to reduce the ability of the individual to more greatly effect control over his/her own life and choices by exacting a tax on his ability to sustain him/herself.

It is in truth a restriction on the ability of one to their right to life and pursuit of happiness.

I am however not surprised the sheepish masses on these boards picked the right to bear arms--certainly they would choose en masse' to see yet another right of the individual curtailed to the benefit of the state.

It would not matter as I do not live in america.

If you had to pick one of the following rights to be removed from the US Constitution, which one would you pick (poll coming)?

I would say that they are all really important and that we need more of them.

Oooh my nation's first post...;)
Intersting question. Posting from the UK..I would say that is close call between slavery and prohibition. The reason why as I do not really see why either is important much nowadays. If I had to choose I would say that prohibition would be the least important.

I went with universal suffrage. The government spends far too much time and money pandering to the majority.
You were paid it. Why does that mean that you merit it?
Because someone freely agreed to pay it to me.
What's the difference, morally?
Morally, I have no idea. Economically, sales taxes are less of a penalty for productivity.

I'm never concerned with morals; I'm concerned with results. If it matters, measure it.

And yes, by voting for the 2nd you ARE voting
absolute nonsense. While they may be rights of the individual, they are different things and, in my opinion, are of different importances.

My right to free speech is, to me, FAAAAR more important than my right to keep a firearm.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.
However, your opinions do not rights make.
The whole PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights was to protect the populace from an over-reaching government. The right to worship as one wishes, speak freely, petition, defend oneself, to not have to quarter troops ET AL are ALL EQUALLY important.

And remember, that's the right to bear ARMS, not only firearms!

Which one guarantees a "speedy trial"? 6th?

Yeah. I don't think the 6th should all be wiped out, because due process and confronting your accusers is vital, but there's no way in hell any civil court process in this country could ever be called "speedy" -- most of the criminal court processes, too.