PDA

View Full Version : Beware 'States' Rights'



John Smith
10-08-2017, 11:25 AM
This is what they argue for, but this is what they mean:

States can opt out of minimum wage, labor laws, safety standards, etc. set by the federal government.

Ian McColgin
10-08-2017, 01:04 PM
And to right wingers, states' rights means that a state with gun safety laws must honor other states casual carry permits, and states looking for environmental prosperity will be required to allow dirty cars and pay for dirty coal, and states that want to reduce crime by ensuring that all residents feel safe calling the police or serving as a witness in court will be required to hold people who have not committed a crime. Yeah. States' rights. Total and shameless lie.

CWSmith
10-08-2017, 01:06 PM
All correct, but the argument for exaggerated state's rights is a divide and conquer strategy. The right wants to take the country in its direction one state at a time while undermining federal laws in one state weakens federal law in others. It is a weak link strategy and it works.

skuthorp
10-08-2017, 03:22 PM
Ah yes, the "United" bit is quietly being suborned.

Gib Etheridge
10-08-2017, 04:36 PM
Ah yes, the "United" bit is quietly being suborned.

I had a much older friend who used to refer to the "United Snakes of America". Considering the current administration, they still seem pretty united to me, and right at the top of the pile at that.

Ian McColgin
10-08-2017, 04:38 PM
The argument about states rights has not changed since it caused our civil war. The forces of repression are not content to have their nastiness in their own state but they want legal sanction to carry it everywhere - foul air, casual carry of guns, toxic water, rounding up brown people. And now we have a Supreme Court ready to do a Twenty First Century Dred Scott decision.

Gib Etheridge
10-08-2017, 04:40 PM
"Snake's rights".

Chris Smith porter maine
10-08-2017, 05:26 PM
Time to re think things, Wyoming has 2 senators with a population less than Denver.

CWSmith
10-08-2017, 05:37 PM
The argument about states rights has not changed since it caused our civil war. The forces of repression are not content to have their nastiness in their own state but they want legal sanction to carry it everywhere - foul air, casual carry of guns, toxic water, rounding up brown people. And now we have a Supreme Court ready to do a Twenty First Century Dred Scott decision.

Well said!

Canoeyawl
10-08-2017, 09:02 PM
Time to re think things, Wyoming has 2 senators with a population less than Denver.

San Jose, Ca. a relatively small city, has double the population of Wyoming.

(Did you ever notice that when you drive off an hwy exit in Wyoming there is a cattle guard and then the roads are unpaved?)

Too Little Time
10-08-2017, 09:33 PM
San Jose, Ca. a relatively small city, has double the population of Wyoming.

(Did you ever notice that when you drive off an hwy exit in Wyoming there is a cattle guard and then the roads are unpaved?)
I must have missed that exit. The Wyoming roads I have traveled on are paved.

But must not forget the main point. A couple centuries have not changed the fact that representation is not perfect. It seems that some people have ulterior motives for wanting change. I am Shirley. I am in favor of each district having 2 representatives. One for each party - even representatives for the minor candidates. Each representative gets as many votes in Congress as he had in ihs election.