S/O - A Civics Lesson

[Anonymous]

What I wonder about is the fairness of state's rights when it comes to certain issues. It seems supremely unfair that if you happen to be born gay in some states, or need an abortion, that you should be denied certain rights for being born there.

Or you should have crappy access to healthcare because of where in the US you are born

Most people can't just pick up and move to a state that is more accommodating.

I just can't see this have and have not America as a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I wonder about is the fairness of state's rights when it comes to certain issues. It seems supremely unfair that if you happen to be born gay in some states, or need an abortion, that you should be denied certain rights for being born there.

Or you should have crappy access to healthcare because of where in the US you are born

Most people can't just pick up and move to a state that is more accommodating.

I just can't see this have and have not America as a good thing.

It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy. For a fundamental human right, like equal marriage, I would like the Constitution amended myself but I am not going to pretend that the current Constitution covers it and forces it on the states; it doesn't.

How to involve the government in health care is surely an issue that should be decided democratically. You think Obamacare is good for people, I think it hurts them versus better reforms. We should get to fight that out and try different things in different states. If we got rid of federalism you have to keep in mind that you might not win on the federal level and then no one in any state gets the position you want. Think long and hard before you want the federal government to be the last word; you are assuming it will be the last word you like.

[Anonymous]

"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to [b]bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).

Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity.

That's not a constructive comment.

The person you're insulting was making a valid point. Yes, she was using an outlandish hypothetical to demonstrate her point, but she acknowledged the hypothetical was outlandish, and was otherwise respectful and constructive.

I think you owe an apology here.

[Anonymous]

"Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity."

Of course. I knew this was going nowhere as soon as you trotted out the "unborn child's right" yadda yadda meme.

Hypotheticals are meant to illustrate gaps in logic and reason.

It doesn't surprise me that that goes straight over your head.

As you were with your "i got mine so don't mess with it" life.

[Anonymous]

Thanks PP. I owe an apology, too, as in my frustration, I resorted to the ad hominem as well with "straight over the head etc." comment.

So I apologize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, you lost my interest with your unrealistic hypothetical. Can't stand such alarmist BS. Just another "dog-whistle" for stupidity.

That's not a constructive comment.

The person you're insulting was making a valid point. Yes, she was using an outlandish hypothetical to demonstrate her point, but she acknowledged the hypothetical was outlandish, and was otherwise respectful and constructive.

I think you owe an apology here.

I don't think so. And outlandish hypo's deserve to be treated as such, and furthermore, the over the top alarm(ism) that Republicans want to kill grandma, big bird and employ child labor is what's ALSO not constructive. There's a reason this country's ideoligical polls hate one another. I don't consider myself either though, at the pole (right-wing as you may call it), or a hater.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity? [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue.

Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority. Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).

Perfect demonstration of federalism of convenience. You just chose to take power away from the states, not because of what is contained in the constitution but because you think that a farfetched hypothetical outcome is distasteful to you.

[Anonymous]

If there were not federal rights and responsibilities tied to marriage I might go for the states rights argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there were not federal rights and responsibilities tied to marriage I might go for the states rights argument.

This is another good point.

[Anonymous]

"Perfect demonstration of federalism of convenience. You just chose to take power away from the states, not because of what is contained in the constitution but because you think that a farfetched hypothetical outcome is distasteful to you"

Perhaps, yes. I do choose to take away a state's power to limit a fundamental right such as marriage. I believe in this case the individual's right trumps that of the state.

All that said, it doesn't matter. Constitutional precedent re: marriage has already been established under due process clause and the equal protection clause--e.g., the ban on interracial marriage in states was deemed unconstitutional under these clauses.

So your argument is moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Perfect demonstration of federalism of convenience. You just chose to take power away from the states, not because of what is contained in the constitution but because you think that a farfetched hypothetical outcome is distasteful to you"

Perhaps, yes. I do choose to take away a state's power to limit a fundamental right such as marriage. I believe in this case the individual's right trumps that of the state.

All that said, it doesn't matter. Constitutional precedent re: marriage has already been established under due process clause and the equal protection clause--e.g., the ban on interracial marriage in states was deemed unconstitutional under these clauses.

So your argument is moot.

Nice try, but you are mixing your arguments.

The individual's constitutional right to marry does not move the power over marriage into the federal domain any more than Roe v. Wade does for abortion. The ruling only limits the restrictions that the state can impose on marriage. But it does nothing to invalidate the legal marriages of any state. Any real Federalist would say that a marriage in one state must be recognized by the Federal government, because the states alone have the power to marry people.