Deep Thoughts

[toddnjoyce]

Ponder on this: the US Civil War, arguably, was about state’s rights and the result was states rights go only so far; they can’t dissolve the union.

Several of today’s contentious points boil down to state’s rights. Ask yourself this: does the nation exist because of, or in spite of state’s rights.

Standby, more to follow.

 

[Moonpie]

The War of Northern Aggression was ultimately about money and who would get to control it.
This time it’s about control.

 

[oldag]

This nation never would have formed if states rights had not been "guaranteed" in the beginning.

 

[motorcarman]

We were the united STATES. (individual states united but separate for a common defense and other political 'experiments in governing')

Many ideas were tried and either accepted or abandoned throughout our history.

We have morphed into the federal government. (God help us)

 

[etmo]

Ponder on this: the US Civil War, arguably, was about state’s rights and the result was states rights go only so far; they can’t dissolve the union.

Pretty much, although I would nitpick and say it was about states rights, and the result is that states rights only go so far. They can dissolve the union, but only with the blessing of the union (or a successful revolution).

Several of today’s contentious points boil down to state’s rights. Ask yourself this: does the nation exist because of, or in spite of state’s rights.

If you're asking about origins, the nation exists simply because it was created and has not yet been destroyed, despite a number of attempts. It's creation was intended to give the States sovereign power, and keep the federal government as weak as possible. I think it's fair to say it was created with the intent of preserving, at all costs, states' sovereign power, which might be worded as states rights.

That intent was destroyed with the passage of the 17th amendment, and now we are, as mentioned above, close to becoming the Federal Government of America.

But if you're asking about the current status: the nation currently operates in spite of the original scope of state's rights, but again, that original scope was (legally) destroyed with the 17A. Therefore this nation operates beyond the scope of state's rights (with some few exceptions).

 

[Axxe55]

Interesting discussion topic. I'll have to put on my thinking cap to join in this one.

 

[rmantoo]

We were founded as a Union of Independent, Sovereign States, wherein powers that were not SPECIFICALLY named in our constitution as being 'federal' were to be the EXCLUSIVE purview of said states.

Unfortunately, that concept has since turned about 168 degrees away from the original intent (with 0 degrees being 100% in line with intent, and 180 degrees heading in the polar opposite direction), resulting in a virtual negation of MUCH of states' original powers.

EPA, dept of ed, HUD, ATF????, DEA, lots and lots of federal entities are, imho, demonstrably UNconstitutional.

Our constitution is a pretty simply worded document. It takes effort, imho, to misinterpret it's intent.

 

[FireInTheWire]

I thought this nation exists because we got away from the tyrannical England.

Seems we right back where we started.

That's your "benchwarmer" answer from me.

 

[Texasjack]

The southern states believed that they could leave the Union the same way as they joined it. They lost, but the Supreme Court held open the possibility that a state could secede with permission of the majority of the other states. If you watched the Civil War series on PBS, it was pointed out that before the Civil War if you asked someone where they were from, they would tell you the state. After the war, they would say America, or the USA.

Some things are similar to the politics of today. The North was more populated and therefore controlled the House and pretty much the White House. Today, a handful of cities have the majority of the population and can come pretty close to controlling elections. If the Democrats can succeed in getting rid of the Electoral College, those cities will elect every president.

Originally it was the Republicans that wanted a strong central government, but during my lifetime, the Democratic Party has become a socialist party, and socialism requires government control. It goes without having to be said that private ownership of firearms is not compatible with socialism. If you can convince people that they are helpless (think COVID-19), then they will desperately believe only the government can save them. Of course, the people running the government are never suffering under the rules they impose on the proletariat. The Crust takes care of The Crust. Always.

A Southerner will say that the war was over states rights, and that's true. The number one state right was, unfortunately slavery, as Northerners are quick to point out. Northern factories didn't need slaves, as they had an unending supply of poor immigrants pouring into the country every day. You didn't have to whip them to make them work; just fire anyone who didn't perform and hire someone off the next boat.

States rights allow Utah to be predominantly Mormon while Louisiana is predominantly Catholic, and California is, well, insane. Some things need to be "federal". Money, for example. Other things, not so much. A lot of tax money in NY goes for snow plows and road salt, things unnecessary in Texas or Florida.

 

[sidebite252]

Any hope to clean this up and put power back to the States won’t be done under a Democrat or Republican Total freedom & Liberty are not part of their plan.

The reality is most people don’t know how to handle total freedom.

 

[Byrd666]

A thought and response will be delivered later

 

[jrbfishn]

The War of Northern Aggression was ultimately about money and who would get to control it.
This time it’s about control.

There is a lot of truth in this.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[Army 1911]

PBS was wrong. It was after WWI that Americans identified first as American and secondly as a Virginian or whatever state/commonwealth. This had to do with how armies were formed. There are exceptions but you stayed in units from your home state and replacements generally came from same. WWI changed that first with replacements and then taking the state association away .

 

[toddnjoyce]

Alright, it's been a busy week, but I've got a minute to revisit this topic. Monday night, after the eleventy billionth blurb on the radio about House Ds bitching about USPS delivery times,"ballots are being mailed already" and a bunch of other shit about progress made in D states to "modernize America", it made me realize that over the past decade and more specifically over the last four years all the collective DNC efforts being played out in the states in an effort to change America that's coming to a head in this election. For instance:

• Deregulate marijuana (only 8 states remain aligned to federal law)
• Environmental policy
• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
• Absorbing and normalizing socialism
• Normalizing local disputes with the federal executive branch
• Sanctuary city/state initiatives

The list goes on and it just amazed me to realize the Democrat party has effectively pivoted from being a strong federalism party to a strong state's rights party when it comes to advancing their platform/policy objectives. One could argue it's anti-Trump backlash; the reality is no matter who the R candidate was, this shift occurred as soon as achieving the goals became a roadblock at the federal level as proven by the marijuana fight.

The DNC is more concerned with changing America than with governing America and has proven it can and will effectively do so in a centralized manner because they recognize the R weaknesses of an unorganized agenda and limited government at all levels.

 

[etmo]

• Deregulate marijuana (only 8 states remain aligned to federal law)
• Environmental policy
• National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
• Absorbing and normalizing socialism
• Normalizing local disputes with the federal executive branch
• Sanctuary city/state initiatives

The list goes on and it just amazed me to realize the Democrat party has effectively pivoted from being a strong federalism party to a strong state's rights party when it comes to advancing their platform/policy objectives.

I think the bulleted points show a strong federalist approach, that being an approach using both federal power and state power, but I'll try to show that since the Ds don't control much at the federal level right now (thank you, God, please keep it that way for at least another decade or two), they have no choice but to emphasize state-level initiatives, but will not hesitate to use federal-level power whenever they can.

Let's agree that the party in control of the Presidency always wants more Presidential power, the party in control of the Senate / House wants more federal power, and the party that lacks those powers is suddenly all about state's rights.

MJ -- since Obama's administration didn't take it off schedule 1, they're trying to get it done in various states, and hope the Fed has better things to do then send in the stormtroopers. One point for the state's rights.

Environmental policy -- it seems the Ds are trying for a federalist approach here. I'll agree that since they don't hold the Presidency or the Senate they are currently focused on state-level initiatives, but as we agreed above, this isn't a pivot on their part as much as a realization that there's simply nothing else they can do right now.

But back when they had more federal power, here's something Texans might not know -- San Onofre was a functioning nuclear power plant in Southern California. Powered tens of thousands of homes. Well, the Ds wanted it shut down because they're idiots, but the head of the NRC was unwilling to shut it down, because, obviously, it was safely powering tens of thousands of homes. Well, one of the Senators from CA was the head of the committee which oversaw his salary (either Feinstein or Boxer back then, I can't remember), and she told him his new salary would be 0 dollars unless he agreed to shut it down, and voila! He signed off and it was the beginning of the end for that power plant. Now CA burns lots more coal, isn't that smart?
We'll call it another point for state's rights, but the point here is -- they use federal power when they can, and state power when they can. As do the Republicans.

But the National Popular Vote compact is all about destroying state power -- the state agrees that the will of its people doesn't matter, the state will subjugate itself to the will of the mob on the national level. No concern for state's rights whatsoever, it's the exact opposite of state's rights. However, one must use state power here in order to destroy state power, so....? Let's award the point to state power. Not sure it matters, because the Compact Clause of Article I, Section X of the United States Constitution states that "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State" so the NPVC is very likely unconstitutional, but we'll have to wait and see.

Socialism is obviously a national ideology, not a state-by-state thing, I guess I don't understand this inclusion on the list. Point against state's rights.

And normalizing local disputes at the federal level again, direct result of the 17A giving the federal government too much power, but here's an easy example, reducing state power by making everything a federal issue. Definitely against state's rights.

Sanctuary crap, obv states rights because they don't control the Presidency

So the final tally is pro state's rights: 4 against: 2, which I think supports my initial claim that it's a federalist approach, both state powers and federal powers, whenever it suits them, but leaning towards state power-based approaches, because they have little control at the federal level at this time.

So as mentioned in the beginning, they're using every tool at their disposal, as either party will do. In the current climate, Dems don't have the Presidency or the Senate (thanks again to God), so clearly they're going to need to focus on state-level initiatives, which might create the perception that they've pivoted, but the Republicans did the same thing during the Obama years, when the Ds controlled everything at the federal level.

 

[Fishkiller]

Interesting comments. But this one is incorrect " Now CA burns lots more coal, isn't that smart?" The last coal burning plant in CA closed in 2013, and no new permits for natural gas burning plants. Only solar, hydro ( but dams are bad) and wind. Of course they import about 25% of their power from Valmy Nevada and Farmington NM, both coal burners.

 

[MacZC7]

What’s interesting is the US is finally able to be self sufficient and can stop relying on foreign oil and the lefties are pushing for the oil and gas industry to shut down...

 

[motorcarman]

The global 'powers-that-be' want to keep the 'petro-dollar' as it is.
What if we don't need that anymore?????
What if we went back to GOLD?

 

[SQLGeek]

San Onofre was a functioning nuclear power plant in Southern California. Powered tens of thousands of homes. Well, the Ds wanted it shut down because they're idiots, but the head of the NRC was unwilling to shut it down, because, obviously, it was safely powering tens of thousands of homes. Well, one of the Senators from CA was the head of the committee which oversaw his salary (either Feinstein or Boxer back then, I can't remember), and she told him his new salary would be 0 dollars unless he agreed to shut it down, and voila! He signed off and it was the beginning of the end for that power plant. Now CA burns lots more coal, isn't that smart?
We'll call it another point for state's rights, but the point here is -- they use federal power when they can, and state power when they can. As do the Republicans.

Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo is going the same way with reactors shutting down in 2024 and 2025.

Their big hope is offshore wind farms.

 

[MacZC7]

The global 'powers-that-be' want to keep the 'petro-dollar' as it is.
What if we don't need that anymore?????
What if we went back to GOLD?

Trump is setting that up and phasing out the central banking system. Look at the signs, he’s been laying the foundation since 2016.