States rights is bullshit. Government is government. The "theory" of states rights back in the days of yore was that a governmental body that was smaller in size, like a state, would be more responsive to the needs/desires of it's citizens. At least that's what they said. Of course it was really just that a lot of the colonies didn't particularly care for the others and had substantially different sets of people (say, Virginia plantations versus Pennsylvania Quakers).
And what legitimacy the argument did have isn't really relevant any longer. The entire population of the United States in the first census was about 4 million people. The population of Los Angeles County is 10 million now. If we are going under the theory that states are better at governing because they are more appropriately sized, then we should we should probably change the 10th Amendment to defer to Counties or Cities or, hell, even Boroughs in NYC are larger than several of the original States. Face it, the 10th Amendment was a sop to people holding onto the failed Articles of Confederation. Madison and other federalists argued that the whole thing was unneeded in the first place because it was obvious and already contained in the rest of the document. But people will rail against the Constitution now, just like they did in 1789. Anyway, the notion that states are better than the federal government is absolutely ludicrous. Legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the governed. It all stems from the will of the people and in the individual lays the source of all power and right. If a state does a better job of protecting the rights of the individual and the collective society they have formed a pact with, great. If the federal government does a better job, great. States have no rights. They are not people, just like corporations aren't people. People have rights and that's it. Period. Judah On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:40 PM, Gruss Gott <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 16, 2012 2:41 PM, "LRS Scout" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ol' bill and Obama aren't ever at odds with the constitution and the law? > > > > Onne signed the assault weapons ban and started the first go of the NDRP; > > the other doubled down on the Bush policies, signed the NDAA, updated the > > NDRP, and just had a 16 year old US citizen murdered without due process. > > > > > I'm with you on everything except for the assault weapons - I agree that it > shouldn't have been signed, but I think for a different reason: > > I don't believe the Constitution contains a federal prohibition on local > government legislation of private gun ownership. My opinion is that states > (or cities for that matter) can legislate any gun control they want and I > think that's the best thing for America ... both because I believe in a > small federal government and I believe that's the top principle of the > Constitution: To set limits on how much the Federal government can invade > state's rights. > > Therefore my opinion is that the Constitution says that the Federal > government should neither be able to limit arms nor prevent > their limitation. > > A president shouldn't sign any such gun legislation simply because like > abortion, prostitution, and drugs, that's a state's rights issue. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:358478 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
