Which, let's face it, is an out of date principal anyway, championed in the 18th century, a pre-technical era when the lack of responsive communications necessitated the need for local areas to make largely local decisions. It is now however the 21st century, and the most remote part of our land is but a click, call, drive or flight away. I know we have readers who disagree with me (Mr. A), and so be it. But lately the evidence in my favor has been piling up.
5. Oklahoma thinks it has the right to put add another layer of psychological torture to a woman's right to choose.
4. The Southern states (collectively) decide that a joint is more dangerous to citizens than the ever growing number of obese adults walking around Wal-Mart.
3. Virginia tries to act like slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War.
2. California, land of hairdressers, fashion designers, actors, dancers and models, outlaws gay marriage.
1. Arizona makes its case as the most racist State in the Union. Suck it Kentucky!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The reason our founding fathers were against a strong central government was because they were revolting against an imperialist king and they had no representation in the English government that looked out for their interests when making policy decisions.
ReplyDeleteEven if we did have the strong central government that everyone is so against, it would not be at all like the one that our forefathers feared. We have plenty of representation in both Chambers of Congress. If we don't like what our legislature does, we get to vote them out in the next election. That is exactly what our forefathers envisioned.
As for Arizona, that little bit of nonsense is unconstitutional. It violates Equal Protection, due process, and is in conflict with existing federal law. The federal government has the right to police borders, and deal with immigration, customs, passports, etc. (and it's a power enumerated in the Constitution). If any state enacts a law that conflicts with the US Constitution or federal law, the federal law supersedes the state law. That's in the Constitution, too - supremacy clause. The Arizona idiocy conflicts with both the U.S. Constitution and federal statute.
Plus, you forgot one. You shouldn't fail to "honor" the South Carolina Lt. Governor that likened kids that receive free lunch to stray animals (and made the comment about trying to prevent them from breeding) with a spot on your list. He worked hard to deserve to be there.
I thought about making a Top 10, but then got lazy when ideas wouldn't come to me that minute. Belatedly, I regretted your example of South Carolina as well as North Dakota's law against implanting human microchips (not that I am in favor of this). I should have tried a bit harder to come up with three more. I am certain plenty of material exists.
ReplyDeleteI hope that what you say about Arizona's law being unconstitutional is actually challenged in court within the next decade before too much damage is done.
Excellent explique, Ms. Hippi Cicki Nicki, as to the other reasons for the institution of States Rights.
Without state's rights we would not have gay marriage, medical marijuana, non-smoking restuants and many other things. A stong central government provides uniform thinking without the concern for regional preferences like those mentioned above. While I do not support AZ new law, with over 10% unemployement and over 500,000 illegals working might upset me also.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm not as strong a supporter of states rights as you make me out to be Ms Boop. I believe much of what HCN says above is true. But as far as the ability to vote them out of office, that's a little gray. What I am a proponent of is term limits at both state and federal levels. If not strict term limits on how long a person can serve, then certainly term limits on committee and sub-committee chairmanships, etc. For example, Michael Madigan (as you mentioned in a previous posting Boop) as SoH in IL wields a tremendous amount of power in IL gov't. It's likely none of us here have the ability to vote him out of office. I know I don't. He answers only to a small group of voters in his district and I'm sure he takes care of them well. It's fine if they continue to vote for him and want him as their representative. But there should be a limit on the amount of time he can hold such a position of power within IL gov't. We have no say in who is SoH. Term limits should be in place to take care of that. The same should hold true at the federal level IMO.
ReplyDelete-Mr. A
I believe it might be ironic that the current governor's predecessor was recruited by Obama himself as the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think one of the goals was to steer clear of the racial profiling that can cause gaffs in the best of circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI've mulled on the Libertarian view many an occasion, and I just can't embrace it for this very reason. Quite frankly, I don't trust the states to do right for the majority. Look at how Illinois is screwing us over with our tax refunds. When will we get those? Huh? Answer me, dammit!