The Confederate Flag

Homicidal_Squirrel · Jul 31, 2015

Clear violation of Wheaton's Law.

Wheaton's law can't function in Florida. The state is shaped like a phallus. The application of Wheaton's law anywhere within state boundaries isa violation of Florida's state's rights.

Janx · Jul 31, 2015

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
Wheaton's law can't function in Florida. The state is shaped like a phallus. The application of Wheaton's law anywhere within state boundaries isa violation of Florida's state's rights.

As I've said before, anybody arguing States Rights is really just wanting to be a violation of Wheaton's Law. So I guess Florida exemplifies that in shape as well.

Umbran · Jul 31, 2015

Janx said:
As I've said before, anybody arguing States Rights is really just wanting to be a violation of Wheaton's Law. So I guess Florida exemplifies that in shape as well.

We are familiar with this. Here, "States Rights" is used in a way similar to, "But, I'm a CN Rogue! This is what my character would do!" Being a jerk is still being a jerk.

Ryujin · Jul 31, 2015

Umbran said:
We are familiar with this. Here, "States Rights" is used in a way similar to, "But, I'm a CN Rogue! This is what my character would do!" Being a jerk is still being a jerk.

Ah, yes. The "I'm just playing my alignment" bit. In politics it's sometimes stated as, "It's tradition. It's the way that it has always been done." It's a poor excuse as to why something should be done.

Coredump · Aug 7, 2015

Yay... lots of stereotypes and bigotted comments... way to make assumptions about an entire group of people that lump them all into the same category.

There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.

It is what *allowed* gay marriage to be legal in certain states before it was legal nationally. Without 'States Rights" none of those states could have done that. It is what allowes California to pass certain laws without needing to convince Texas that its a good idea. The vast majority of states are fairly lenient with Concealed Carry permits, so does that mean we can force CA and NY to do the same?

Kramodlog · Aug 7, 2015

Coredump said:
Yay... lots of stereotypes and bigotted comments... way to make assumptions about an entire group of people that lump them all into the same category.

There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.

It is what *allowed* gay marriage to be legal in certain states before it was legal nationally. Without 'States Rights" none of those states could have done that. It is what allowes California to pass certain laws without needing to convince Texas that its a good idea. The vast majority of states are fairly lenient with Concealed Carry permits, so does that mean we can force CA and NY to do the same?

What do state rights have to do with slavery and a symbol of slavery?

Umbran · Aug 7, 2015

goldomark said:
What do state rights have to do with slavery and a symbol of slavery?

I guess the idea is that a State should be allowed to choose to show that they're bigots or not, without Federal intervention.

prosfilaes · Aug 7, 2015

Coredump said:
There are a lot of people that are concerned with states rights.... that the *states* are intended to be allowed to operate how *their* citizens want, with the Feds having limited, and enumerated, powers of oversight.

I don't believe it. I'm sure that federalism, and the appropriate size of political structures and design of political layering, is a fascinating subject in political science, and maybe it comes up more in EU politics. But I don't recall any cases in American politics where states rights weren't a smoke screen for the real issue. Both sides in the gay marriage argument were all about using the power of the federal government when it served their cause. The South Carolina succession document talked about states rights, and how states didn't have the rights to not return escaped slaves and to let black men vote.

Dannyalcatraz · Aug 7, 2015

States rights does have one key benefit, IMHO, and that is that it allows for large-scale economic/legal/sociological experiments to take place in real-world conditions. You get great data.

The problems, however, often outweigh the benefits. Looking at something less controversial than the right to support bigotry-gun rights- states rights have resulted in an inconsistent patchwork quilt of State laws governing a fundamental constitutional right. My gun-toting buddies often lament that they can break serious laws merely by traveling cross country with a gun in the car because of where and how they have them secured. (Remember that when someone brings up the "shall not be abridged" language of that Ammendment.)

Similarly, the insistence that States should license health care professionals & insurance leads to increased costs of licensure & insurance, decreased mobility of health care professionals, higher mortality rates due to malpractice, inconsistent levels of healthcare or even what appropriate standards of treatment should be.

Why should States control educational standards? Historical facts are historical facts, math is math, biology is biology wherever you live. Leaving it to the locals gives us things like ID being taught in Louisiana science classes (thank you, bio major & Rhodes scholar Bobby Jindal), or schoolbooks in Texas that teach that we ended the Korean War by dropping atomic bombs. Or, back to the point of this thread, books that teach that the Civil War was not fundamentally predicated by the South's expressed desire to keep AND spread the institution of slavery.