The Secret Campaign To Rewrite The Constitution

Well, there are other things that has been passed in recent years that the federal government has mandated that we must do, but people already know my viewpoints in that so why should I bother repeating myself.

I don't like the federal government telling me what to do, but I also don't like the partisan atmosphere we have had in recent years. While this has created a deadlock in Congress where no bad ideas get forced on me (except for the obvious one), there are no good policies that effect economic well being being passed either because of the deadlock.

Mind you, the federal government isn't there to mandate people on how to live their lives, but legislation isn't all Congress does either.

Oh, and Squishy, you are trying too hard.

Why is it ok for a state government to tell me how to live my life but not okay for the federal government?

Because that was the original purpose of the fed. We were to be something like the european union.


It's why state, in every other part of the world, is analogous to country.

You mean, besides the fact that you can move to a different state and not really affect your life (except new friends/job/so on) as much as moving out of the US?

Neither are good, but having 50 viewpoints instead of 1 gives you a better option in how you want to run your life.

Want to marry Pablo? Move to CA.
Want your drugs? Move to CO.
Want a job and don't want to pay state taxes? Move to TX.
Want to live in a city state? Move to NY.

Not saying that states should have absolute power, just that there are versions of government that suits a citizen better.

Actually, the EU wants to be what the US is...

Theoretically, because you have more representation by your individual state, than the entire country.

Then how do conservatives justify pushing things like the Federal Marriage Amendment?

Because they are thinking with their religion and not with their brains.

I completely agree with this. You want to live in a more liberal area, move to one. Trying to super-impose liberal ideologies on the Bible Belt is counter-productive if you ask me.

The Bible Belt is full of liberal ideology, though. They're huge proponents of public assistance.

You get my point >.>

Trying to superimpose ideologies on a population not intune to them is counterproductive. You can adjust the law, however adjusting societal views on a particular area is significantly more difficult.

OK big whoop you get same-sex marriage passed in e.g. Tennessee, you're still going to be miserable as a gay. You're better off moving to a state like CA or NY.

People can't always move, however.

If you don't like where you live strong enough, you will find a way to move.

Heck, even the homeless moves out of the state if that state doesn't support them, and they have much less than a family of 4.

Yes, it will be hard, but it is still possible to move out of a state, even more than moving out of the USA.

Even if it's easier now, that generally was not the case at the inception of Federalism. The average person could not just move to another state. So it's hard for me to see that as the original intention of a divided government.

The original intention was to not have one party or form of government with too much power.

The federal government has too much power, while states have little to none. What little power the states have can be taken away from the federal government because the feds give away money for various programs (like roads, Medicare, tuition, so on) like candy, but will take it away if you don't do what the feds tell you to do.

They can always turn down the money.

States have, but not all states can. Especially poorer states like Wyoming.

Either way, it still gives incentives to states that follow the policies of the party of power (do what I say like a good dog and I'll give you a small treat) where it should be that the federal government should treat everyone equal, regardless of the political standing of a specific state.

Feds are banking that if a state does what they say, they can control that state, while if a state refuses the money, they will let the citizens know that John Q. Leech won't be getting as much money from welfare as he would have if his state did what the federal government thinks what is "best" for that state. John Q. Leech votes in a person who says that we should obey our federal overlords and Leech gets more money. Oh, and this can go the other way too...

THAT is what we are trying to prevent.

I would amend this to being something more related to municipality. I live in a state that, on the books, looks pretty damned awful to be gay in. Half the cities here back up that assumption. The other ones consistently rate at the top of the country for being gay-friendly.

So, really, contrary to what you'd figure from the name, it isn't good to be gay in Bum-***, Idaho, but Boise might be more your speed (not sure on this, I've never been to Idaho). Which is why we want blanket rights rather than turning Mississippi into a ghetto for bigots. I mean, it sounds great, except that homosexuality is not a self-propagating culture, so even if everyone in Mississippi agrees that you should burn *** (highly literary pun!), it won't stop them being born and consequently persecuted. Also, trying to wall off the Jews, the Japanese, the Africans, and other groups who are self-propagating has worked out

Funny thing is when a state conforms to federal policy to get federal money... and then the feds tell them that they spent the money elsewhere. Well, not so much funny as depressing and infuriating.

The top gay friendly cities would include LA, SF, NYC, but that's semi-irrelevant. There's more to misery than having close-minded locals and conservative laws. There's also availability of resources and legal accommodations.

So going back Kingnobody's example of Pablo and moving to CA. You're better off moving to a state such as CA not only b/c of societal acceptance but resources. I'm talking physician practices, hospitals, attorneys, florists, bakers, photographers, etc. who specialize in LGBT clientele.

Also Pablo is an illegal immigrant so CA is PERFECT!!

Well, yes, but we can't all live in California. I mean, we could, if we built the place up to resemble downtown Tokyo, but CA imports a fair bit of food as it is and just imagine if half the US population tried to live there.

Also, it'd really *** up the Senate. The House would be fine, but small states already have disproportionate influence in the Senate, much less when 200 million people live in one single state.

Gay and hispanic????? /mindblown

You know, the only reason why I said Pablo is because that was the first male name that pop'd in my head...