States' Rights

Quote: reno

It gets interesting when a local government (ie, city or county) passes a law, but then the state government overrules the locals and nullifies the law. For critics of Big Government, the rule of thumb is to give the local government the benefit of the doubt, and tell the state/federal government to go to hell.

Consider the case of Denton, Texas. Last November, the citizens of Denton went to the polls and voted to ban fracking. The Texas state legislature overruled the voters, and voided Denton's law. “It’s a bad situation when city leaders’ hands are tied,” said Councilman Kevin Roden. “There seems to be an attitude that big state government knows better than the citizens of a city. I just think—conservative or liberal—that is something you don’t do in Texas.”

You all know my disclosures on fracking......

The issue of fracking bans is they are the taking of people's property without compensation. There is also the issue that the local government by banning something is taking more freedoms away from the people. Most states have the authority to regulate environmental issues, fracking being one of them.

More generally, local "bans" are mostly anti-freedom. Fracking to plastic bags to the size of pop you are allowed to buy, they are really just turning local governments to a glorified HOA but one that can enforce under threat of violence. As you may see, I am against them for the most part. Of course there is a need for local laws, but it has gotten out of hand in so many places.

Quote: AZDuffman

More generally, local "bans" are mostly anti-freedom.

As Face will tell ya, a ban on marijuana is a ban on freedom. Right Face?

Quote: Face

I carry. There's not a single sign or easily acquired handbook or mandatory instruction or universal set of rules. It's something I do, so it is my responsibility to find and learn the rules of that activity. I have to know when I can, where I can, where I can't, how to do it, and on and on. All of this was a hell of a lot more difficult than finding idiosyncrasies in State traffic law, I promise you. And, way more so than traffic laws, going from State to State requires a ton more reading, learning, and knowing.

Wouldn't you just prefer to have one set of gun laws? Wouldn't that make your life more simple? Illinois has a set, then Chicago has a subset which contradicts Illinois'!

***

I have mostly fond memories of my 10 years in Columbus, but the goddamned Buckeyes consider U-turns to be total anarchy. As far as they were concerned, you could have civilization or you could have U-turns, but you can't have both. It's a slippery slope-- if you legalize U-turns, it's only a matter of time before heroin is legal.

I'd be just fine with the Ohio State Legislature or the U.S. government (or even the United Nations!) forcing Columbus to end their asinine U-turn ban.

Quote: reno

Us liberals are hypocrites, of course. (Myself included.) We want the Feds to look the other way when the states legalize marijuana. And then we want the Feds to step in when the states try to ban gay marriage.

I wouldn't call this hypocritical in principle, the principle being expanding liberty and recognizing rights. Or you can see it as neither the states nor the federal government should curtail liberty or rights. The methods to achieve the ends need not be consistent, so long as the ends are achieved.

Quote: reno

As Face will tell ya, a ban on marijuana is a ban on freedom. Right Face?

DON'T GET ME STARTED!! ;)

Quote: reno

Wouldn't you just prefer to have one set of gun laws? Wouldn't that make your life more simple? Illinois has a set, then Chicago has a subset which contradicts Illinois'!

More simple? Beyond a shadow of a doubt. But who says simple = better?

And this really is a perfect example. In Wyoming, you need no licensing whatsoever. You go to the store, and what ever shotgun or 17 round Glock or 30 round AR you want, you just buy it. There's no mag capacity restrictions, no handgun licenses, nothing. You can also open carry. When the Fed and I went fishing, we went to the corner store for supplies. I had my Ruger Super Blackhawk .44 strapped to my chest and the Fed had his .44 on his hip. The cashier met us with a smile, asked if she could help us, and nothing else. No odd looks, no repeated glances to our weaponry... it's just normal. You want that same thing in NYC / LA / Chicago? Switching the other way, do you want everywhere to be NJ, and never be able to carry your weapon outside of the state? Not for hunting, not for self defense, nothing? Have exorbitant fees for what is a Constitutional right, have pols determine whether you're fit to exercise that right, have a simple drs. appt. for anxiety result in the forfeiture of your weapons?

Everywhere ain't the same. I'm not an open carry proponent, as in, I don't support engaging in it most of the time. But in some places here in WNY, places I was at in Wyoming, it's completely acceptable and possibly necessary. A one-size-fits-all gun law would be far too restrictive for many areas, and probably too lenient in others. I'd rather do the work. Easy =/= better.

I'm actually okay with state level marijuana laws, as far as banning or approving. Whereas marriage I see as fundamental at a national level. If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, have at it. I don't see either as fundamental rights.

The thing about marijuana is, it simply wasn't approved anywhere.

Last year (or maybe the year before) I signed a pro-legalization ballot petition for marijuana. Didn't pass though.

Quote: Nareed

I wouldn't call this hypocritical in principle, the principle being expanding liberty and recognizing rights. Or you can see it as neither the states nor the federal government should curtail liberty or rights. The methods to achieve the ends need not be consistent, so long as the ends are achieved.

Exactly. I don't care who enacts the law. I only care whether the law is reasonable, effective, & fair. If a state enacts a good law, bravo! If the Feds enact a good law, bravo! If the state enacts a stupid law, repeal it. If the Feds enact a stupid law, repeal it. I'm more concerned with the content of the law; I could care less which stupid bureacracy passed it.

I never understood the Republican fetish for states' rights. They'd rather a state pass a stupid law than have the Feds pass a brilliant law.

Quote: rxwine

If a state wants to outlaw alcohol, have at it.

No, no, and no. Thou shall not lock up people in cages for drinking beer. That's tyranny. It's a human rights issue. (It's a taxpayer rights issue, too.)

Quote: rxwine

The thing about marijuana is, it simply wasn't approved anywhere.

What do you mean by this?

Quote: reno

No, no, and no. Thou shall not lock up people in cages for drinking beer. That's tyranny. It's a human rights issue. (It's a taxpayer rights issue, too.)

I'm not arguing that it's a good idea. But, if a community decides they don't want (for instance) unmuffled (loud open exhaust pipe) vehicles driving their city streets I don't see why they can't ban it. There's lots of activities that aren't fundamental rights. There may or may not be good reasons for stopping something but their are fundamental rights and all else is up in the air.

(For my part, I'm not sure some version of Amsterdam drug use may be a better answer. I really like good and several studies to know though)

(btw, you can just issue a ticket or fine without locking people up, like a speeding ticket, it doesn't get worse until failing to obey the minor law)

Quote:

What do you mean by this?

That the laws didn't represent a good majority of what the population was thinking or doing and needed to change.