3 ms·

No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule

No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?

mlyle 4y ago
Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
- tekknik 4y ago
  Interesting twist there. If I need to make up my mind then what should the left do? The difference between 2A and Roe is that the 2A is VERY CLEARLY enumerated by the constitution whereas Roe is not. So I push this back to you, why is a VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED right ignored by the left but this Roe thing isn’t? Seems like a double standard.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Whether clearly enumerated rights in the constitution apply to the states or not is a judicial determination. Before the 14th amendment, none of them did. Many states denied jury trials, etc. Now, it's piecemeal based on the incorporation doctrine. Again a piece of inconsistency: the right love the idea that the incorporation doctrine might restrict the states on firearms laws. But they don't love that the incorporation doctrine might prevent the states from passing the kinds of rights-squashing laws that they favor.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      And it was determined to apply, but thanks for the mansplained history lesson anyway. So now explain why the left can ignore that amendment, but then pull something it clearly doesn’t say from another? Getting back on track, you’ll notice what the right is doing is about protecting life. Access to guns is self defense, and now fetal rights for the unborn. The left is about ending life, with Dr assisted suicides, wanting to restrict or remove firearms, and now ending it before it even opens it eyes. Now the left is making a huge deal about not being able to push their life ending ideals on all of us and running around like the world is ending. I reiterate, this is crazy. Also I’m and independent.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        You showing up every couple of days and losing the plot of what we're talking about (either on purpose, or just on accident) to a dead thread doesn't get anywhere. We were talking about states rights vs. federal policy. Now you're trying to pivot about arguing about protecting life, ignoring all the discussion of consistency in positions about states' rights vs federalism. So, I'm not too likely to respond to you anymore. You can't stay on topic. It's called the "Gish Gallop".

mlyle 4y ago

Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."

tekknik 4y ago
Interesting twist there. If I need to make up my mind then what should the left do? The difference between 2A and Roe is that the 2A is VERY CLEARLY enumerated by the constitution whereas Roe is not. So I push this back to you, why is a VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED right ignored by the left but this Roe thing isn’t? Seems like a double standard.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Whether clearly enumerated rights in the constitution apply to the states or not is a judicial determination. Before the 14th amendment, none of them did. Many states denied jury trials, etc. Now, it's piecemeal based on the incorporation doctrine. Again a piece of inconsistency: the right love the idea that the incorporation doctrine might restrict the states on firearms laws. But they don't love that the incorporation doctrine might prevent the states from passing the kinds of rights-squashing laws that they favor.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    And it was determined to apply, but thanks for the mansplained history lesson anyway. So now explain why the left can ignore that amendment, but then pull something it clearly doesn’t say from another? Getting back on track, you’ll notice what the right is doing is about protecting life. Access to guns is self defense, and now fetal rights for the unborn. The left is about ending life, with Dr assisted suicides, wanting to restrict or remove firearms, and now ending it before it even opens it eyes. Now the left is making a huge deal about not being able to push their life ending ideals on all of us and running around like the world is ending. I reiterate, this is crazy. Also I’m and independent.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      You showing up every couple of days and losing the plot of what we're talking about (either on purpose, or just on accident) to a dead thread doesn't get anywhere. We were talking about states rights vs. federal policy. Now you're trying to pivot about arguing about protecting life, ignoring all the discussion of consistency in positions about states' rights vs federalism. So, I'm not too likely to respond to you anymore. You can't stay on topic. It's called the "Gish Gallop".