First failed state?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Well yeah, look at the past 5 or so presedential elections, that's 20 years.

 

What about all the other things we vote on? California is actually a fairly evenly split state when it comes to political parties. Just look at the governor, and the recent Prop 8 victory was about as right wing conservative christian as you can get.

You can't be serious. California is dominated by Democrats, look up your congressional delegation. Even the governor is a liberal. May be CA isn't as liberal as you'd like, but it's the bluest of blue states. Gay marriage hasn't succeeded in any state's referendum so far as I know, so that tells you nothing.

 

I hope OC and most inland counties like San Francisco values.

 

Maybe all of the San Diego expatriates who moved to Austin will move back after the Red Curtain falls on Texas.

That's an internal state matter, it shouldn't affect us. And it's not like all of CA actually has SF values. Austin is very liberal btw.

[Hurlshort]

Well yeah, look at the past 5 or so presedential elections, that's 20 years.

 

What about all the other things we vote on? California is actually a fairly evenly split state when it comes to political parties. Just look at the governor, and the recent Prop 8 victory was about as right wing conservative christian as you can get.

You can't be serious. California is dominated by Democrats, look up your congressional delegation. Even the governor is a liberal. May be CA isn't as liberal as you'd like, but it's the bluest of blue states. Gay marriage hasn't succeeded in any state's referendum so far as I know, so that tells you nothing.

 

 

Are you being serious with your bizarre super state idea? You just seem to be looking at things from a very black and white perspective. Nothing in politics is so cut and dry.

[Lare Kikkeli]

THE RED STATE WILL RULE THE WORLD

 

Seriously dude read about how Germany was affected by the split. You'll see how god damn stupid your idea is.

[J.E. Sawyer]

That's an internal state matter, it shouldn't affect us. And it's not like all of CA actually has SF values.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...CA2008Prop8.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...ounty,_2008.svg

[Enoch]

THE RED STATE WILL RULE THE WORLD

 

Seriously dude read about how Germany was affected by the split. You'll see how god damn stupid your idea is.

You don't even have to look overseas-- we've tried Dagon's idea right here in the USA.

 

Then there was a war. The conservatives lost.

 

 

American federalism has worked pretty well over the years, with authority split between national, state, and local governments. Yes, the scale has tilted towards the national level over the last century, but that's a natural consequence of growing technological interdependence, the rise of the US as a world power, and the increased prominence of national issues that require the resources of the whole country to address.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Enoch

[Lare Kikkeli]

THE RED STATE WILL RULE THE WORLD

 

Seriously dude read about how Germany was affected by the split. You'll see how god damn stupid your idea is.

You don't even have to look overseas-- we've tried Dagon's idea right here in the USA.

 

Then there was a war. The conservatives lost.

 

 

Well yeah then there's that. That was pretty long ago though, so a more recent example would be Germany. But yeah either one shows how stupid that idea is.

[Wrath of Dagon]

THE RED STATE WILL RULE THE WORLD

 

Seriously dude read about how Germany was affected by the split. You'll see how god damn stupid your idea is.

You don't even have to look overseas-- we've tried Dagon's idea right here in the USA.

 

Then there was a war. The conservatives lost.

 

 

American federalism has worked pretty well over the years, with authority split between national, state, and local governments. Yes, the scale has tilted towards the national level over the last century, but that's a natural consequence of growing technological interdependence, the rise of the US as a world power, and the increased prominence of national issues that require the resources of the whole country to address.

OK, first of all, Germany did not split voluntarily, East Germany was captured by the USSR and forced to be part of their empire, completely different situation. The Civil War in the US is a bit more analogous, but the big difference was first there was a war, it was not voluntary, and second the Confederacy wanted to completely leave the Union, while I'm proposing we still have a Federal defense and foreign policy, only economic and social policies would be under the super states, really much more like the Union was intended to be initially. There would need to be a Constitutional convention and the Constitution would need to be changed to do all this legally and in good faith on both sides.

 

And no, the federalism has not worked pretty well, the Federal government has used the lame excuse of the Commerce clause to illegally seize power clearly and specifically reserved for the states and the people. If the scale did indeed need to be tilted to the national level, this should've been done by Constitutional amendment, not judicial fiat.

[Enoch]

And no, the federalism has not worked pretty well, the Federal government has used the lame excuse of the Commerce clause to illegally seize power clearly and specifically reserved for the states and the people.

Area Man Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Constitution to Be

[Wrath of Dagon]

So your argument is a fake news story? Why don't you actually show why my statement is wrong, I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Supreme court arbitrates in your favor = defenders of the constitution.

Supreme court arbitrates against your desires = judicial activists.

 

The Commerce Clause is a single, simple sentence with broad implications as written. I'm not sure how you can read, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" and come away thinking that there's some sort of hidden subtext implying limitations.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Supreme court arbitrates in your favor = defenders of the constitution.

Supreme court arbitrates against your desires = judicial activists.

 

The Commerce Clause is a single, simple sentence with broad implications as written. I'm not sure how you can read, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" and come away thinking that there's some sort of hidden subtext implying limitations.

No, there's the explicit text saying "all powers not specifically delegated to the Federal government shall remain with the states or the people", I'm paraphrasing from memory. The Commerce Clause has been used by the Supreme Court to mean that anything that has to do with interstate commerce whatsoever is subject to the Federal powers, which renders what I quoted meaningless.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

 

Well if that's the case I'm sure everything you say must be true, after all you had a history class! Nevermind the fact that history classes can be slanted, nevermind the fact that history classes can be full of bull**** if the teacher wants it to be (id est Holocaust Denial because the Teacher is a denier), never mind the fact that you might have misunderstood something or might be ignoring facts. Nevermind all of that, and more, your argument that you are qualified to re-write the Constitution because you took one history class is hilariously bad. Anyways, enough of that for now - please post some more humor as I could use with some of that at the moment.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nightshade, has anyone ever explained to you what a "strawman argument" is? Because you seem to be awfully fond of them.

[Guard Dog]

Then there was a war. The conservatives lost.

 

Enoch, I have a lot of respect for you but the premise behind that statement is not only wrong, but beneath you.

 

American federalism has worked pretty well over the years, with authority split between national, state, and local governments. Yes, the scale has tilted towards the national level over the last century, but that's a natural consequence of growing technological interdependence, the rise of the US as a world power, and the increased prominence of national issues that require the resources of the whole country to address.

 

Would you agree we are fast approaching a breaking point when the Federal Government assumes so much power that American federalisim ceases to exist? Do you forsee a time when state and local government will see all of their authority usurped by Washington? I believe we are fast approaching that stage.

 

It is not for nothing that State reps in Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana are throwing around the "S" word again. I said it before and I'll say it again, a permanent schsim between the states is invitable and necassary, but not a good thing. I seriously doubt it is imminent but I honestly believe we are seeing the groundwork laid right now in the news everyday.

[Rostere]

Seriously, some Americans act like the Constitiution is their ****ing Quran or something.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Nightshade, has anyone ever explained to you what a "strawman argument" is? Because you seem to be awfully fond of them.

 

It's not a Strawman argument if it's attacking what is being used to defend ones position (id est it's not a Strawman argument to attack a person who claims to be a PhD but got his Doctorate from an unaccredited diploma mill) and you seemed to argue that you're positions must be true because you had a history class. I'm not attacking you for being young or being conservative, I am attacking you for claiming that one history class gives you a perfect insight to the Constitution and all the nuances surrounding it.

[Guard Dog]

Here is another nugget of news from the Peoples Socialist Republic of California (/sarcasm) Since the State is unable to meet it's obligations to the state university system the in state tuition will be increasing by 32% next year. All of the sudden Stanford doesn't seem all that expensive!

 

But take heart Califonrnia students... State employees will still get their sex change and plastic surgery paid for, the medical programs for illegal immigrants is still funded, and the state assembly will still get their raise next year!

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

[Enoch]

So your argument is a fake news story? Why don't you actually show why my statement is wrong, I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

Dude, it was a joke.

 

 

The 10th Amendment is a grant of residual power-- the power not discussed in the other parts of the Constitution. No single right or power was "clearly and specifically" reserved by its language. The Commerce Clause happens to be in one of the other parts of the Constitution. The scope of the power it grants the Congress has increased, but this corresponds with an enormous increase in the portion of the nation's "commerce" that has interstate effect.

 

And singling out the Court isn't entirely fair. The Commerce Clause is used by Congress to pass legislation, which then is signed by the President. SCOTUS's involvment is in ruling on whether the law is constitutional in the event that a petitioner challenges said constitutionality in a case that is appealed to them. So, while it's tempting to blame the 9 unelected, life-tenured justices for thwarting your righteous views, it never would have gotten to them if the other two (democratically elected) branches didn't also think you were wrong.

[Enoch]

Would you agree we are fast approaching a breaking point when the Federal Government assumes so much power that American federalisim ceases to exist? Do you forsee a time when state and local government will see all of their authority usurped by Washington? I believe we are fast approaching that stage.

No and no.

 

Really, the trend for the last 25 years or so has been in the other direction. The Rehnquist Court in the late 80s to early 90s had a number of cases renewing federalism jurisprudence. (e.g., the "Violence Against Women Act" didn't have a sufficient grounding in interstate commerce and thus was beyond Congress' power.) Most of the justices who were in the majority back then are either still on the Court or have been replaced by Bush appointees who are unlikely to disagree with their outcomes. I don't think that these holdings are in jeopardy of being overturned anytime soon. On the legislative side, there have been a number of increases in federal spending (Medicare prescription benefit, bailout, stimulus, etc.), but not so much in regulation. It's likely to bounce back soon in areas of finance and insurance, but there are enough parochial interests in the Senate that state-level options and control will likely still be a feature of whatever ends up passing.

 

Mostly, I think this kind of fear is a case of politicians using scare tactics to motivate their political base. ("Come out and vote for me, or the bureaucrats from Washington will be goose-stepping down Main Street!") And people tend to be eager to believe what they fear, and eager to attribute nefarious motives to people they disagree with politically.

[Hurlshort]

Here is another nugget of news from the Peoples Socialist Republic of California (/sarcasm) Since the State is unable to meet it's obligations to the state university system the in state tuition will be increasing by 32% next year. All of the sudden Stanford doesn't seem all that expensive!

 

But take heart Califonrnia students... State employees will still get their sex change and plastic surgery paid for, the medical programs for illegal immigrants is still funded, and the state assembly will still get their raise next year!

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

Oddly enough, I was just discussing that with my co-workers today. Someone mentioned that UC's are still less expensive than most schools on the East Coast, I wonder how accurate that is.

[Guard Dog]

Here is another nugget of news from the Peoples Socialist Republic of California (/sarcasm) Since the State is unable to meet it's obligations to the state university system the in state tuition will be increasing by 32% next year. All of the sudden Stanford doesn't seem all that expensive!

 

But take heart Califonrnia students... State employees will still get their sex change and plastic surgery paid for, the medical programs for illegal immigrants is still funded, and the state assembly will still get their raise next year!

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

Oddly enough, I was just discussing that with my co-workers today. Someone mentioned that UC's are still less expensive than most schools on the East Coast, I wonder how accurate that is.

I graduated from Florida Atlantic (a very small state U in Boca Raton) in '99 and then it was $84 per credit for in state. Now it's around $130. UF and FSU are around $175. I just looked up UC and at UC Irvine it's cheapest at $205 and Cal and UCLA are the highest with $295 average. That is pretty steep for in state.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Nightshade, has anyone ever explained to you what a "strawman argument" is? Because you seem to be awfully fond of them.

 

It's not a Strawman argument if it's attacking what is being used to defend ones position (id est it's not a Strawman argument to attack a person who claims to be a PhD but got his Doctorate from an unaccredited diploma mill) and you seemed to argue that you're positions must be true because you had a history class. I'm not attacking you for being young or being conservative, I am attacking you for claiming that one history class gives you a perfect insight to the Constitution and all the nuances surrounding it.

It's a perfect strawman argument because I never claimed any of those things, it all happened in your head somehow, and it's not the first time either. You didn't even understand the context of my post, which was in response to Enoch's link.

 

Edit:

 

So your argument is a fake news story? Why don't you actually show why my statement is wrong, I'm basing it on what I was taught in history class, not on right wing radio shows.

Dude, it was a joke.

 

 

The 10th Amendment is a grant of residual power-- the power not discussed in the other parts of the Constitution. No single right or power was "clearly and specifically" reserved by its language. The Commerce Clause happens to be in one of the other parts of the Constitution. The scope of the power it grants the Congress has increased, but this corresponds with an enormous increase in the portion of the nation's "commerce" that has interstate effect.

Increase in the volume of commerce has nothing to do with the scope of the powers.

And singling out the Court isn't entirely fair. The Commerce Clause is used by Congress to pass legislation, which then is signed by the President. SCOTUS's involvment is in ruling on whether the law is constitutional in the event that a petitioner challenges said constitutionality in a case that is appealed to them. So, while it's tempting to blame the 9 unelected, life-tenured justices for thwarting your righteous views, it never would have gotten to them if the other two (democratically elected) branches didn't also think you were wrong.

Yes, but those rats are always trying to pass laws they know are unconstitutional for political reasons. It's the Supreme Court's job to uphold the Constitution, as they're supposed to be above political influence. Edited November 19, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Hurlshort]

University of Florida and Florida State U. are the same cost? In CA we have a UC system, more expensive but higher profile schools, and a CSU system that is less expensive but often features specific quality programs.

[Guard Dog]

Would you agree we are fast approaching a breaking point when the Federal Government assumes so much power that American federalisim ceases to exist? Do you forsee a time when state and local government will see all of their authority usurped by Washington? I believe we are fast approaching that stage.

No and no.

 

Really, the trend for the last 25 years or so has been in the other direction. The Rehnquist Court in the late 80s to early 90s had a number of cases renewing federalism jurisprudence. (e.g., the "Violence Against Women Act" didn't have a sufficient grounding in interstate commerce and thus was beyond Congress' power.) Most of the justices who were in the majority back then are either still on the Court or have been replaced by Bush appointees who are unlikely to disagree with their outcomes. I don't think that these holdings are in jeopardy of being overturned anytime soon. On the legislative side, there have been a number of increases in federal spending (Medicare prescription benefit, bailout, stimulus, etc.), but not so much in regulation. It's likely to bounce back soon in areas of finance and insurance, but there are enough parochial interests in the Senate that state-level options and control will likely still be a feature of whatever ends up passing.

 

Mostly, I think this kind of fear is a case of politicians using scare tactics to motivate their political base. ("Come out and vote for me, or the bureaucrats from Washington will be goose-stepping down Main Street!") And people tend to be eager to believe what they fear, and eager to attribute nefarious motives to people they disagree with politically.

 

Oh I will admit there is plenty of hyperbole thrown around in election years but I am not given to paying that much attention (especially having done some of that once myself). And I will also agree that the decisions of the Rehnquist court, and the Roberts court so far with a few notable exceptions have been reliably in favor of the federalist philosophy. But looking at the actions of Congress and the Executive beginning with Johnson and going forward to today (the the Reagan years providing some much needed respite) I can cite at least fifteen examples of flagrant and extra contitutional power grabs by the federal government. This kind of thing worries be because they have gotten away with doing it, therefore are allowed to do it because they can. Since Obama took office the behind the scenes scrambling and positioning has hit fever pitch. They have not enacted any legislation yet but it is coming. There are a dozen or so things about the health care bills the scare me to death. This might sound nuts but I assure I am not the only one who believes it, our government left unchecked will succumb to it's basest nature and try to seize control of everything and everyone. Not all at once, little by little until any kind of real freedom is a dim memory. And they might not think it's nefarious, they will actually tell themselves and everyone else all the while they are doing it for our own good. But that will not change the ugly outcome.

 

Fortunately I will not live to see it. One way or another.

[Guard Dog]

University of Florida and Florida State U. are the same cost? In CA we have a UC system, more expensive but higher profile schools, and a CSU system that is less expensive but often features specific quality programs.

Not exactly, those were averages. Some classes also cost more per hour when you factor in lab and equipment fees (even though you pay those seperate). FSU and UF are pretty different schools. Even though their programs are similar. UF is better know for biological sciences (its vetrinary progam is one of the best in the world), political sciences and arts. FSU is mainly known for Engineering and other hard sciences. UF is a bit more expensive but they are pretty close.