So yes, I'm a hypocrite, what's yer point?
The difference here is that the United States is a democracy, and there is still, despite all the challenges and difficulties involved, a peaceful route towards changing the government. Which isn't something the colonies were so much able to avail themselves of.
Yeah, it's because when you fight health care and gun control people ultimately die.
Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a person or business is being harmed by implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and that proceedings would be in the public interest, the Attorney General may bring an action in the name of the State against such person or entity causing the harm to restrain by temporary restraining order, temporary injunction, or permanent injunction the use of such method, act, or practice.
What this town is doing, what Kansas is doing with guns, and what other communities and states have done in the past, particularly involving slavery and civil rights, is nullification. That is, local laws that specifically contradict federal law. …
Nullification is a long settled matter in the US. Even today's notably conservative, states rights friendly SCOTUS will unanimously strike down any nullification law.
For every example like this one of a progressive community embracing nullification because they're fighting the good fight, there's twenty conservative communities doing the same thing because they're regressive nuts.
Nullification is a bad thing, it's a kind of lawlessness.
1. I'm not quite sure how you arrived at this assumption.
2. It's not that majorities are intrinsically more moral than minorities. It's that, if people have at least some say in their governance, then at least when they're ruled incorrectly it's their fault, and not that of some disinterested party. Because those are the two choices.
I was responding to someone else who made the claim. I wasn't aware of any particular instances, but I wouldn't put it past anyone to try.
Not so much. Democratic = majority, no?
Behind every cute rustic village there is usually other areas that are absorbing the burdens they refuse to accept.
I'm hearing a lot of "It's okay when people I agree with do it, bad when people I don't agree with do it." So, okay to repress local governments if you agree with the repression, not so if not. That's...kind of not awesome in a lot of ways.
Yes, the plight of the blacks in the South up until the 60s was grievously tragic and way too long in coming. I don't pretend that democracy is perfect, its just the best system out there. And democracy did end it eventually; it took a lot longer for the feudal system back in Europe to end, and I see that as an improvement.
Well, how can the federal government impose Sharia Law on states? This has never been a threat, but that hasn't stopped state legislatures from passing laws against it.
« Older Although ranked tenth in "America's Favorite Archi... | SLYT: "Earlier this evening [.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt