Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

United Police States of Obama

Civil rights might have been fought for on a state level but hardly anything ever came of it; all the real progress was forced on the states by the federal government. Even to this day actions by the federal government are required for the protection of US citizens.

Lacking federal intervention:

Slavery was legal in Mississippi until 1995.

Interracial marriage was illegal in Alabama until 2000.

It is still illegal for atheists such as myself to hold public office (including government jobs, even being a notary public) in: Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

It is legal for a man to beat his wife in Arkansas once a month.

Separating state and federal law is good; I agree that if the federal government tried to run the whole country it'd all go to hell. That being said there is a responsibility for the feds to intervene in state governance when it affects interstate commerce and cooperation as well as protecting the citizenry of the US.

The California law defies the Good Faith and Credit clause of the US constitution, impacting interstate cooperation. Additionally, the citizens of California are being oppressed. There is a clear need for federal intervention.

As to limiting access to abortions I'm actually not 100% pro choice, its a debate I'm still struggling with, so I wouldn't necessarily be against it depending on its effect. Also, the federal government is already denying homosexual couples the same benefits as married heterosexual couples (minus the opinions of most democrats, but its still the law of the land); I don't disagree with them intervening in states' rights on that issue I disagree with their stance on the issue.
 
... the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by Mississippi in 1995. What are these people talking about?

*Edit*

Ok, the amendment was ratified in 1995 but they failed to file it with the archivist till just last month. Its not like it made a difference I'm not going to hold that one against them.
 
You aren't allowed to wash a donkey in a bathtub in Arizona.

You are allowed to shoot 3 or more native Americans in Arizona if they are crossing a river. By law that is a war party, however if you do it today you will probably get convicted even though the law is on the books.
 
Red Omen said:
The problem is that civil rights should not be put up to a vote. Whenever they are, the minority group seeking rights are inevitably shut down by the majority. The Constitution is designed to limit tyranny of the majority.

And intervention by the federal government to protect vulnerable groups from oppression by states is sometimes necessary.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But there are disagreements about what constitutes a protected group and what rights are appropriate to extend. I do not believe that homosexuals are a protected group, nor should they be allowed to marry under the same definition of heterosexual couples. This is a whole issue in and of itself, that's already been well trodden.

My point is, your obvious breach of civil rights is my legitimate protection of the sanctity of marriage. Should such an important debate come down to an executive order, or a unilateral decision by a small, powerful group of people? I don't think so.

There are protections against the tyranny of the majority. It's called fighting it out in court, which is what is happening. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem with Obama trying to dictate what the outcome should be based on HIS worldview, using the Presidential office as a big hammer. Again, I think if he was declaring that homosexuals should be banned from marriage, you'd be singing the same tune as me.
 
Drafting a legal brief expressing his support for a particular outcome is not tyranny. He didn't send jackbooted thugs in helicopters to start marrying dudes at gunpoint. It's not even an executive order.
 
So you don't want Obama to get involved in the views he expressed when he was running for office? I am confused.

And I am not even going to touch the "sanctity of marriage". They called her the VIRGIN Mary for a reason. There was no marriage involved. Fuck what a sham, like fucking valentines day. Sanctity of marriage.. I fucking HATE that expression it is like calling gay people fucking lepers that will infect it. If that is the case, you can keep it. Love is love, don't care what our society says or doesn't say. In the end, the time on this earth should be filled with as much of it as possible. ugggh that phrase really gets under my skin.
 
Red Omen said:
Drafting a legal brief expressing his support for a particular outcome is not tyranny. He didn't send jackbooted thugs in helicopters to start marrying dudes at gunpoint. It's not even an executive order.
Click to expand...
True, but my view is that he should not be involved at all, in any capacity. If he wants to state in an interview that he is in favor of gay marriage and work on federal legislation to make that a reality, that's fine, it's in his purview. I have a problem with a President getting officially involved in a state court matter. His opinion should be completely beside the point.

tr1age said:
They called her the VIRGIN Mary for a reason. There was no marriage involved.
Click to expand...
She was engaged at the point of conception, married at the time of birth, and stopped being a virgin shortly thereafter (Catholics contest that last part). Just a random FYI, don't see how it has any bearing on this discussion.
 
Keleynal said:
She was engaged at the point of conception, married at the time of birth, and stopped being a virgin shortly thereafter (Catholics contest that last part). Just a random FYI.
Click to expand...

Still kinda a Retcon no matter how ya look at it :)
 
ilKf7KFXveyKx.jpg


Keleynal said:
True, but my view is that he should not be involved at all, in any capacity. If he wants to state in an interview that he is in favor of gay marriage and work on federal legislation to make that a reality, that's fine, it's in his purview. I have a problem with a President getting officially involved in a state court matter. His opinion should be completely beside the point.
Click to expand...
He's the president? He has a national agenda, and saying what that is from time to time as it pertains to states (which remain part of this nation, unless Rick Perry changes his mind) is part of being president. Pardon my saying so, but this is absolutely trivial in light of his other abuses of executive power (i.e. the ability to order death by robot upon any human being).
 
Red Omen said:
ilKf7KFXveyKx.jpg



He's the president? He has a national agenda, and saying what that is from time to time as it pertains to states (which remain part of this nation, unless Rick Perry changes his mind) is part of being president. Pardon my saying so, but this is absolutely trivial in light of his other abuses of executive power (i.e. the ability to order death by robot upon any human being).
Click to expand...
Yes, Obama's other oversteppings, like drone attacks against American citizens are also troubling. This was just the latest case in point.

I agree that SAYING what he thinks in regards to state issues is fine, but he should not get involved on any official level. Last I checked, federalism was still an important principle of the US Constitution.
 
I'm still of the belief that you're getting angry at Obama for doing the sort of thing presidents do all the time simply because Obama's the one doing it. It has no effect on anything whatsoever other than messaging.
 
Tell me any other President that has done that and I'll be mad at them, too. Maybe it happens all the time and this is just the first time I've really noticed. This isn't a partisan issue for me.
 
Keleynal said:
Tell me any other President that has done that and I'll be mad at them, too. Maybe it happens all the time and this is just the first time I've really noticed. This isn't a partisan issue for me.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you are about to get a proof list the size of the Nile.
 
It's actually a really hard thing to Google, partly because it's so vague and innocuous. Again, it's just words. An expression of opinion. Completely non-binding.

EDIT: Here's one, although it's not quite what we're looking for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom