Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I think a decent compromise would be for states to function as regional administrators. The Federal government passes laws and regulations and the states are responsible for figuring out how to meet the standards that they're given. They can go above and beyond these standards provided they don't infringe on certain rights but everything else is out of their control.
Article in question.
The accompanying video shows Trump pursing his lips when he invites Comey over to him for some a hug and back pats. This was not long after the inauguration, and the article is there mostly to remind readers that Comey's actions regarding the email scandal contributed to Trump's election victory.
This is correct, but I will point out that no one here ever takes the Daily Mail as a credible source.
Article in question.
Note that the article was updated with its own response to Sinatra's tweet, pointing out she deleted the previous tweet that had the reaction to Trump using the song that the original CNN article was based on.
As someone else already pointed out, it was the content of his speech, not to mention that he had staffers put around the room to applaud for him, that earned scorn, not the act of giving a speech itself.
This is true, and the article was redacted and apologized for. The explanation was that the bust had been covered from view by someone standing in the way when people were examining pictures of the redecorated Oval Office.
Article in question.
The article does NOT say Trump is about to mobalize the National Guard. It says that the Department of Homeland Security was considering it based on a leaked memo. Trump denied that the plan was being put into action, but never that it hadn't been under consideration. the DHS didn't deny it was real, only that it was a very rough draft of a plan that never reached the Sec. of HS.
Article in question.
At no point does the article even imply Trump would be dropping by the party. The entire article is about the conflict of interests Trump has when foreign government officials patronize his businesses.
Of the seven alleged "Anti-Trump Media Lies" stories listed, one was from a news site of completely unreliable accuracy, one was an genuine mistake that was redacted, and the rest are deliberate distortions of factual news stories. That last accusation against NPR in particular I noticed was widely circulated by right wing websites, so I'm curious as to where this list is coming from.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:30:57 PM by Parable
I'm not arguing against the idea that the actual balance of power needs tweaking. I want the Electoral College gone; it didn't act as a brake against Donald taking office and that was the last reason I thought maybe it might be worth keeping around. The weight of Congressional representation per state is a math discussion I have nothing useful to contribute to.
Other than that though, the why of states rights is one part "because of the crap that's happening now that we need to resist and be able to do so somewhat legally without being considered in rebellion and deserving of having federal troops sicced on us" and one part "we're too big for one size fits all government". I don't see why there has to be another "why".
![]()
But why does not administering it in a unitary manner/having a means to apply local laws (hell, the UK manages to have that, bylaws are odd) require that every state—a geographic division set up in a manner that can practically never be altered—be treated as equal? They're manifestly not and the representation issue flips it on its head.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:40:30 PM by RainehDaze
I think state administration is meaningful on the level of laws regarding trade and logistical matters, since those will inevitably vary by region and clime. I don't think they should be abolished altogether.
For example coastal states will obviously have very different needs and regulations from landlocked ones, and New Mexico probably will need different laws regulating the use of water and things like that compared to Michigan.
Policies regarding general rights such as workplace discrimination and same-sex marriage should be the same across the nation though.
edited 14th Jun '17 2:53:19 PM by AlleyOop
All I am arguing for is the need to protect a state's ability to resist the enforcement of a bad law/bad executive. Everything else is details which I don't have a coherent opinion for or against.
And even that I'll grant is flawed when states turn it against citizens. I dunno what it would take to fix, maybe a constitutional amendment that enshrines "states rights can't trump human rights" into law.
I'd argue that it's already the law that states can't legally override what the federal government legally considers your rights.
Leviticus 19:34No way. That gives the federal government too much power.
I'd rather the states be given more local autonomy with the federal government policing them if they go over the line and serving as an arbiter between the states.
You could argue it's covered by the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") but arguing stuff based on the 9th amendment is rare and difficult and it has not historically succeeded in preventing states from upholding abusive laws.
The US needs to strictly define exactly what is Federally controlled and what is State controlled. In Canada the provinces are actually more autonomous than the states in the US, (for example, Quebec has an entirely separate legal system from the rest of the country) but the Constitution Act of 1982, as well as the previous constitutional documents pretty much flatly state who gets what. Like, in Canada, the Federal government gets to decide who gets married. The most the provinces can do is decide on the exact legal process of marriage, but it has to apply to everyone the Federal government says can get married without exception.
edited 14th Jun '17 3:23:44 PM by Zendervai
![]()
![]()
Some of that is covered by the 10th amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") but it gets murkier when you have a whole list of "implied" powers that the constitution doesn't explicitly grant but are need by the federal government to function under the constitution.
![]()
State power has the ability to act like a firebreak. A federal government that becomes too repressive has its negative effect reduced by the protection given to the states.
The alternative is that a state that decides to go against the federal government on an issue could be declared in rebellion and possibly open themselves up to the rebellion being put down.
edited 14th Jun '17 3:34:27 PM by Elle

edited 14th Jun '17 2:26:43 PM by LSBK