A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

Post by iammisc » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:47 AM UTC

resoluteteeth wrote: post #11

jawns wrote: post #2

There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…

If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Obviously once they start doing that there's no real way to control what they are able to modify, but the only real way to fix it would be to completely scrap the curre…

Post by macintux » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:47 AM UTC

deertick1 wrote: post #61

voidfunc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, unfortunately "states rights" has become a rallying cry for racism and hatred, but the original framing of this country is that the state's are basically supposed to be much stronger than the Federal government. I don't really know whether we can unwind the federal governments grasp on things without basically destabilizing the whole thing though at this point (and admittedly, I'm not sure the majority would wan…

Since when has "states rights" become a rallying cry for racism or hatred? I'm really tired of people saying stuff like this : has become a rallying cry for racism and transphobia and bigotry. Its really obnoxious and disingenuous. Give me one example of someone using states rights as a call for racism and hatred. My guess is you probably only said what you just said because you've read enough articles by blue-haired…

Post by shadowgovt » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:52 AM UTC

quantumBerry wrote: post #68

shadowgovt wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were two major events in US history that caused significant Federal power consolidation. Technically three, if you count the collapse of the government that was structured under the Articles of the Confederacy prior to the Constitution because it's lack of tax authority meant that it couldn't deal with the war debts that have been accrued from 1776 onward. The first was the civil war, and federal power consolid…

>Easily half the states demonstrated that they could not be trusted to run their own affairs and protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution. So instead we have a more centralized federal government that cannot be trusted to protect the rights of the citizens enshrined in the Constitution ( that same post civil war government interned the Japanese, allows police to search any vehicle with the "si…

Post by Retric » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:53 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #72

webnrrd2k wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. history with slavery and Jim Crow laws tell me that it's not always perfectly viable, and is sometimes very difficult.

Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.

Post by pyuser583 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 2:57 AM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #62

minikites wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How well did the states do at running their own vaccine programs? How well did it work when some states recognized gay marriage and others did not? Having nationwide consistency is important for many issues.

The gay marriage issue is a great example of exactly the opposite of your point. States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. The same process is currently happening with marijuana prohibition.