Politics Please say rock bottom is getting close

Or prohibited from getting married.

 

Possibly. Would the state judicial system be able to override in that case then? Say it found itself onto a state ballot and people voted it in, couldn't the state’s own judicial system override, if deemed unconstitutional?

I do see right to privacy possibly being a counter as well? Personally, I've never felt government should be involved with marriage, but i also believe in limited government with more power to the states over the feds.

 

I know. And im conflicted on that one as well. To me, having the federal government say one way or another leaves no room for personal belief aNd is very much fascist to force one way on all.

To me, the beauty of our country is our individual state freedom. So if enough people dont think/believe like me, I am able to move to an area with more like minded people, without either side dictating their beliefs to the other. The more control we give the federal government, the closer we get to fascism. The more we lean towards individual states’ rights, the more we maintain the ability to to allow all to have their own beliefs.
Do I believe abortion should be illegal? No. But who am i to tell others who think its bad, that they cant move to an aRea with like minded people and vote for their community to outlaw abortion? Its not my community. My community has laws i agree with on the subject. And their community has laws that agree with what they believe.

I don't see a problem with that. But i don't see everything.

 

No. An individual's rights should not be subject to majority rule. If a majority in a state thought only Christians should be allowed to vote, or only white men, is that OK?
If a majority wants slavery should it be allowed?

 

Good points.

So where is the line drawn where states should maintain rights thru majority vote vs. the federal government overruling for all?

 

Restricting government intervention allows maximum freedom. Each person can choose for themselves what do do with their own body, which impacts no other people.

Anything else is government overreach.

 

I get what everyone saying, but isn't roe vs wade a perfect example of giving the choice over to the states?
Lets say roe vs wade went the opposite direction. It would be 7 people telling hundreds of millions that no abortions are allowed.
What if 7 people said that no one in the country can marry anyone outside of their own race?

 

I'm fine with 7 people granting people more rights. I'm not ok with 7 people restricting people's rights.

 

Giving that choice to seven people, it goes both ways or no way though. It doesn't matter what you are okay with. Handing our choice to them means giving up control, regardless of how they vote, does it not?

 

A place I never heard of, The Village, Oklahoma, elected as mayor an out gay man who had served on the city council five years. He was forced to resign due to constant threats, followed everywhere he went, by Christian Republicans.

 

That's not their job. Their job is to protect individual rights from government abuse.

There is a reason they have never restricted individual rights before now. They aren't supposed to. They have been corrupted, and our response needs to be swift and firm. Each Justice is going to have to lose power and prestige.

We need more justices and they need to be more regularly appointed.

 

Same thing. Giving somebody the right to kill somebody is the same as killing them yourself.

That's abuse of the power they've been granted, and why it's never been done before.

 

agreed we need more judges and term limits. But as it stands this is what it is and it cant currently it go both ways until the system is changed. The point is, we currently have a system that is close to fascism already. 7 people who can remain in power until they die get to dictate the rights of all.

Very much disagree. That would be the same as a person who sells a gun to someone who kills someone the gun seller is now no better than the person who killed with the gun.
To give the choice to the individual to kill doesn't mean the person giving the choice to the other is a killer and to give the choice to a other doesn’t mean they are a killer either until they act on that choice.
We all make choices. And we all live with the repercussions of bad choices. But to remove the ability to make the choice is, to me, unconstitutional. And fascist.
Providing choices is not the same as providing rights. I have the right to choose what i want. And depending on my choice i may forfeit future rights. But the choice should always be there for all, should it not?