Toronto Escorts

Guns in State Capitol.

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Anyone notice how strange it is to see the president backing protesters with rebel flags while claiming he has the power to overrule state governments?
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
Anyone notice how strange it is to see the president backing protesters with rebel flags while claiming he has the power to overrule state governments?
It's not really strange. Both parties argue for state's rights and the authority of Washington alternating when it suits their position. California's Democratic leaders might argue for the right of the state in one matter and then discuss the federal authority in another breath.

It's just politics. I'm guessing this happens in Canadian politics as well.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,523
48,737
113
It's not really strange. Both parties argue for state's rights and the authority of Washington alternating when it suits their position. California's Democratic leaders might argue for the right of the state in one matter and then discuss the federal authority in another breath.

It's just politics. I'm guessing this happens in Canadian politics as well.
This is true. The push and pull of states vs federal often depends on who controls what. It is a bit less strident in Canada both because we have provincial parties that aren't just mirror images of the federal parties and because our constitution (having been written much later) is a bit clearer on specific divisions of powers.

The whole "States Rights" thing also doesn't really have the same power, because no one had to make up a reason for the Civil War that was less shameful than slavery.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
The whole "States Rights" thing also doesn't really have the same power, because no one had to make up a reason for the Civil War that was less shameful than slavery.
That might be a bit of editorializing unnecessarily. Every student of American history knows that slavery was essentially codified into the U.S. Constitution. The Northern colonies had to establish an American union through some awful compromises with the States with slavery.

The Southern States in 1861 foresaw and rightly so an erosion of the institution of slavery by Federal power. So I'm not sure "States Rights" were a made up thing as you described it.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
...

The Southern States in 1861 foresaw and rightly so an erosion of the institution of slavery by Federal power. So I'm not sure "States Rights" were a made up thing as you described it.
Especially considering the previous post about the politics of federal vs. state, the 'right' the civil war was explicitly waged over was the federal desire to abolish slavery. That means the "state's rights' claim is specifically the right to keep slavery.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
27,523
48,737
113
That might be a bit of editorializing unnecessarily. Every student of American history knows that slavery was essentially codified into the U.S. Constitution. The Northern colonies had to establish an American union through some awful compromises with the States with slavery.

The Southern States in 1861 foresaw and rightly so an erosion of the institution of slavery by Federal power. So I'm not sure "States Rights" were a made up thing as you described it.
I wasn't clear then. "States Rights" isn't a made up thing. That's been bandied about for ages in US discourse. The idea that the Civil War was about "States Rights" in any way other than "The Right to own negro slaves" is the part that was made up. It was part of the whole "Lost Cause" revisionist history the South fought hard to install. Like basketcase says above, the CSA and the southern states who explained why the seceded were very specific about it being about slavery. (They also claimed the states had the right to secede if they didn't think the union was working for them anymore - specifically in that they got into the deal with the expectation the North wouldn't fuck with slavery and the North was reneging.)

So States Rights is a thing, but in the US it is all tangled up in a very specific way with the civil war, the idea of "Southern Heritage", and the myth of the noble lost cause the southern aristocrats were fighting for. It's all of that that makes it so much more of a flashpoint idea down there compared to the more boring, bureaucratic arguments about provincial rights and centralization here in Canada. (Those exist, but they don't have the same baggage.)
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
I wasn't clear then. "States Rights" isn't a made up thing. That's been bandied about for ages in US discourse.
Now I can say "States Rights" discourse is mostly bullshit. Since the Civil War, the U.S. Federal government has centralized more and more authority and power over the States. The Courts have usually obliged if at first reluctant. Many State programs are funded by Federal money as the Federal government is by far the biggest taxing body in the country. Same goes for regulation. Federal regulation is more extensive.

I find the most intriguing "States Rights" political arguments in the cultural issues. Not that I agree with them. Let's just just say they have more panache when they go through the court systems. Having checkerboard U.S. maps of states where abortion and same-sex marriage are permitted is on its face ridiculous in the 21st century. Immigration is another one where it might appeal to certain states to argue that they can ignore Federal laws. Then it's fun to see all the hoop-jumping to make a political point and court arguments.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Now I can say "States Rights" discourse is mostly bullshit. Since the Civil War, the U.S. Federal government has centralized more and more authority and power over the States. The Courts have usually obliged if at first reluctant. Many State programs are funded by Federal money as the Federal government is by far the biggest taxing body in the country. Same goes for regulation. Federal regulation is more extensive.

I find the most intriguing "States Rights" political arguments in the cultural issues. Not that I agree with them. Let's just just say they have more panache when they go through the court systems. Having checkerboard U.S. maps of states where abortion and same-sex marriage are permitted is on its face ridiculous in the 21st century. Immigration is another one where it might appeal to certain states to argue that they can ignore Federal laws. Then it's fun to see all the hoop-jumping to make a political point and court arguments.
Doesn't change that the usage of "States Rights' when referring to the civil war and the Confederate Battle Flag from it is explicitly the right to own slaves.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
5,906
1,172
113
Doesn't change that the usage of "States Rights' when referring to the civil war and the Confederate Battle Flag from it is explicitly the right to own slaves.
I don't think anyone here has disagreed.
 

derrick76

Well-known member
May 10, 2011
2,168
89
48
Toronto, ON

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Think about it. What do you think would have happened in the state capitol if a police man put his hands on a rabid gun nut instead of doing what they did, which was show the ultimate submission.

The image of the cop like he was about to cry when being shouted at by the gun nut was telling.
Why would they? The cops in Lansing faced a legal and peaceful protest. Why would they violate the protesters' civil rights? The hoodlums burning down the cities- that's a whole other story.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
I don't think anyone here has disagreed.
Other than the people saying flying that flag at Michigan protests is about freedom. How people convince themselves that a flag symbolising the fight to keep slavery represents freedom is another story.
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
59,732
6,289
113
Why would they? The cops in Lansing faced a legal and peaceful protest. Why would they violate the protesters' civil rights? The hoodlums burning down the cities- that's a whole other story.
Isn't this the core of the issue in the US right now? Police let armed white militia groups have their civil rights but not black guys?
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Isn't this the core of the issue in the US right now? Police let armed white militia groups have their civil rights but not black guys?
When you're burning and looting you have the Miranda rights after your arrest. Btw, a great portion of the hoodlums burning down their neighborhoods ain't black.
 

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113

jcpro

Well-known member
Jan 31, 2014
24,673
6,836
113
Because you can't respond to it.
ROTFLMAO.
You should write a letter to the Democrat Mayor of Minneapolis to inquire why his city's standards for policing are so low. And why he cares so little for the well being of the African-American community. I'm sure his explanation will make as much sense as your posts.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts