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.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?
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.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.
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 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.
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....
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.
Yup, the white supremacists have all the guns.Let's compare. The "scary" people with guns at the Michigan's House and the one in Ohio.https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/rioters-break-into-ohio-statehouse-raw/
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.)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.
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 wasn't clear then. "States Rights" isn't a made up thing. That's been bandied about for ages in US discourse.
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.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.
I don't think anyone here has disagreed.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.
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.Let's compare. The "scary" people with guns at the Michigan's House and the one in Ohio.https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/rioters-break-into-ohio-statehouse-raw/
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.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.
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.I don't think anyone here has disagreed.
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?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.
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.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?
Not when you are murdered in the process of being arrested.When you're burning and looting you have the Miranda rights after your arrest.
Yawn. Straw man/off topic.Not when you are murdered in the process of being arrested.
Because you can't respond to it.Yawn. Straw man/off topic.
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.Because you can't respond to it.
ROTFLMAO.