The Repeal Amendment

[say1988]

I'd rather just have states nullify unconstitutional federal laws on an individual basis and bypass this attempt at consensus-building which wouldn't work.

And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Alien and Sedition Acts, unconstitutional detention of journalists during the Lincoln years, the draft, slavery, the internment of Japanese, German and Italian-Americans, the forced removal of Indians from tribal lands, mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug convictions, prohibition... all things done or protected by the federal government.

Can you imagine how various states would have responded to these events, much less 9/11 and the torture of "terrorists"? We would likely still have segregation in most Southern states while unions and even the ACLU would be banned. Muslims wouldn't be allowed to build Mosques in much of the country because they were spreading Sharia and fomenting terrorism. Some towns might even still forbid Jews from living there. Sodomy and adultery laws would still exist and be rigidly enforced in some areas, while abortion would be banned and homosexuals would not be allowed to teach in public schools.

States have proven over and over again that they should have even less political power than more. The governor of Florida just privatized the entire state prison healthcare system, and the first round of layoffs have just occurred.

“Due to the outsourcing of this function, your position will be deleted,” reads a dryly worded dismissal notice from the Department of Corrections, sent to 1,890 state employees in the past two weeks. [...]

In the dismissal letters, prison officials emphasize that dismissed workers will get first consideration for new jobs at one of the two for-profit vendors, though with fewer benefits. The workers also expect to pay more out of their pockets for their own health insurance.

Many make less than $35,000 a year, have not had a raise in six years and live in economically distressed areas home to many state prisons, including Bradford, Dixie, Levy, Suwannee and Union counties.

 

[Cutlass]

<coughs> You're still oversimplifying to the point of being wrong, my dear Cutlass. <cough hack wheeze>

No, I'm really not. You're just on the wrong side because there's a lot of times when liberty is not your goal. Much like those people who claim that the Civil Rights Acts violate property rights, and so are against liberty, there are many other examples of people choosing state government over federal government because the federal government would protect other people from their actions.

 

[Antilogic]

The Alien and Sedition Acts, unconstitutional detention of journalists during the Lincoln years, the draft, slavery, the internment of Japanese, German and Italian-Americans, the forced removal of Indians from tribal lands, mandatory minimum sentencing laws for drug convictions, prohibition... all things done or protected by the federal government.

I see you slipped the draft, slavery, and Indian removal in there. Most non-libertarians accept the necessity of the draft in cases of extreme emergency (i.e. WW2 and not Vietnam), and the state governments played a significant role in slavery and Indian removal to the point where I don't think you can chalk those up to the Fed. Can't states set their own mandatory minimum sentencing laws too?

I think this is usually the right idea.

However, while we are one country, I do think there are cases when the Federal government should take specific pro-liberty actions.

The problem is that they never do.

Besides sounding vaguely Wiseau-ian, does anyone else think this sounds Orwellian?

And who decides what laws are unconstitutional?

I always thought that was obvious (the Supreme Court), but these lolbertarian folks seem to disagree.

 

[Cutlass]

It's pathetically ironic that so-called libertarians try to shift the blame for slavery onto the federal government. Seeing is how slavery was a free market result and institution that was only later protected by the state governments, and that most of the early opposition to a strong federal government was because of the desire to protect slavery from government interference.

Slavery is actually the biggest example of the feds being better than the states at liberty.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, I'm really not. You're just on the wrong side because there's a lot of times when liberty is not your goal. Much like those people who claim that the Civil Rights Acts violate property rights, and so are against liberty, there are many other examples of people choosing state government over federal government because the federal government would protect other people from their actions.

Most of the Civil Rights Act was a good piece of legislation. But the non-discrimination statues do indeed violate private property rights. How do you not see this?

@Antilogic- WWII an emergency? There were never foreign ground troops on our soil. And I would say the draft is never, ever justified. A society that nobody will voluntarily defend is unworthy to exist.

It's pathetically ironic that so-called libertarians try to shift the blame for slavery onto the federal government. Seeing is how slavery was a free market result and institution that was only later protected by the state governments, and that most of the early opposition to a strong federal government was because of the desire to protect slavery from government interference.

Slavery is actually the biggest example of the feds being better than the states at liberty.

Except that the Feds never ever outlawed slavery. First the northern states did, then the constitution.

 

[Antilogic]

@Antilogic- WWII an emergency? There were never foreign ground troops on our soil. And I would say the draft is never, ever justified. A society that nobody will voluntarily defend is unworthy to exist.

You sure about that? Embassies and Pacific Islands do count, you know. And I think I can convincingly argue an alliance of fascist powers declaring war on the US within the space of a few days following a massive surprise attack does constitute a legitimate national emergency.

Except that the Feds never ever outlawed slavery. First the northern states did, then the constitution.

...so the members of the House and Senate that passed* the 13th Amendment do not count?

*: And by "passed", I mean dragged by Lincoln kicking and screaming.

 

[say1988]

There were never foreign ground troops on our soil.

Except for the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island, Attu, and Kiska.

 

[Farm Boy]

No, I'm really not. You're just on the wrong side because there's a lot of times when liberty is not your goal. Much like those people who claim that the Civil Rights Acts violate property rights, and so are against liberty, there are many other examples of people choosing state government over federal government because the federal government would protect other people from their actions.

Liberty is not my goal? When have I had an issue with the Civil Rights Act? I just refuse to blind myself to the benefits of both sides of the issue merely because people I find disagreeable politically tend to choose one over the other.

Hrm. Maybe we should get more meta on the conversation, would that be more interesting to you? Or are the chants of slaaaaaberrrrry and CibillllRighttts filllllibusterrrrrr and Jimmmy Crowe about as into it as we want to be?

 

[Berzerker]

slavery was a result of the free market?

 

[Antilogic]

slavery was a result of the free market?

Hard to pay your workers less than nothing. Talk about effective cost-cutting and producing goods at the lowest price possible.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You sure about that? Embassies and Pacific Islands do count, you know. And I think I can convincingly argue an alliance of fascist powers declaring war on the US within the space of a few days following a massive surprise attack does constitute a legitimate national emergency.

Fair enough. I do agree with the war but I don't agree that anyone should ever be enslaved to fight them. And as Vietnam showed, that power can indeed be abused.

 

[dutchfire]

Fair enough. I do agree with the war but I don't agree that anyone should ever be enslaved to fight them.

Lo and behold, Dommy opposing slavery.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Was this ever a question?

I just apply the same rules to the government.

 

[Antilogic]

Fair enough. I do agree with the war but I don't agree that anyone should ever be enslaved to fight them. And as Vietnam showed, that power can indeed be abused.

Yep, and I mentioned that specific example above. However, the fact that some people abuse a delegated power doesn't mean that delegated power shouldn't be used for its intended purpose.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I don't think that power should exist though. If a country can't muster any voluntary defenders it doesn't deserve to exist.

 

[Antilogic]

Maybe we should thank God so many people voluntarily vote for candidates who do not eliminate the draft.

 

[Cutlass]

Most of the Civil Rights Act was a good piece of legislation. But the non-discrimination statues do indeed violate private property rights. How do you not see this?

White supremacists are not the only people who have property rights.

Except that the Feds never ever outlawed slavery. First the northern states did, then the constitution.

Do you even know what language you are speaking?

 

[Cutlass]

slavery was a result of the free market?

Of course it was. No government was involved in creating the institution in North America. It was all private actions.

 

[Berzerker]

Hard to pay your workers less than nothing. Talk about effective cost-cutting and producing goods at the lowest price possible.

in a free market people are not enslaved and rounded up if they leave

Of course it was. No government was involved in creating the institution in North America. It was all private actions.

European governments were involved, but abducting and enslaving a human being is not a private action. Is genocide a private action too?