Is the breadth of the regime a factor in determining how tyrannical it is?
Of course.
On the federal level. That was his point.
When Congress not only ends the War on Drugs, but tries to block the states from imposing their own forms of drug prohibition, I will consider that argument a valid one.
See, Texas is clearly more tyrannical than North Korea because it is larger.
"A factor" does not mean "sole factor". Please try again.
Lie down in the grass and take it?
There's no way to combat tyranny without voting.
But I DO vote. The catch is that I vote in California, not Alaska.
state governments are subject to fewer regulations (a la the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. and no state constitution is as protective nor as comprehensive as the U.S. Constitution).
You neglect the fact that the Bill of Rights (with the exception of Amendment I) applies to the
state governments as well as the Federal.
The right for women and blacks to vote would also come later and never be guaranteed on a national level; again, if at all.
You play a very dangerous game when you grant the Federal government the power to decide who can or can't vote. If it had that power from the beginning, then it's likely that blacks and women would have been denied suffrage nationwide, and we would have needed constitutional amendments just to grant them suffrage in
some states.
Remember that the power to
correct wrongs on a national level is also the power to
commit wrongs on a national level. Never assume that this power will be used wisely.
The institution of slavery comes to the forefront of my mind in this case, when the states were so eager to keep their private fiefdoms that they revolted against their democratically elected government. And for what? Slavery? State's rights? No, it was to preserve the aristocracy, the power structures they had so carefully and elaborately built, and which they knew would fall if the federal government got half a mind about telling them all to cut out that slavery business.
Slavery was a unique situation in that the slaves couldn't just "vote with their feet" - at least, not legally.
Of course. The problem arises when a Constitutional amendment is necessary and the states throw a hissy fit and rebel. Not all civil liberties have yet been secured: there is a long road to travel and if we leave it to the states it will take longer and be more painful.
As I said before, when Congress not only ends the War on Drugs, but tries to block the states from imposing their own forms of drug prohibition, I will consider that argument a valid one.
The debt crisis he's referring to was created by the George W. Bush era
LOL. Our debt problems go all the way back to FDR, but started getting especially bad once Nixon took us off the Gold Standard. Dubya was just continuing the practices of his predecessors, and so is Obama.
See and that's the flaw of strict constitutionalism.
No, it's a flaw of recognizing marriage as a legal concept.
WRONG!
There's nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession; as such, it is one of the powers that is reserved to the states by Amendment X.
Should all of those Federal laws that deal with marriage (tax exemptions, spousal benefits, etc.) be stricken?
Of course.
Translation: lower taxes for "job creators" and de-regulating big business. Oooh what a rebel!
Did you forget the part about opposing bailouts and subsidies? You know, the same ones that Republicans have such a collective boner for?
Translation: let companies do their thing and drill, mine, and frack to their heart's content.
Translation: lessen our dependence on foreign oil, thus improving our national security.
Don't punish success, blah blah blah, heard all of that before. Did he use "flat" and "tax" in the same sentence?
He also mentioned getting rid of the loopholes. You know, the ones that enable GE to get the IRS to pay them every year instead of vice versa? The ones that allow Warren Buffet to pay a lower percentage than his secretary? Rand is just taking a libertarian position and spinning it to appeal to conservatives.
Translation "I will terminate unconstitutional Public funding for private organizations... you guys are against abortion, right?"
"Corporate welfare" sure sounds bad... how vague is this though? The second sentence clues you in that is just another way of saying the old, debunked "let the market decide" talking point. Contrary to the feel-good talking point of "ending corporate welfare" this just winds up as another big business gift.
No, dude. "Corporate welfare" is the gift. "Ending corporate welfare" is the opposite of a big-business gift.
Eliminating the DoE is crazy time.
Yeah, it's not like the states have their own departments of education or anything.
O WAIT.
States need Federal funding
Really? I thought they could support themselves with taxes.
So if a state decided to ban straight marriage (and not recognize straight marriage from other states) and restrict marriage to gay marriage, that would be Constitutional? Or perhaps straight marriage could be restricted to those that had already gone through a 5 year gay relationship.
As crazy as that is, the states can do it if they want.
How is it dubious proof? The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and they determined that secession was illegal.
The Supreme Court has been wrong many, many times. In fact, they're not even granted the authority to "interpret" the Constitution; they usurped that power.
I don't see how that would be "cheating,"
It's using Congress to achieve a political agenda that Congress has no legitimate authority over.
