ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Matthew Whitaker , states rights issues , Trump appointees

Reply
Old 6th December 2018, 01:01 PM   #1
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 18,094
Whitaker supports state's rights to nullify federal law

Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html



New Civil War then?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:06 PM   #2
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
New Civil War then?
Nah.

We're already doing it with drug law and immigration law. States' Rights is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue.

Hopefully, instead of Civil War, it will lead to a general trend of the federal government getting out of the business of governing the states, and sticking to its core responsibility of governing the union. With some luck, we could even end up with an amendment applying the "strict scrutiny" standard to the Commerce Clause.

Last edited by theprestige; 6th December 2018 at 01:08 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 01:46 PM   #3
Whip
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,070
the bunditos will be pleased.
Whip is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:18 PM   #4
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 18,815
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce." But I'm skeptical that CNN finding some line in a speech from 2013 means that AG Whitaker will start to argue against his own interest in maintaining federal power?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 02:32 PM   #5
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 41,820
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html



New Civil War then?
Gee, I though that issue was settled at Appotmatox....
__________________
Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty.

Robert Heinlein.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 03:11 PM   #6
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Gee, I though that issue was settled at Appotmatox....
apPOTmatox?

You must be thinking of the Marijuana Revolution of the year 20XD9
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 07:04 PM   #7
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,502
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nah.

We're already doing it with drug law and immigration law. States' Rights is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue.

Hopefully, instead of Civil War, it will lead to a general trend of the federal government getting out of the business of governing the states, and sticking to its core responsibility of governing the union. With some luck, we could even end up with an amendment applying the "strict scrutiny" standard to the Commerce Clause.
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015

Last edited by Norman Alexander; 6th December 2018 at 07:05 PM.
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 07:46 PM   #8
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 23,861
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce." But I'm skeptical that CNN finding some line in a speech from 2013 means that AG Whitaker will start to argue against his own interest in maintaining federal power?
He can hardly be held to what his opinion was when Obama was President. Trump is President now (you won't hear that on CNN, but he is) and Whitaker has risen without trace to be his AG. A completely different situation.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 08:06 PM   #9
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,986
I don't understand the leap in logic. My wife and I set up our marriage. I assure you, I do not have the power to nullify one of our rules for each other because I disagree with it
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:18 PM   #10
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,904
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html



New Civil War then?
This is a non-issue. One of the many reasons why I urge non-Americans not to form their opinions on US politics via the legacy media.

Sanctuary cities do not comply with Federal law.

A new civil war then?

Feel free to add your own commentary, thread starter.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:23 PM   #11
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,904
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
He can hardly be held to what his opinion was when Obama was President.
Scalia is dead.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:32 PM   #12
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,904
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
ok
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:48 PM   #13
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,502
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
This is a non-issue. One of the many reasons why I urge non-Americans not to form their opinions on US politics via the legacy media.

Sanctuary cities do not comply with Federal law.

A new civil war then?

Feel free to add your own commentary, thread starter.
Because you allow them not to. States rights and all that. Perhaps if you had, oh I dunno, a set of federal laws that all states adhered to, maybe this won't happen??

PS. I'm not American. And I'll form my opinions from MANY sources, not just "legacy" as you describe it. Although they happen to be the honest sources. because you do know where Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch came from, right? And what he did for a living here before he became head of Fox, right?
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:54 PM   #14
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,374
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
I have felt this way back since Justice Scalia and company decided that growing plants in your backyard was "interstate commerce."
The problem is much older than that. That pot case was really just an affirmation of Wickard v. Filburn. That's the case you really need to overturn if you want to scale back abuse of the commerce Clause.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:57 PM   #15
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,374
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
PS. I'm not American. And I'll form my opinions from MANY sources, not just "legacy" as you describe it. Although they happen to be the honest sources. because you do know where Fox CEO Rupert Murdoch came from, right? And what he did for a living here before he became head of Fox, right?
If Fox is dishonest, it doesn't then follow that their competitors are honest. Hell, even deliberate deception aside, plain old incompetence is endemic to the media.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:14 PM   #16
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,904
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
Because you allow them not to. States rights and all that. Perhaps if you had, oh I dunno, a set of federal laws that all states adhered to, maybe this won't happen??
The stunning political commentary I've come to expect from this place.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 10:57 PM   #17
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,851
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html



New Civil War then?
I am fine with Iowa going down the drain.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 10:42 AM   #18
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,793
Won't matter.

Trump nominates William Barr to be his next attorney general

My favorite part:
Quote:
Barr also served as a board member on CNN's parent company, Time Warner, Inc., (now Warner Media) from 2009 until 2018.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 10:51 AM   #19
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
I would have thought that health, education, roads and military are all federal responsibilities. Or is the health of citizens in one state in the union less important than for citizens in another state? The Iowans can die in a stinking plague while the New Yorkers can get the best of medical care available in the world?
Absent some serious threat to the union itself, the health of Iowans is entirely Iowa's business, not the federal government's.

Likewise education, though I expect that a good argument for federal education standards, and perhaps funding, could be made with regard to strict scrutiny. It would be nice if someone in favor of such a thing could make the necessary argument, rather than simply appealing to rhetorical questions.

Roads are obviously state business, not union business. The exception being an interstate highway system, which again probably could be justified under strict scrutiny.

National security and national defense are obviously union business.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 10:56 AM   #20
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 41,374
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Absent some serious threat to the union itself, the health of Iowans is entirely Iowa's business, not the federal government's.
There's an argument for a federal role in dealing with communicable diseases (hence the CDC), since that's an interstate problem that doesn't respect borders. But that's only a fraction of health care.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 11:01 AM   #21
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There's an argument for a federal role in dealing with communicable diseases (hence the CDC), since that's an interstate problem that doesn't respect borders. But that's only a fraction of health care.
Yup. I'm a big fan of starting from the premise of "no federal intrusion at all", and then examining proposed exceptions on a case-by-case basis. I think most exceptions would fall into some well-understood categories already: national defense, international trade and diplomacy, interstate conflicts of interest, etc.

Arguments of the form, "we generally want to avoid getting involved in state governance, but the matter of communicable diseases is an exception to that principle for these good reasons" are especially interesting.

Last edited by theprestige; 7th December 2018 at 11:02 AM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:36 PM   #22
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,754
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't understand the leap in logic. My wife and I set up our marriage. I assure you, I do not have the power to nullify one of our rules for each other because I disagree with it
Quite correct.

That some want to go back to the style of government from the Articles of Confederation seems...like a romanticism of failure.

Examples of Federal overreach are not a strong argument for State nullification.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 12:56 AM   #23
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,904
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Nah.

We're already doing it with drug law and immigration law. States' Rights is becoming an increasingly bipartisan issue.
Yeah, it is amusing to see that people who deride states' rights think it's just marvelous that all these states are legalizing pot. I think it's terrific too, but I've been a fan of states' rights since the 1980s.

Quote:
Hopefully, instead of Civil War, it will lead to a general trend of the federal government getting out of the business of governing the states, and sticking to its core responsibility of governing the union. With some luck, we could even end up with an amendment applying the "strict scrutiny" standard to the Commerce Clause.
That has definitely been the flap of the tent that the camel inevitably gets its nose under.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:30 AM   #24
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 9,083
To hear some, you'd think US states were actually meaningful political entities instead of being the creatures of administrative fiat they are, merely divided spoils among like-minded conquerors. To make sense as coherent cultural, historical and linguistic entities, you might need a handful of states for the continental US, tops. To take one eggregious example, pretending the "sovereign state of Alabama" is much more than a brain fart to the right of Mississippi created by Congressional fiat and purpose-designed for cotton-picking whine boy mischief is a real stretch. Too bad the Indian Removal Act of 1830 eliminated the only culture that might have a legitimate claim for culturally-based self-determination. So, what, Alabama is fundamentally different from West Georgia|East Mississippi? Feels like you cross an international border? Uh, nope.

Taking the devolution argument to its logical extreme, what in hell do states have to say about county business, for that matter? Counties about town affairs? You over there, about me over here? Oh, forgot. Backdooring the utopian freedom gospel and promoting total anarchy among roaming private armies by unmooring each state from democratic thought is "a thing" for today's innaleckjools talking big 'bout "rights." How profound.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:07 AM   #25
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,502
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
The stunning political commentary I've come to expect from this place.
Thanks! Glad you agree with the concept, then. What sort of laws do YOU think should be federally enforceable?

Also: pity you didn't add any content in your own comment. But what the hey. That's the unstunning lack of effort we have come to expect from some.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 05:18 AM   #26
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html

New Civil War then?
I am surprised that no one has pointed out yet how completely wrong this is.

The constitution is quite clear that "we, the people" set up the federal government and not the states.
Historically, of course, the federal government set up most of the states with territory acquired by the federal government (Lousiana purchase, Mexican–American War, etc).
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 05:56 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,986
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
To hear some, you'd think US states were actually meaningful political entities instead of being the creatures of administrative fiat they are, merely divided spoils among like-minded conquerors. To make sense as coherent cultural, historical and linguistic entities, you might need a handful of states for the continental US, tops. To take one eggregious example, pretending the "sovereign state of Alabama" is much more than a brain fart to the right of Mississippi created by Congressional fiat and purpose-designed for cotton-picking whine boy mischief is a real stretch. Too bad the Indian Removal Act of 1830 eliminated the only culture that might have a legitimate claim for culturally-based self-determination. So, what, Alabama is fundamentally different from West Georgia|East Mississippi? Feels like you cross an international border? Uh, nope.

Taking the devolution argument to its logical extreme, what in hell do states have to say about county business, for that matter? Counties about town affairs? You over there, about me over here? Oh, forgot. Backdooring the utopian freedom gospel and promoting total anarchy among roaming private armies by unmooring each state from democratic thought is "a thing" for today's innaleckjools talking big 'bout "rights." How profound.
The way you describe Alabama sounds like a meaningful political entity to me.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:24 AM   #28
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,006
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yeah, it is amusing to see that people who deride states' rights think it's just marvelous that all these states are legalizing pot. I think it's terrific too, but I've been a fan of states' rights since the 1980s.
States legalizing pot are not nullifying federal law, they are eliminating the state level legal barriers to marijuana and leaving the federal government to practice discretion in its enforcement as it always has. This is certainly an awkward situation and there are many valid opinions on how the federal government acts and whether substances ought to be a federal issue to begin with, but appreciating state level barriers being removed is not the same as nullifying federal law.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:36 AM   #29
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 23,861
Originally Posted by Baylor View Post
Scalia is dead.
Whitaker's expressed opinion as of 2013 lives on in silico, and that, of course, is what my ironic response was in reference to.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 03:39 PM   #30
Norman Alexander
Illuminator
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
If Fox is dishonest, it doesn't then follow that their competitors are honest. Hell, even deliberate deception aside, plain old incompetence is endemic to the media.
Entirely true. I have first-hand experience of that from November and December 1975 here in Australia. But that would be a digression. But the fact that not all media sources are consistently honest and unbiased does not make Murdoch-owned media a paragon of virtue either. The term "lowest of the low" probably applies.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:39 PM   #31
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
States legalizing pot are not nullifying federal law, they are eliminating the state level legal barriers to marijuana and leaving the federal government to practice discretion in its enforcement as it always has. This is certainly an awkward situation and there are many valid opinions on how the federal government acts and whether substances ought to be a federal issue to begin with, but appreciating state level barriers being removed is not the same as nullifying federal law.
Indeed, no one is suggesting a state or locality has to try and prosecute a healthcare provider for not complying with the ACA. I only know of one law that required local law to enforce federal regulations: The Fugitive Slave Act.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 12:26 PM   #32
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,306
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Acting attorney general Matt Whitaker said he supports state's rights to nullify federal law

"As a principle, it has been turned down by the courts and our federal government has not recognized it," Whitaker said while taking questions during a September 2013 campaign speech. "Now we need to remember that the states set up the federal government and not vice versa. And so the question is, do we have the political courage in the state of Iowa or some other state to nullify Obamacare and pay the consequences for that?"

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/09/p...ion/index.html



New Civil War then?
I have no idea what the issue is or what state. I need to find this out first so I can pick my partisan side and be for or against state federal law nullification.

Hmmmm...is it California and net neutrality? Is it some southern state and abortion? Is it a midwest state and legal recreational marijuana?

Tell me so I can decide whether I am for or agin' it!
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:25 PM   #33
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,281
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
I have no idea what the issue is or what state. I need to find this out first so I can pick my partisan side and be for or against state federal law nullification.

Hmmmm...is it California and net neutrality? Is it some southern state and abortion? Is it a midwest state and legal recreational marijuana?

Tell me so I can decide whether I am for or agin' it!
I draw my own personal guideline to err on the side of individual* liberties. I support a state's rights when it decriminalizes a (victimless) behavior that the federal government restricts and vice versa.

There, non-partisan and consistent.


*As opposed to corporate, as they aren't individuals.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:49 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.