Prisoners on death row in USA. (1 Viewer)

Frothingslosh · May 22, 2014

Another thing that must be kept in mind regarding state vs federal jurisdiction - the federal government has jurisdiction over ALL interstate trade and commerce. While I'll admit that that clause has been twisted into an incredible pretzel, it can more or less be summed up as "If it crosses state lines, it falls under federal jurisdiction. If it has an effect across state lines, it probably falls under federal jurisdiction." That's how the federal government is able to set a minimum wage, broadcast television standards, and the like.

amberkei · May 22, 2014

Frothingslosh said:
Another thing that must be kept in mind regarding state vs federal jurisdiction - the federal government has jurisdiction over ALL interstate trade and commerce. While I'll admit that that clause has been twisted into an incredible pretzel, it can more or less be summed up as "If it crosses state lines, it falls under federal jurisdiction. If it has an effect across state lines, it probably falls under federal jurisdiction." That's how the federal government is able to set a minimum wage, broadcast television standards, and the like.

I love the interstate commerce rule. They can use it to justify just about anything that they'd like to make a federal law. And when they can't, they pull a drinking age - You don't *have* to change your drinking age to 21, but we don't *have* to give you federal highway funds.

Charl80 · May 23, 2014

Bladerunner said:
An what country is that which is fixing to ascend to another higher form.

I'm from the UK.

ColinEssex · May 26, 2014

amberkei said:
Bear in mind - the US is freaking huge. Each state has some laws that are different, sure, but I bet France and the UK have some laws that are different, too. California, if it were a country, would be the fifth largest economy in the world. Cali has a little over 38 million residents. The UK has 63 million.

Each state has it's own culture, values, economy, etc.

You need to know that France and the UK do not profess to be the same country.
God forbid, we've been at war for hundreds of years, they hate us and we poke fun at them at every opportunity.
The USA needs to remember that it has the word "united" in its name. Why is it not united?
At the moment it seems a totally dysfunctional collection of populated areas. If it cannot be united, then perhaps dividing it up into different self governing new countries might be better.

Just saying the USA is huge is not an answer.

Col

Brianwarnock · May 27, 2014

In the UK. Not only are the differences between the countries such as England and Scotland but between local councils by way of ByLaws.
Liverpool is currently conducting an experiment which has involved it suspending its bus lanes, this causes confusion as people drive across its boundaries despite large notices as you drive into Liverpool there are none as you drive out.

Col is only aware of what happens in his own street apparently.

Brian

Frothingslosh · May 27, 2014

Well, as to the whole UNITED states, things, based on reading things like the history of the US in the 1700's, the Federalist Papers, and the like, it's pretty apparent that the idea was that it would be a collection of nominally independant states (in the usual 'nation' sense of the word), banded together to work together diplomatically and economically. The American Revolution, after all, was a pointed lesson in the states' need to work together if they wanted to survive.

The first attempt actually predates the American Constitution, in the form of the Articles of Confederation. The problem was it gave the government virtually no power whatsoever (even collecting enough money to operate was impossible, and there was no chief executive and no judiciary at all), and it only lasted a few years before it became blindingly apparent that the US under the Articles was going to fall apart.

That's when they convened the Constitutional Convention and drafted the US Constitution. They attempted to leave the states as much power as they possibly could in the new federal system, but over the last 200 years, the federal government has grown so strong that the states have changed from mostly-sovereign, allied mini-nations to something more like provinces and oversized counties. They still have a massive amount of leeway in anything not regulated by the federal government, which is why different states have different laws, such as speed limits, traffic laws, and the like. Even the whole marriage equality movement is being done on a state-by-state basis because the feds have no authority to pass a law like that at the national level. (They can, however, pass a law pointing out that states have to recognize marriages performed in other states via the 'Full Faith and Credit' clause of the constitution.)

Clear as mud?

ColinEssex · May 27, 2014

Brianwarnock said:
Col is only aware of what happens in his own street apparently.

Brian

You really don't like me now do you.

I'm not allowed to give an opinion because I have no children, apparently I'm sexist and now I can't see what happens beyond our little avenue.

Anything else Bri? Perhaps I'm not suitable to be a carer. Maybe I have no sympathy, compassion. Maybe I care little except for myself.

Am I racist because I like Farage and what he stands for?

Come on let's get it out in the open.

Col

Bladerunner · May 28, 2014

Dick7Access said:
Should not the what the majority of the people want be the law?

we have that now,, is that what you really want.

Bladerunner · May 28, 2014

ColinEssex said:
ColinEssex said:

If each state can make its own laws, why do you have a central government?

Click to expand...

The states are the ones that are suppose to have the power. The government was only supposed to provide security thru a military, secure our borders (a joke now), etc. Under liberal law, they want to rule every one from Washington. It does not work.

For example, if central government passed a law to ban the death penalty, each state could bypass that by passing a law to allow it.

Click to expand...

If the supreme court deemed it constitutional(and they did many years ago), the feds cannot stop the states from doing so.

Or, on a day to day level, does each state have different driving laws? Like speed limits etc.
How can the average person possibly know what is legal in one state and illegal a mile up the road in the next state?

Click to expand...

The interstates are taken care of by the individual states and thus set the speed limits as they deem fit. When you enter another state (like another country over there) there are signs telling you what the speed limit is. It present no problem but the answer to you question is that this country was set up with the states holding the power. This what they are trying to change.

Seems stupid to me..

Click to expand...

Yeah, the autobahn seems kind of stupid to me however, I like to travel at high speeds. Its just when you run upon a slow car,, well. you better be fast is making decisions.

Bladerunner · May 28, 2014

AccessBlaster said:
AccessBlaster said:

I think most countries have this issue. Here we a governed by Federal Law. Federal law supersedes all state laws. Each state can make their own laws as long as they do not conflict with federal law. Immigration, taxes and gun rights are just a few. That’s where this notion of "we are not united comes from".

Click to expand...

Immigration was never a states right. It was the fed gov. that was supposed to watch our borders. Yeah, now they are watching them alright----come over and get on disability or medicaid,etc.

Yes Taxes is a fed item but state have the right to levi taxes of their own

Finally guns rights. The fed gov has no say in the gun rights deal. It is the states territory. The gun rights are given to us in the second admendment to the constitution. The right to bear arms

Bladerunner · May 28, 2014

Please excuse my typing. Am going to get another board. this one is getting bad. Some of the keys are sticking, etc.

Brianwarnock · May 28, 2014

ColinEssex said:
You really don't like me now do you.

I'm not allowed to give an opinion because I have no children, apparently I'm sexist and now I can't see what happens beyond our little avenue.

Anything else Bri? Perhaps I'm not suitable to be a carer. Maybe I have no sympathy, compassion. Maybe I care little except for myself.

Am I racist because I like Farage and what he stands for?

Come on let's get it out in the open.

Col

Oh dear, the smilie

didn't help the bantering comment.

I do feel that you do tend to take a deliberate blinkered anti American view which degrades your arguments and opinions which is a shame as somebody has to poke the hornets nest.

BTW. I voted UKIP

Brian

Frothingslosh · May 28, 2014

Bladerunner said:
Under liberal law, they want to rule every one from Washington.

I'm pretty sure that the largest increases in deficit spending, national debt, size of the US government, and overall government power were all at the behest of a conservative president. An ultra-conservative neo-con, to be specific.

And let's not forget other liberal debacles such as telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies and telling adults who they are and are not allowed to marry. Or the 'right' to have the government sanction a religion, as long as it's the locally approved brand of Protestantism. Or the 'right' to force my chosen religion to be taught in public schools.

It does not work.

That part's true enough, at least.

You really should try to learn what liberal stances are from sources other than Coultier, Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity. We both know that'll never happen, though - why actually LEARN about your opponents, right?

Bladerunner · May 28, 2014

Frothingslosh said:
Frothingslosh said:

I'm pretty sure that the largest increases in deficit spending, national debt, size of the US government, and overall government power were all at the behest of a conservative president. An ultra-conservative neo-con, to be specific.

And let's not forget other liberal debacles such as telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies and telling adults who they are and are not allowed to marry. Or the 'right' to have the government sanction a religion, as long as it's the locally approved brand of Protestantism. Or the 'right' to force my chosen religion to be taught in public schools.

That part's true enough, at least.

You really should try to learn what liberal stances are from sources other than Coultier, Beck, O'Reilly, and Hannity. We both know that'll never happen, though - why actually LEARN about your opponents, right?

Click to expand...

Why they tell the truth that you cannot get any where else. The 2-4-5 medias are his Obama minions. Are they spit out the truth no. As far as your first paragraph, I suggest you do a little more reading and quit listening to those headbanger groups that are brain washing you. The rest of your rants sound pretty radical to me.

Dick7Access · May 28, 2014

amberkei said:
No. Goodness, no. One of the roles of the government is to protect the minority from the majority. If mob rule controlled everything, we'd probably still have legal slavery. Or Jim Crow laws. Or forced religious observance.

Where does it say that?

Frothingslosh · May 29, 2014

You cannot get those 'truths' anywhere else because they're not true. They, much like you, LIE. And have been caught in lies. Repeatedly.

All you're proving every time you post is that your mind is completely closed and, like most of the Teabaggers I've had the misfortune to speak with, you are utterly unable to comprehend that anyone who dares disagree with you could have any motives other than sheer evil.

And by the by, if you can honestly call my stances 'radical', you're so out of touch with reality it's kind of scary. By American standards, I'll admit I'm moderately liberal, although not excessively so. It's just a shame you can't see that thanks to pigeonholing 'disagrees with me' as 'the enemy'.

Fifty2One · May 29, 2014

Life sentences like Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi served: good plan!

ColinEssex said:
From the posts so far, we have either :-

a) the death penalty has virtually been abolished or,

b) Europe has stopped supplying a drug used to kill people, or

c) a desire to see someone fry - presumably meaning electrocution.

I'm confused - thousands on death row yet nobody is killed because its abolished, so surely b) and c) are irrelevant?

If death row is an old fashioned term not now relevant, why is it still used? It's very odd.

Why not do what we do in the UK, we give life sentences. One bloke recently had 13 life sentences imposed so we put him in an open prison, let him go on day release and then abscond.

Col

statsman · Jun 2, 2014

In Canada we got rid of the rope back in the 1960s.
I believe that if you are going to lock someone up for life, we should build a special prison in the high Arctic.
Send the murderer there. No walls as there is no place to escape to. The walls are around the guards quarters.
sufficient food but no health care and very limited recreation.

You are there until you die, so get on with it.
We'll take other country's lifers for a small fee.

Brianwarnock · Jun 2, 2014

Its certainly got the right name.

Brian

Brianwarnock · Jun 2, 2014

Back in the early 90s we had intended to drive across it and enter Yosemite from the East, can't remember the pass's name offhand, but late snowfall in the Rockys forced a change of plan unfortunately.

Brian

Prisoners on death row in USA. (1 Viewer)

Premier Pale Stale Ale

Registered User.

Registered User.

Old registered user

Retired

Premier Pale Stale Ale

Old registered user

Registered User.

Registered User.

Registered User.

Registered User.

Retired

Premier Pale Stale Ale

Registered User.

Dick S

Premier Pale Stale Ale

Legend in my own mind

Active member

Retired

Retired

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread