Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,686
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Apr 2011, 1:03 pm
16 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,686
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
16 Apr 2011, 1:30 pm
16 Apr 2011, 1:48 pm
16 Apr 2011, 1:56 pm
16 Apr 2011, 2:02 pm
16 Apr 2011, 2:05 pm
16 Apr 2011, 2:13 pm
16 Apr 2011, 4:15 pm
I have a question.. I'm very confused by the US system of government. (yes, I'm from the US.. always have been)
I know that we are a republic and that the idea is that the majority of rule is left to individual states. Where my confusion comes in is, how is it that the federal government or Supreme Court can make decisions on the legality of same-gender marriage, abortion, capital punishment, medicinal marijuana, etc... How can individual states still dispute it and why can one of those be legal in one state and not in another. To me, it should be cut and dried, if they've found something to be legal or illegal on a federal level, then I reason that should apply to all under federal jurisdiction. I know this isn't the case, but I don't understand why.
Really, I'm not trying to induce a derailment... I'm just hoping someone can explain this to me.
Because I don't understand the role the feds really play in this, I tend to not pay much attention when some of these law are passed or revoked.. so if I've made a wrong assumption, it's because I'm truly ignorant of these things. 
But I'd like not to be.
16 Apr 2011, 5:05 pm
I know that we are a republic and that the idea is that the majority of rule is left to individual states. Where my confusion comes in is, how is it that the federal government or Supreme Court can make decisions on the legality of same-gender marriage, abortion, capital punishment, medicinal marijuana, etc... How can individual states still dispute it and why can one of those be legal in one state and not in another. To me, it should be cut and dried, if they've found something to be legal or illegal on a federal level, then I reason that should apply to all under federal jurisdiction. I know this isn't the case, but I don't understand why.
Really, I'm not trying to induce a derailment... I'm just hoping someone can explain this to me.
Because I don't understand the role the feds really play in this, I tend to not pay much attention when some of these law are passed or revoked.. so if I've made a wrong assumption, it's because I'm truly ignorant of these things.
But I'd like not to be.The federal government via the Supreme Court mostly decides if a state enacted law in one of these areas is constitutional or unconstitutional. Quite a variety of different laws can be enacted, reflecting different local beliefs and preferences, that are all considered constitutional.
Sometimes the federal government will write a law that is designed to supercede all local and state laws. If that law is written consistent with the constitution and the intended division of power with the states, it take can override the local law.
Is that what you are looking for?
16 Apr 2011, 5:07 pm
I know that we are a republic and that the idea is that the majority of rule is left to individual states. Where my confusion comes in is, how is it that the federal government or Supreme Court can make decisions on the legality of same-gender marriage, abortion, capital punishment, medicinal marijuana, etc... How can individual states still dispute it and why can one of those be legal in one state and not in another. To me, it should be cut and dried, if they've found something to be legal or illegal on a federal level, then I reason that should apply to all under federal jurisdiction. I know this isn't the case, but I don't understand why.
Really, I'm not trying to induce a derailment... I'm just hoping someone can explain this to me.
Because I don't understand the role the feds really play in this, I tend to not pay much attention when some of these law are passed or revoked.. so if I've made a wrong assumption, it's because I'm truly ignorant of these things.
But I'd like not to be.Oy... that's really an entirely different debate. Suffice it to say, the feds were originally supposed to just loosely govern the states but in recent years they've tried taking over the roles of the state governments.
16 Apr 2011, 5:09 pm
that is EXACTLY what the poll is saying.
I know what the poll says. It's still biased. The "other" option just doesn't cut it for me.
how on earth is this poll biased. because of the 'other' option?
16 Apr 2011, 5:11 pm
that is EXACTLY what the poll is saying.
I know what the poll says. It's still biased. The "other" option just doesn't cut it for me.
how on earth is this poll biased. because of the 'other' option?
No. The 'other' option is really a poor substitute for "I don't think gay marriage is okay, and only straight couples should be allowed marriage benefits".
16 Apr 2011, 11:02 pm
that is EXACTLY what the poll is saying.
I know what the poll says. It's still biased. The "other" option just doesn't cut it for me.
how on earth is this poll biased. because of the 'other' option?
No. The 'other' option is really a poor substitute for "I don't think gay marriage is okay, and only straight couples should be allowed marriage benefits".
i was giving that option, because "I don't think gay marriage is okay, and only straight couples should be allowed marriage benefits" might sound biggoted. also, people might also believe that (i don't BTW)
now again, HOW IS THIS POLL BIASED???! !!
16 Apr 2011, 11:04 pm
16 Apr 2011, 11:37 pm
