Comments on: My Liberal Slant on Nullification

By: Vin

Vin — Mon, 16 May 2011 20:09:26 +0000

There are a lot of words in these comments. Let's boil it all down to a few.

Nullification is a wonderful tool to use against unconstitutional acts of the federal government. On the State level, it can also be a wonderful tool against acts of state legislatures which do not comply with state constitutions. But let's be very clear, nullification is NOT a tool to get whatever you want if what you want is unconstitutional. The correct alternative here would be constitutional amendment.

Tools must be used properly.

By: J. Johnaon

J. Johnaon — Sun, 15 May 2011 04:49:40 +0000

"What would America look like if all the resources put into prosecuting marijuana use were put into infrastructure, schools, colleges, libraries, parks and health care? One can only imagine."

Or not.

How about we imagine not sending the money to Washington in the first place?

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Sat, 14 May 2011 15:56:50 +0000

Same. Local prosecutions seem to be more tame when compared to the big, almost military like operations the federal government does. Those guys look like they are ready to invade a small country. Also if some states ban drug trafficing while others allow it it would seem probable that drug trafficers would avoid those states and use the ones that do allow it just for convenience sake.

By: Republicae

Republicae — Sat, 14 May 2011 15:10:55 +0000

Unfortunately there are few in Washington that understand that the problem of the poor is not money, the problem is a lack of opportunity of the production of capital value among the poor. Government policies only serve to enhance and expand the effects of poverty, using the redistribution of wealth in a welfare cycle that can never produce any substantial results in solving the poverty problem because they constantly keep their eyes on the symptoms of poverty, not the causes of poverty. Until and unless this government removes itself from the markets, from the manipulation of currency, from the regulation and counter-regulation of capital production then poverty will not only remain, but will increase as more and more socialistic remedies are implemented by Washington.

By: Laurencia

Laurencia — Sat, 14 May 2011 11:52:55 +0000

Liberals and Conservatives just have a differing view on how to best serve the poor. Liberals want to make the poor comfortable and safe in their poverty and take just a little freedom in exchange for even less security…what a bargain(sarcasm intended). I, on the other hand….believe that the best way to help someone is to get out of their way and let them learn for themselves what they need to do to become a success in their own eyes….

By: Jeff Matthews

Jeff Matthews — Thu, 12 May 2011 21:30:04 +0000

That's sort of the point, P-King. There might be a few locales in America that don't want to take part in riding the path which will make this country look like a cross-section of Mexico.

I have noticed that, at least in Houston, all the best neighborhoods seem to develop around the best socialist structures – e.g., the best schools, the best parks, the best-kept roads and esplanades, the strongest of deed restrictions, etc.

Many young, up and coming Conservatives who are for limited government don't realize the conflict in which they live. They seek out deed restricted neighborhoods, good public schools, nice, new roads and parks, and all those things which are, by definition, "big government." They go around looking for a home to live, see the big, stone waterfalls and grand entrances into a new neighborhood, manned by a security gate and the last thing they are thinking is, "This neighborhood has too big a government." They are woo'ed by the grandness exhibited by the community pitching in, and they want to be a part of it, too.

Whenever you inject the word "socialist" into a discussion with Conservatives, the typical picture that comes to mind for them is transferring money to deadbeats by way of taxation. No doubt, enough of that happens. But the real deal is Conservatives like big government when it serves their interests.

Socialist structures can be very desirable. I described our typical, new and modern suburban neighborhoods with all their niceties, compliments of socialism. For a fair contrast, go drive around neighborhoods with no deed restrictions, crappy, old schools, cracked up roads, potholes galore, etc. There are plenty of those, too. Which represents a more rugged and individualistic "capitalism?" The ones without all the large-scale "socialist" spending, of course.

So, as you can gather from my perspective, as a Tenther, I do not feign to believe that dismantling the feds will take us back to those glorious days of low taxes, Daniel Boone, typhoid and cholera. I just think it would allow a more efficient means to govern according to local desires.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:24:58 +0000

I actually think drugs should be decriminalized. There is no reason to put people in jail for drug use and the war on drugs has lead to some pretty bad abuses in procedurial rights that we have in our constitution.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:23:41 +0000

was this comment deleted?

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:22:49 +0000

I favor fedaralism because it keeps liberal socialist policies contained to a few states. The policies of California are contained in California.

By: Philosopherking

Philosopherking — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:21:54 +0000

I like federalism because it keeps California policies contained within California. Any conservative should look at the decentralized power as a chance to contain socialist policies to a few states. It mirrors the cold war strategy of detante…LOL