TWODOGS, Why did you choose your new avatar?

[noonereal]

I'd love to have read the deleted post by painter.
I am sure it was "interesting."

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by wajobu

I'm staying out of this.

I am no activist but there is a time to stand tall.

[merrylander]

This "States Rights" is a funny thing, we had "Provincial Rights" in Canada but the great majority identified themselves as Canadians, here I am not exactly sure. On my naturalization certificate it says I am a citizen of the United States, now I see in this morning's paper that Harry is proposing a "public option" but that the states that wish to may "opt out"? That says to me that I am really a citizen of Maryland, not the United States. It really does not surprise me since we cannot even agree on the wording of the Oath of Allegience. However I would appreciate some clarification, is this the UNITED States of America or not?

[d-ray657]

I am glad that this thread started. It has started to broaden my education about this nation's history, and it has shown some reasoned argument. I use the word argument in the good sense, in that argument is the logical presentation of facts and reasoning to establish one's position. Thanks to those who have participated.

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by merrylander

This "States Rights" is a funny thing, we had "Provincial Rights" in Canada but the great majority identified themselves as Canadians, here I am not exactly sure. On my naturalization certificate it says I am a citizen of the United States, now I see in this morning's paper that Harry is proposing a "public option" but that the states that wish to may "opt out"? That says to me that I am really a citizen of Maryland, not the United States. It really does not surprise me since we cannot even agree on the wording of the Oath of Allegience. However I would appreciate some clarification, is this the UNITED States of America or not?

1.)Some rights to the States, some to the Federal Government.
2.)Some rights to the individual, some to "the people". (Which some take to mean "the people" ,collectively, as represented by their elected officials).

The ongoing arguments lie in where the lines are drawn. Many believe the Federal Government has far exceeded the first line. And that "special interest groups" such as labor unions, gay rights advocates, feminists, and certainly the gun control lot have exceeded the second line. (These are not necessarily MY opinions, just examples.)

So, to answer your question...you are a citizen of both the United States and the State of Maryland. I guess it's a personal matter of which supercedes the other, to your mind? I have been a citizen of Ohio, California, and Virginia, but I consider myself to be an American, first and foremost.

That's how I see it.

Dave

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

1.)
So, to answer your question...you are a citizen of both the United States and the State of Maryland. I guess it's a personal matter of which supercedes the other? I have been a citizen of Ohio, California, and Virginia, but I consider myself to be an American, first and foremost.

I don't know if this places me in the Republican camp or the Democratic camp but it seems to me that one country does not need different laws from state to state. 21 drink here 15 drive there.....

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

I don't know if this places me in the Republican camp or the Democratic camp but it seems to me that one country does not need different laws from state to state. 21 drink here 15 drive there.....

I think some people have problems with the Supremecy Clause, which allows federal laws to preempt state laws in many areas. Things like the legal age for drinking or driving (not drinking and driving) are considered within the police power of the state, and not subject to preemption.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I think some people have problems with the Supremecy Clause, which allows federal laws to preempt state laws in many areas. Things like the legal age for drinking or driving (not drinking and driving) are considered within the police power of the state, and not subject to preemption.

Regards,

D-Ray

As I said, it's one country we need one set of laws.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by noonereal

As I said, it's one country we need one set of laws.

Nope. Some things are better regulated on the local level. For instance you will see younger driving ages in higly agricultural states. There, kids learn to drive in generally open spaces. That wouldn't work as well in highly congested urban areas, where driving is much more difficult, and where putting younger drivers on the road just adds to the congestion. Moreover, as a general rule urban areas provide greater access to public transportation, which would not be feasible in rural areas. Kids in the city would think nothing of using the subway to go on a date, whereas a kid in the suburbs who takes a date on the bus, would probably only have one date.

There are many other examples of why regulations that make sense in urban areas wouldn't make sense in more sparsely populated areas and vice versa. Also, weather an other geographic conditions have an effect. There's probably no need for regulations about studded snow tires in Florida, but there is in Minnesota.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Nope. Some things are better regulated on the local level. For instance you will see younger driving ages in higly agricultural states. There, kids learn to drive in generally open spaces. That wouldn't work as well in highly congested urban areas, where driving is much more difficult, and where putting younger drivers on the road just adds to the congestion. Moreover, as a general rule urban areas provide greater access to public transportation, which would not be feasible in rural areas. Kids in the city would think nothing of using the subway to go on a date, whereas a kid in the suburbs who takes a date on the bus, would probably only have one date.

There are many other examples of why regulations that make sense in urban areas wouldn't make sense in more sparsely populated areas and vice versa. Also, weather an other geographic conditions have an effect. There's probably no need for regulations about studded snow tires in Florida, but there is in Minnesota.

Don't see it at all.
Your driving reasoning is flawed on several levels as is driving with studded tires.
One country, one set of laws.

One should one guy go to jail for 20 years in NY for selling an ounce of pot and in California get a mail in ticket??????????
It's ridiculous.