Meanwhile in Kansas

[rivergator]

A bill comes out of committee saying that it's OK if a doctor doesn't tell a patient the truth, but only if prevents an abortion:

“No civil action may be commenced in any court for a claim of wrongful life or wrongful birth, and no damages may be recovered in any civil action for any physical condition of a minor that existed at the time of such minor’s birth if the damages sought arise out of a claim that a person’s action or omission contributed to such minor’s mother not obtaining an abortion.”

link

[cocodrilo]

There's another bill in Kansas that says it's okay if secondary schoolteachers don't teach students the truth, but only if it prevents acceptance of evolution.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by rivergator

A bill comes out of committee saying that it's OK if a doctor doesn't tell a patient the truth, but only if prevents an abortion:



link

I definitely think that's pretty absurd - however, if the people of Kansas wanted it, I think they should have it. I would love for states to have annual ballots with measures like these for people to vote on - how easy would thinks like abortion, gay marriage, etc be taken care of at that point? If a state like California wants to allow all of that -- then by all means, let the people vote and put it into motion, if a state like Oklahoma doesn't - the same.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I definitely think that's pretty absurd - however, if the people of Kansas wanted it, I think they should have it. I would love for states to have annual ballots with measures like these for people to vote on - how easy would thinks like abortion, gay marriage, etc be taken care of at that point? If a state like California wants to allow all of that -- then by all means, let the people vote and put it into motion, if a state like Oklahoma doesn't - the same.

all civil rights issues voted on by state? I think we tried that once ...

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

I definitely think that's pretty absurd - however, if the people of Kansas wanted it, I think they should have it. I would love for states to have annual ballots with measures like these for people to vote on - how easy would thinks like abortion, gay marriage, etc be taken care of at that point? If a state like California wants to allow all of that -- then by all means, let the people vote and put it into motion, if a state like Oklahoma doesn't - the same.

Mob rule is really no way to run a country. You realize basically that is all it is. And as we have seen in California and around the country, ignorant people voting for referendums that they either have no clue about or have been deliberately misinformed does not good policy make.

[ThePlayer]

We're not in Kansas anymore.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Mob rule is really no way to run a country. You realize basically that is all it is. And as we have seen in California and around the country, ignorant people voting for referendums that they either have no clue about or have been deliberately misinformed does not good policy make.

Federally, I agree. States are completely different -- rules and laws on a smaller scale are always much different. Really -- it could still be a representative-based majorities at the state level, except instead of so many things being federal territory, they would be state territory. "Mob Rule" is borderline hyperbole.

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

Federally, I agree. States are completely different -- rules and laws on a smaller scale are always much different. Really -- it could still be a representative Democracy like it is, except instead of so many things being federal territory, they would be state territory. "Mob Rule" is borderline hyperbole.

I don't get the logic you are employing. States are not completely different and rules and laws on a smaller scale aren't "always" much different. The tendency to abuse power is not necessarily any less in the states then it is at the federal level. Heck, it can even be just as bad, if not worse at the sate or local level.

Mob rule wasn't meant as hyperbole, but that is basically what the founders were afraid of and it is why we don't have a direct democracy. Call it the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the masses.

There is of course a pressing problem at all levels, which is a tyranny of special interests in which small, well-organized and/or well funded groups can have an outsized influence on lawmaking.

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

I don't get the logic you are employing. States are not completely different and rules and laws on a smaller scale aren't "always" much different. The tendency to abuse power is not necessarily any less in the states then it is at the federal level. Heck, it can even be just as bad, if not worse at the sate or local level.

Mob rule wasn't meant as hyperbole, but that is basically what the founders were afraid of and it is why we don't have a direct democracy. Call it the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the masses.

There is of course a pressing problem at all levels, which is a tyranny of special interests in which small, well-organized and/or well funded groups can have an outsized influence on lawmaking.

Have you ever had to watch a group of kids? Watching 1-2 kids is a heck of a lot easier than watching and taking care of 20-30 kids. This is why teachers across America are so intent on having smaller class sizes -- it's so much easier to reach those kids if there aren't so many in the classroom.

Of course corruption will still exist at local levels, as long as humans are involved, corruption will exist in some form. However, I believe that corruption at smaller scale is a lot easier to catch, see, and get rid of than that at a Federal level.

There are many quotes by the founding fathers that are pro-states rights, if you really want to get into it. I think almost overall, you would find a message more in line with less federal regulation and more state regulation amongst them than the other way around.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by rivergator

A bill comes out of committee saying that it's OK if a doctor doesn't tell a patient the truth, but only if prevents an abortion:



link

I have no problem with this bill at all. The only people impacted will be those who, but for this legislation, might sue their doctor on the grounds that if he had told them more information about their baby then they would have killed the baby. Those people are sick. Imagine how such a Complaint would be worded. Imagine the baby growing up and reading it someday. "Oh - this is nice. My parents sued the doctor who delivered me because they would've preferred to kill me."

[jdrgator]

Originally Posted by Tim85

Have you ever had to watch a group of kids? Watching 1-2 kids is a heck of a lot easier than watching and taking care of 20-30 kids. This is why teachers across America are so intent on having smaller class sizes -- it's so much easier to reach those kids if there aren't so many in the classroom.

Of course corruption will still exist at local levels, as long as humans are involved, corruption will exist in some form. However, I believe that corruption at smaller scale is a lot easier to catch, see, and get rid of than that at a Federal level.

There are many quotes by the founding fathers that are pro-states rights, if you really want to get into it. I think almost overall, you would find a message more in line with less federal regulation and more state regulation amongst them than the other way around.

Given the size of states, it makes little difference. They can be just as detached, just as corrupt, and pass equally or worse bad laws. Trying to compare it to watching a few kids versus many simply does not work.

Yes, I get federalism, but back in the 1700s people really identified with their state as some strongly individualized territory. That still has little bearing on the kind of effects that state laws can have on people vs federal law. Indeed, in this case, size really doesn't matter.

[gator996]

Originally Posted by Tim85

Have you ever had to watch a group of kids? Watching 1-2 kids is a heck of a lot easier than watching and taking care of 20-30 kids. This is why teachers across America are so intent on having smaller class sizes -- it's so much easier to reach those kids if there aren't so many in the classroom.

Of course corruption will still exist at local levels, as long as humans are involved, corruption will exist in some form. However, I believe that corruption at smaller scale is a lot easier to catch, see, and get rid of than that at a Federal level.

There are many quotes by the founding fathers that are pro-states rights, if you really want to get into it. I think almost overall, you would find a message more in line with less federal regulation and more state regulation amongst them than the other way around.

To use your analogy about kids in a different way...


Why would you want to manage 50 sets of state rules (50 kids) vs. 1 or 2 federal rules (1 kid) ?

[Tim85]

Originally Posted by gator996

To use your analogy about kids in a different way...

Why would you want to manage 50 sets of state rules (50 kids) vs. 1 or 2 federal rules (1 kid) ?

I think that's an interesting way to look at it, but I don't know how much the federal government would really need to manage. Also - is it easier to manage 50 states who are managing themselves, or to be the sole manager of 50 states and decide for them their own laws, etc. With the way it's set up, it almost seems easier to me to let the states do a little bit more of self managing.

[gator996]

Slavery, Interracial marriage, Segregation, Interstate Commerce, etc. all improved by having federal statute replace State's rights.

How in the world could you operate in a myriad of state laws?


What if georgia decides that gay marriage is illegal and anyone practicing it will be arrested?

If a gay couple is driving from NY to FL they should lose their rights while driving through the peach state?

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gator996

Slavery, Interracial marriage, Segregation, Interstate Commerce, etc. all improved by having federal statute replace State's rights.

How in the world could you operate in a myriad of state laws?


What if georgia decides that gay marriage is illegal and anyone practicing it will be arrested?

If a gay couple is driving from NY to FL they should lose their rights while driving through the peach state?

In the landmark Loving case, the judge (the one who declared that God Almighty wanted the races separate) ordered them to leave the state of Virginia. He then said they could come back, but not together.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by jdrgator

Mob rule is really no way to run a country. You realize basically that is all it is. And as we have seen in California and around the country, ignorant people voting for referendums that they either have no clue about or have been deliberately misinformed does not good policy make.

Since when doesn't the left like mob rule?