I love your slippery slope! Safety and protection should be federal! Like guns! They're dangerous! The Federal Government needs to disarm citizens! Right?
Posted on 02/24/2017 9:58:25 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Ever hear of the United States Bill of Rights? Ever hear of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Some good reading in there for you...
[[So, imagine how this country got along before Federal overreach.]]
You mean like when men were able to hunt down and kill their daughter’s rapists and be justified in the courts? Those days are over- like it or not-
[[I could continue, but obviously the concern that the federal government fixed anything that localities or individuals couldn’t, is not apparent.]]
It most certainly is apparent- with dramatic results no less- The average lifespan was just 39 years old thanks to many unhealthy issues you listed and more like medicine safety requirements, work safety issues etc- We now stand at what? 80 years average?
[[Folks, we have a FReeper who wants a strong regulatory environment.]]
LOL- since when did common sense regulations become advocacy for ALL/strong regulation? Cripes- Many things should be state legislated- but some issues concerning safety and protection should be federal
Sadly, we as a nation have wandered so far from the Founding Fathers' concepts of our nation! Way too many people have it in their minds that a centralized power in Washington DC is needed to govern our lives and protect us from every little harm that might afflict our beings.
It's a two-edged sword. The far-away government that has the power to grant such wonderful things also has the power to take it away. We as a people saw that coming with Obama. Now, Trump is trying to restore things, and fearful people are bleating.
The left is going to use this to “prove” that Trump is homophobe. F*ck the left.
I love your slippery slope! Safety and protection should be federal! Like guns! They're dangerous! The Federal Government needs to disarm citizens! Right?
Correct. Our government is not merely unconstitutional it is anti-constitutional. Government agents from petty bureaucrats to presidents hold the Constitution beneath contempt.
I have heard it said by other Republicans that they don’t want to do this because the D’s will then do the same. Whatever our strategy is now, it is not working too well. Actually, it is a catastrophic disaster. Wasn’t it a Bush (W)-appointed judge who ruled that Sodomites should be given marriage licenses? Use Congress’s power on this issue and let the D’s stew about it.
[[Way too many people have it in their minds that a centralized power in Washington DC is needed to govern our lives and protect us from every little harm that might afflict our beings.]]
There ya go again -extrapolating common sense regulations to protect the mass majority of citizens against crimes like rape and assault out to ‘every little area of our lives’ Noone has said anything about allowing government to control ‘every little area of our lives’
The second amendment is a Totally different issue- as guns are also used to protect people- we have laws that deal with criminals who abuse guns, but you want to do away with laws that prevent perverts and pedophiles from using women’s bathrooms- taking away the women’s protections-
You can sneer all you like and attempt to ridicule someone who believes that allowing pedophiles and sex offenders i n the bathrooms of women and children is a bad thing- but i n the end it appears you are supporting pedophile’s supposed ‘right’ to use women’s bathrooms-
Tell us, are you in favor of Massachusetts allowing convicted sex offenders the ‘right’ to use women’s bathrooms? How many victims does there have to be before it becomes apparent that liberal states are not only allowing sex offenders access to victims, but also enabling them to commit more crimes? What is your position? Allow it to happen and eventually Mass will come to their senses and ‘change the law back’? Really? How many victims is ok with you while we wait in vain for a LIBERAL state to admit the3y made a terrible mistake that cost countless women their dignity, and peace of mind? You really gonna throw out the second amendment and try to compare it to defenseless women in the presence of sexual predators? Sorry- there is no comparison
the following site was just a very short list of 45+ cases of trans genders sexually and physically attacking women and children and violating their privacy- and this was mostly back before they were given free reign to use women’s bathrooms without fear of prosecution for doing so- now that they are allowed to- these cases will increase exponentially- with many many more victims of transexuals- and that’s not even the worst of it- transsexuals are a very small group of people- but predators are a much larger group- and they too will now have complete access to women and children- so the threat to women and children is going to be much greater-
Giving predators more choices and more access to abuse is NOT the answer- If states like Mass refuse to protect women and children from predators by preventing them access to them in bathrooms- then who is going to? We have all kinds of federal laws that have made life safer for all- and have contributed to extending the average age of generations- Do we go backwards now by increasing risk to our nation’s vulnerable?
Also understand that because some judges deemed something can be a federal crime doesn't always make it a constitutional decision. States have the right to determine things but the Feds have usurped a lot of the power given the States - look what they did with"hate crimes". o State is going to get away with allowing human trafficking and other sorts of atrocities - its own citizens would rise up - the 'protections" the Feds provide would be provided anyway in the areas that really matter because the States would handle it.
Dude - do you understand what the term statutory means in statutory rape? it's when a man (possibly a boy of 15 or 16) has consensual sex with an underage girl (could also be 15 or 16, but the boy gets charged). Also understand that because some judges deemed something can be a federal crime doesn't always make it a constitutional decision. States have the right to determine things but the Feds have usurped a lot of the power given the States - look what they did with"hate crimes". No State is going to get away with allowing human trafficking and other sorts of atrocities - its own citizens would rise up - the 'protections" the Feds provide would be provided anyway in the areas that really matter because the States would handle it.
The dude has a pet peeve where he doesn't think the constitution really matters - he's obviously a "Obama Constitutional Scholar" where he thinks it means what he would like it to mean.
[[The dude has a pet peeve where he doesn’t think the constitution really matters]]
nOW YOU’RE MISREPRESENTING WHAT i’VE SAID- NOWHERE HAVE I STATED THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T MATTER- Nowhere did i state that the constitution ‘means whatever i think it means’ that’s a disingenuous argument on your part! perhaps you could point us to where in the constitution is states that a government may not, for the greater good of the country, impose rules that protect it’s citizens?
Do you believe states should be able to allow pharmacies to pump out untested medications and put them on the market for consumption? Allowing states to decide that runs the risk of some states not enacting laws to protect it’s citizens against harm- and it is no different than some states thinking it’s just peachy to allow known convicted sex offenders to use women and female children’s bathrooms- those states FAIL to protect those women and children- you can keep stating that I’m all for big government all you like- but you have not addressed this fact/problem once-
Do you feel it’s ok for states to allow known sex felons to use women’s bathrooms? The government regulates a great deal of things- and you can poo poo it all you like, and deride those who think it’s a good idea to have laws that ensure that extreme liberal states aren’t allowed to make policy concerning issues that affect all people- when lives are at stake- but the fact is that countless lives have been saved as a result of federal laws designed to protect the country’s civilians- it would be unwise to allow a nutcase liberal to do away with laws concerning pharmaceutical safety, and it IS unwise to allow sick perverted governors to allow known sex felons the ‘right’ to use the same bathrooms as our wives, daughters, mothers, grandmothers- I’m sure you wouldn’t like it much if a state mandated that you open your home’s bathrooms up to known sex felons to use whenever they wished- and you would be absolutely justified in objecting to it- because you would be worried about the safety of your family members-
This bathroom issue is NOT a simple social issue where noone gets hurt- lives are changed forever when a woman or child is sexually assaulted- yet some states don’t give a damn- and that’s unacceptable
it is every bit as unacceptable as a state ignoring federal pharmaceutical laws and endangering it’s citizens by not requiring safety testing of new drugs- or states ignoring OSHA laws and not requiring any safety measures by companies- We certainly would not stand for either of those situations, nor should we stand for the FACT that women and children are going to be made more vulnerable to attack by allowing any pervert this side of hell to use women’s bathrooms unimpeded by law- it is a no brainer- Again- you wouldn’t allow them to use your home;s bathrooms anytime they felt like it while your wife mother, sister, daughter was using it- But suppose you had no choice? suppose your state mandated it? Well guess what? Many states ARE mandating it for public restrooms!
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The federal government has no right to create law which exercises powers that it does not possess.
It is the States which possess the power to create laws about anything which is outside the purview of the federal government, such as laws which relate to, say, public bathrooms. Such issues are not something the Federal government has any legitimate power to make laws regarding.
It's a principle called federalism, and it prevents the federal government from arbitrarily intruding into areas over which it has not been specifically granted Constitutional power...
[[It is the States which possess the power to create laws about anything which is outside the purview of the federal government, such as laws which relate to, say, public bathrooms.]]
There is also the case of supremacy- this issue is not simply about people using bathrooms of their choice, it is about protection of citizens as well- every bit as much as OSHA is about protection of citizen, as is pharmaceutical requirements and national laws against illicit drugs-
The problem arises when you have an issue which affects everyone from all states- it’s called the privileges and immunities clause or article IV, Section 2- it states that states can not impose unreasonable burdens on people from other states- I think we can all agree that states like Mass are imposing unreasonable burden on females and girls by allowing known sex felons the ‘right’ to use women’s bathrooms- The state with such asinine laws allowing perverts to use the same bathrooms as women and girls, same showers, same dressing rooms- is also discriminating against the majority, and that is where the supremacy act would apply-
In matters of social welfare, states may not pass laws that are unreasonable- such laws are a violation of the constitution and are covered under a ‘rational basis’ test- for instance, a state may not constitutionally pass a law that prohibits fat people from receiving a paycheck while allowing thin people to receive one- This amounts to a violation of the constitution and amounts to discrimination every bit as much as allowing known sex offenders to use facilities of women and girls discriminates against a woman’s right to reasonable protection by increasing the chances that she will be attacked to an unreasonable measure— A State is prohibited from passing such laws-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.