Replies

Were it not for Article IV, Section 1, paragraph 1, I could go along fairly cheerfully leaving the matter of gay marriage up to the several states. Certain states would have gay marriage, others would not, and people would be entirely free to move to whatever state(s) they find congenial.

'splain somethin' to me Jeanie.

Why do we conservatives still want to bank so much on "leaving it up to the states," when doing so in the case of very basic/fundamental/foundational issues, would leave us a fractions people?

Think of the slavery crisis, for example. I hope we've learned something from that, about our union... republic... nation....

And can anyone else tell me why we think the hit-and-miss idea of "leaving it up to the states" is so good, for critical matters foundational to our People? (Abortion, international drug trade, marriage, and whatever other examples.)

Also, is this what we really want for policy haveing to do with food and pharmaceutical standards, space exploration, the Internet, the Interstates, superconductors, etc.?

I think we've grown up some as a nation, since the Constitution was drafted and a part of returning us to constitutionality would be to adapt the Constitution to our present realities.

You know I'm not picking on you though my wise and gay Sister J.*

_______________________________________________

*gay

adj 1: bright and pleasant; promoting a feeling of cheer; "a cheery hello"; "a gay sunny room"; "a sunny smile" [syn: cheery, sunny] 2: full of or showing high-spirited merriment; "when hearts were young and gay"; "a poet could not but be gay, in such a jocund company"- Wordsworth; "the jolly crowd at the reunion"; "jolly old Saint Nick"; "a jovial old gentleman"; "have a merry Christmas"; "peals of merry laughter"; "a mirthful laugh" [syn: jocund, jolly, jovial, merry, mirthful] 3: given to social pleasures often including dissipation; "led a gay Bohemian life"; "a gay old rogue with an eye for the ladies" 4: brightly colored and showy; "girls decked out in brave new dresses"; "brave banners flying"; "`braw' is a Scottish word"; "a dress a bit too gay for her years"; "birds with gay plumage" [syn: brave, braw] 5: offering fun and gaiety; "a gala ball after the inauguration"; "a festive (or festal) occasion"; "gay and exciting night life"; "a merry evening" [syn: gala(a), festal, festive, merry] ~~6: homosexual or arousing homosexual desires [syn: queer, homophile(a)] n : someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex [syn: homosexual, homo]~~
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=gay

Thank you so much for sharing your views! I see the paragraph that betty boop mentioned as the "trial attorney empowerment" section. Things of a national interest ought to be addressed by Congress (and not the courts) to the extent that the Constitution allows. Everything else belongs to the states.

And can anyone else tell me why we think the hit-and-miss idea of "leaving it up to the states" is so good, for critical matters foundational to our People? (Abortion, international drug trade, marriage, and whatever other examples.)

Well, I'm not saying I'm "right" about this; but the way I see it, this represents a tactical retreat. The disorder is so out of hand, and so totally focused on and expressed through the institutions of the federal government, that to me it's preferable to "devolve" this power from one power center to 50. If nothing else, the projection of "progressivist" power would be much less efficient under 50 different power centers than under just one.

Secondly, when you're hemorrhaging, the first thing you need to do is stop the bleeding. Progressivist "social change" has gone so far, and been so accepted by so many for so long, that it may not be reversible in the short term, if ever. Time is needed, to get an effective handle on the political process and, more importantly, to build a base of cultural power and try to shore up support for sensible change. Gradualism was the route that took us to where we are now; and gradualism will be the route back to sanity, if we are ever to get there. IMHO FWIW

"And can anyone else tell me why we think the hit-and-miss idea of "leaving it up to the states" is so good?

What do you think would happen if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, and States allowed to decide on whether or not to legalize abortion?

Before Roe v. Wade, there were an average of 98,000 illegal abortiong performed in the US yearly, look at the chart below and see the impact of the Federal government on abortion via Roe v. Wade:

AGI: Alan Guttmacher Institute Statistics (click here
for details and documentation)

CDC: Center for Disease Control Statistics (click here for details and documentation)

Year	AGI	CDC
1973	744,600	615, 831
1974	898,600	763,476
1975	1,034,200	854,853
1976	1,179,300	988,267
1977	1,316,700	1,079,430
1978	1,409,600	1,157,776
1979	1,497,700	1,251,921
1980	1,553,900	1,297,606
1981	1,577,300	1,300,760
1982	1,573,900	1,303,980
1983	1,575,000	1,268,987
1984	1,577,200	1,333,521
1985	1,588,600	1,328,570
1986	1,574,000	1,328,112
1987	1,559,100	1,353,671
1988	1,590,800	1,371,285
1989	1,566,900	1,396,658
1990	1,608,600	1,429,577
1991	1,556,500	1,388,937
1992	1,528,900	1,359,145
1993	1,500,000	1,330,414
1994	1,431,000	1,267,415
1995	1,363,690	1,210,883
1996	1,365,730	1,221,585
1997	1,328,000	1,186,039
1998	* 1,328,000	§ 884,273
1999	* 1,328,000	§ 861,789
2000	1,313,300	861,789
2001	* 1,313,300	§ 861,789
2002	* 1,313,300	§ 861,789