Painting all Republicans with a brush in what they believe in shows an immaturity in public debate. It is the same as saying all Democrats believe in abortion up until birth and after. Neither is true or correct. It is political propaganda. Each candidate for office should be fairly reported on their opinions on the issues. Only the religious zealots would back bans on contraception and not a single state in the United States would pass a law banning it. Gay marriage is a similar issue and the vast majority of Americans including a majority of Republicans are in favor of gay marriage. That being said both should be decided at the state level, because the federal government has no constitutional basis for requiring it. Both of these issues are being used as propaganda by both sides in order to attract votes.
Yet only 8 House Republicans voted to protect contraception. That's not fake news, that's actual news. It happened. That's the brush I'm painting with - it's based on their voting record. Leaving it to the State is the 200 years old argument that doesn't believe in basic rights such as the right to not be a slave. Time has changed. It is now the basic right to contraception, marriage equality, and abortion (except when Mitch McConnel says Congress could ban abortion across the nation 2 months ago) as a few examples.
Is the only reason to vote for or against this specific bill in Congress that you are in favor of people having access to contraception or not? Leaving it to the states is the very foundation of this country. Almost everything was left to the states, because that was the system of government everyone agreed to when ratifying the Constitution. The federal government was meant to be one of limited powers, generally speaking outward looking (dealing with other countries as a whole instead of having each individual state deal with other countries) and internally serving largely only to resolve conflicts between states smoothly. That is why most criminal and civil cases are done at the state level, because the states have the general police power and broader authority to pass all sorts of laws civil, criminal, regulatory, etc.
In practice yes, but they are not supposed to. I can murder my neighbors, and it is up to the people who are tasked with putting a stop to that sort of thing to arrest me, try me, and imprison me. If they chose not to do so, people would be right to say I shouldn't be allowed to do it and they are failing in their duties. The court is supposed to check Congress and not allow them to exceed their power. I hope they decide to do so.
I think you are implying it's because of state right. Stand on your state right then. Like folks 200 years that stand on state right to deny the basic right to not be a slave, today Republican Party stands on state right (an inconsistent argument anyway, but whatever, you can have it) to deny the basic right to contraception and marriage equality. Extremists.
Text - H.R.8373 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): To protect a person’s ability to access contraceptives and to engage in contraception, and to protect a health care provider’s ability to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information related to contraception. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress (1) The right to contraception is a fundamental right, central to a person’s privacy, health, wellbeing, dignity, liberty, equality, and ability to participate in the social and economic life of the Nation.
Its state rights until there's protests Trump doesn't like...then you can send CBP as shock troops to shoot at protestors
Yea, just two months ago, Republican Leader McConnell said Congress could ban abortion nationwide. Hey, what about State Rights?! lol The Republicans Party have long used "constitutional principles" to rationalize what they want and to try to escape from the political fallout. They are still doing it even after flip-flopping like John Kerry. Nobody is buying their fake principle anymore.
Slavery was properly a state issue until the 13th Amendment was ratified. So they were correct to stand on states' rights. Today, they are correct that this should be an issue for the states. It is currently a federal issue because the Supreme Court created a Constitutional right to contraception out of thin air, but it would still not be an issue for Congress to take up. Not surprisingly, they are relying on the Interstate Commerce Clause to push it, because some people buy contraceptives across state lines and, "To provide contraception services, health care providers employ and obtain commercial services from doctors, nurses, and other personnel who engage in interstate commerce and travel across State lines." Absolutely awful. Any X can employ services from any occupation Y that engages in interstate commerce and travel across State lines. I have engaged in interstate commerce and traveled across state lines, so anyone that has every interacted with me (at least in a professional context) can I guess have anything about them regulated by Congress, according to their "finding".
"gut social services so everyone has to go to the church" Small govt...unless you want to buy a condom. "only whores have abortions".... ban all birth control
So you'd agree then that DC has the right to ban all guns (which was overturned by SCOTUS). After all its states rights...if California or Massachusetts wanted to ban all guns besides muskets they could no? If not, consider why you think people should be entitled to a firearm but not a condom or plan-b?
I don't get mine from CNN... I've found that Breaking points is pretty balanced. Again, it's been dubunked multiple times. The impeachy Congress would've done more impeachy things were there any bite. Hunter and Joe, however. That's going to be a story...
Technically yes and for good reason. In my field there is no national building code that said nearly every state and locality uses some form of International Building Code. For that matter as an architect there is no national licensing but nearly every state uses the the National Council of Architecture Boards test for their licensing. For every single state to come up with their own building code and licensing exam would largely be a waste of time and lead to more confusion and difficulty in getting building built to deal with vagaries of language and such from multiple building codes. Given how interconnected our economy is and how dispersed it is to keep the economy running needs a lot of nationalizing of codes and other regulations. In other words we are far more dependent on interstate commerce now and it's only growing than we were ever in the US history.
Yup. Republicans throw states rights in the toilet on things they don't like.... unless it's rights that they like, in which case it's be a good federalist. Or if it's states trying to do things that might hurt Republicans in elections, in which case the state has no right. State's Rights, and all rights, have always been sbout the Rights rights. Not yours or mine.. I mean you can literally just look at any week for sn example of this - yesterday for example in allowing a piss bucket Trump judge to let Ken Paxton control federal immigration policy - This has been true generally but the last few years they stopped pretending and are pretty much all about stamping the boot on the human face forever - if it's "states rights" or "originalism" or whatever to get to that outcome good The only bright side is that nobody really buys their **** anymore - hence record low trust in the courts - and the most throaty defense you get is some clown bro saying Dred Scott gave him the right to bare arms.
No, there are certain rights that are Constitutionally protected. You have the right to free speech and religion and assembly and to bear arms and not to quarter troops in your home, etc. That is why I said that slavery was no longer a states rights issue after the ratification of the 13th Amendment and contraception would not be one if we had an Amendment guaranteeing a right to contraception. There was never a right to a musket, there was a right to keep and bear arms. If we all agree that rights do not incorporate technological advancement, that is fine, but it would apply equally to every right (ie people's right to freedom of speech doesn't extend to any medium beyond print, people's right to an attorney doesn't allow for a public defender, people's right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures doesn't include their computers and cell phones, etc. The difference between the right to bear arms and the right to contraception is that you are talking about technological advancements in what constitutes arms, whereas there was never an enumerated right to contraception or abortion, those were invented by the courts in the 60s and 70s respectively. That's an easy one. The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Where is contraception mentioned in the Constitution. I will never understand the argument that says unenumerated rights (abortion, gay marriage, whatever) are entitled to more protection than enumerated rights. Every state is free to adopt the same building codes if they so choose. They can also adopt different building codes. California may be more interested in earthquake related standards while Oklahoma is more concerned with tornados. Congress has no say. God/Nature/History gave everyone the right to bear arms. The Constitution (specifically the Second Amendment thereto) forbade the Federal government from infringing upon that right. The Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that rights protected by the Constitution from Federal infringement were also protected from infringement by the states. Dred Scott just acknowledged these facts (except the bit about the Fourteenth Amendment, because that didn't exist yet).
