NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

[michaelskis]

And for those of us who don't belong to any organized religion? How do we get married? According to your suggestion, we couldn't go to the Justice of the Peace, correct?

Yep. It would also exclude a ship's captain, mayor of a city, governor, or similar 'legal' authority.

The other issue here is upholding the laws that govern rights associated with married couples. That is not something a church or synagogue, etc. can do. Visitation rights, issues of kids, estates, etc. What happens to people's assets when they die? What about divorce? All of these are governed by laws and that is why the government has a role in marriage. And there is a need to define the nature of partnerships to the extent that we need to distinguish a roommate (who should have no right to, say, a dead person's estate or their children) from a real, committed couple who has overtly agreed to such shared rights. Without some kind of legal identifier that two people have agreed to live as a unified household (and I don't care at all what their genders are), these rights to offspring and co-mingled assets become very murky indeed.

Most of what you are concerned with can be addressed with a will, living will, or power of attorney. As for custody, those battles still occur for two parents who are not and never have been married. As for a legal identifier, I wonder if that is as important as a social identifier.

As for the President's announcement about gay marriage, I guess I feel that its about time and the right position to have. Is the timing politically motivated? Of course. I wish this stance had been taken earlier, but at least there is a firm position and not a wishy washy, dodgy position that is a moving target. I'm actually surprised that he made this announcement at this point in time. There is a part of me that fears that social conservatives who may not be excited about Romney and would consider just sitting the election out rather than vote for him might be motivated to vote just to oppose this stance. Though times have changed and I don't think this is the wedge issue it once was. Heck, Dick Cheney has endorsed gay marriage - in 2009!

His announcement has no impact on my choice not to vote for him. He could have been opposed to it, and I still would not have voted for him. I think your comment about social conservatives not voting for Romney is warranted. I am going to vote for him ONLY because I believe he will do a better job than President Obama.

 

[btrage]

Yep. It would also exclude a ship's captain, mayor of a city, governor, or similar 'legal' authority.



Most of what you are concerned with can be addressed with a will, living will, or power of attorney. As for custody, those battles still occur for two parents who are not and never have been married. As for a legal identifier, I wonder if that is as important as a social identifier.



His announcement has no impact on my choice not to vote for him. He could have been opposed to it, and I still would not have voted for him. I think your comment about social conservatives not voting for Romney is warranted. I am going to vote for him ONLY because I believe he will do a better job than President Obama.

Extending your arguments, it would seem you would also be in favor of no governemnt-sanctioned "marital" or "civil union" status for any 2 individuals, regardless of sex? If all you need is a living will, will or power of attorney, why did you get married? Just curious.

This is a human rights issue, not about social or legal identifiers. At least in my opinion.

 

[Planit]

Welcome to North Carolina

The new state flag?

Randy Bish
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

 

[michaelskis]

Extending your arguments, it would seem you would also be in favor of no governemnt-sanctioned "marital" or "civil union" status for any 2 individuals, regardless of sex? If all you need is a living will, will or power of attorney, why did you get married? Just curious.

This is a human rights issue, not about social or legal identifiers. At least in my opinion.

You are correct, I am opposed to any governmental classification, regulation, or licencing for the unity of ANY two people, regardless of gender.

My wife and I got married in a Catholic Church which classifies marriage as a sacrament. However, do have all of the legal documents that I listed because if something happened to me, I want to know that my wishes are held up regardless of what someone else might say about it.

Can you expand on why you think that a governmental recognized legal union of two people is a human rights issue?

 

[btrage]

You are correct, I am opposed to any governmental classification, regulation, or licencing for the unity of ANY two people, regardless of gender.

My wife and I got married in a Catholic Church which classifies marriage as a sacrament. However, do have all of the legal documents that I listed because if something happened to me, I want to know that my wishes are held up regardless of what someone else might say about it.

Can you expand on why you think that a governmental recognized legal union of two people is a human rights issue?

I think it's a human rights issue in the context of how many states currently classify and define marriage. If a government is going to sanction marriage, then I believe any two consenting adults should have the right to get married.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I agree with you that the government should stay our of "marriage", but I believe for purposes of health insurance and other certain rights granted only to spouses, the government does not to offer some form of civil union.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

I can tell you from experience that when you aren't married, the legal paperwork to replicate even some of features of marriage is difficult, time consuming, expensive and confusing. It really doesn't work. Not to mention who carries around copies of all the relevant documents or can find them during an emergency. Its much easier when you can say yes to the question of if you are married.

 

[wahday]

Most of what you are concerned with can be addressed with a will, living will, or power of attorney. As for custody, those battles still occur for two parents who are not and never have been married. As for a legal identifier, I wonder if that is as important as a social identifier.

For the record, no one is forcing anyone to get "married." If people want to just cohabitate and draw up the kinds of documents you mentioned, they are perfectly welcome to do so under law. However, the legal aspect of "marriage" also allows people to forgo drawing up all those contracts and be governed by their state's marriage law. Who is really getting hurt here? Is this really a problem? Or a solution (doing away with marriage) looking for one?

While I agree that many aspects of visitation rights, debt obligations, children, assets, etc. can be handled by legal documents, isn't part of the point of the government role in marriage to streamline the tedium and logistics of drawing up such agreements that, as GS notes, can be burdensome? If people can just say "we're married, with all the legal implications" and leave it at that, it really makes a lot of potential future legal complications more manageable. Because, let's face it, not every American has the wherewithal, money and knowledge about the law to adequately anticipate all of these potential eventualities. It becomes even more expensive on the back end if couples split or one dies. If you think this is complicated now, with lawyers arguing cases based on established marriage laws, I expect it would be even more so (and more expensive) if every party has their own, individually drawn up contracts to present. It would employ a lot of lawyers, though….

Beyond that, it seems to me there are many unanticipated aspects to marital status that you might not be able to easily address in documents, including some that have to do with how OTHERS treat YOU (healthcare, for example, and what sorts of legal obligations they have to cover care for spouses). Marriage law also lays down clear rules about the interactions of the affinals (in-laws) and the rights they have to assets and children of a marriage in the event of a death.

Personally, I think getting the government out of marriage would be a logistical nightmare.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

One huge advantage of marriage: Social security and pension benefits. Especially for planners, many of whom work for the public sector and get defined benefit pensions and do not qualify for social security.

 

[Hink]

I think the most telling thing about Obama supporting gay marriage is that the GOP establishment is backing off it. I don't think that it is a political move really either. They are trying to say that they are doing it because they are focusing on the economy, but I really think it is because they realize that it is a loser in terms of strong issues.

I think they fear the same backlash they saw with the female contraception issue early this year. Boehner jumped away from it as did his henchmen. There will be idiots on the right (and talking heads) who go after it... but the fact that the mainstream GOP (or at least those who aren't Jim Demint-Tea Party-Types) are essentially ignoring it.

Interesting really. The fact that this is a non-story to the right in this heated environment, speaks a lot, I think....

 

[Blide]

The issue with gay marriage is that Republicans know it's a losing battle. Hardly anyone under the age of 30 has a problem with it and that's unlikely to change as they get older. Republicans could take a stand but they'd just be delaying the inevitable.

Gay marriage is unique in that that degree of solidarity isn't present on almost any other social issues with Millennials.

 

[imaplanner]

I think the most telling thing about Obama supporting gay marriage is that the GOP establishment is backing off it. I don't think that it is a political move really either. They are trying to say that they are doing it because they are focusing on the economy, but I really think it is because they realize that it is a loser in terms of strong issues.

I think they fear the same backlash they saw with the female contraception issue early this year. Boehner jumped away from it as did his henchmen. There will be idiots on the right (and talking heads) who go after it... but the fact that the mainstream GOP (or at least those who aren't Jim Demint-Tea Party-Types) are essentially ignoring it.

Interesting really. The fact that this is a non-story to the right in this heated environment, speaks a lot, I think....

a non-story to the right? Hardly. He's been criticized for it heavily all over right wing media. The Romney camp was almost immediately out there saying he would not be running away from his opposition to gay marriage and his support for a federal ban on gay marriage. As far as being a political loser, I also disagree. While most young people support gay marriage, most of them also don't vote. North Carolina and many other swing states have passed bans- even California passed prop 8 recently by a pretty significant margin.

 

[Bear Up North]

About a month ago my PC crashed. Wandered over to Best Buy to check out computers. Standing with me as we looked at the options.....Joe the Plumber. Politics were not discussed. Luckily.

Bear

 

[WSU MUP Student]

About a month ago my PC crashed. Wandered over to Best Buy to check out computers. Standing with me as we looked at the options.....Joe the Plumber. Politics were not discussed. Luckily.

Bear

So he didn't try to earn your vote for November?

 

[michaelskis]

I think it's a human rights issue in the context of how many states currently classify and define marriage. If a government is going to sanction marriage, then I believe any two consenting adults should have the right to get married.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I agree with you that the government should stay our of "marriage", but I believe for purposes of health insurance and other certain rights granted only to spouses, the government does not to offer some form of civil union.

See, that is the root of the issue. You comment about how ‘states define marriage’. If they don’t defined it as it is not government regulated, then what is the issue? That is the only way for true equality isn’t it?

I can tell you from experience that when you aren't married, the legal paperwork to replicate even some of features of marriage is difficult, time consuming, expensive and confusing. It really doesn't work. Not to mention who carries around copies of all the relevant documents or can find them during an emergency. Its much easier when you can say yes to the question of if you are married.

I can tell you from personal knowledge of three unmarried couples that I am friends with (one of which is a same sex couple who lives in a state where they cannot legally get married), it is not all that hard. Does it take time and effort, yes. But if the relationship is important enough, it will be worth it.

For the record, no one is forcing anyone to get “married.” If people want to just cohabitate and draw up the kinds of documents you mentioned, they are perfectly welcome to do so under law. However, the legal aspect of “marriage” also allows people to forgo drawing up all those contracts and be governed by their state’s marriage law. Who is really getting hurt here? Is this really a problem? Or a solution (doing away with marriage) looking for one?

While I agree that many aspects of visitation rights, debt obligations, children, assets, etc. can be handled by legal documents, isn’t part of the point of the government role in marriage to streamline the tedium and logistics of drawing up such agreements that, as GS notes, can be burdensome? If people can just say “we’re married, with all the legal implications” and leave it at that, it really makes a lot of potential future legal complications more manageable. Because, let’s face it, not every American has the wherewithal, money and knowledge about the law to adequately anticipate all of these potential eventualities. It becomes even more expensive on the back end if couples split or one dies. If you think this is complicated now, with lawyers arguing cases based on established marriage laws, I expect it would be even more so (and more expensive) if every party has their own, individually drawn up contracts to present. It would employ a lot of lawyers, though….

Beyond that, it seems to me there are many unanticipated aspects to marital status that you might not be able to easily address in documents, including some that have to do with how OTHERS treat YOU (healthcare, for example, and what sorts of legal obligations they have to cover care for spouses). Marriage law also lays down clear rules about the interactions of the affinals (in-laws) and the rights they have to assets and children of a marriage in the event of a death.
Personally, I think getting the government out of marriage would be a logistical nightmare.

The idea that you need a lawyer to do up something like this is a joke. I personally spent less than $50 on mine and got them from USlegalforms.com and they work just as well. They are state specific, custom tailored to my needs, and include instructions on making sure they are registered and all the proper channels are followed. Everything you mentioned are in my legal documents. For example, in the event that my wife and I die, my sister and her husband take our kids. There is also very specific instructions regarding medical treatment, and allocation of assists upon my death.

As for the ‘how others treat you’ you are correct. But it is because it is based on the system and idea of government sanctioned marriage. Without it, rules change.

One huge advantage of marriage: Social security and pension benefits. Especially for planners, many of whom work for the public sector and get defined benefit pensions and do not qualify for social security.

Social Security is a government run program that my generation knows will not exist when we are able to draw from it. As for a pension, when I had one from my first job, I was not married and therefore I was able to list someone else as the receiver of my pension. All I needed was the basics, name, SS number, and birthdate. I know that there are different processes based on different programs.

Let’s face it, everything mentioned above are based on regulations that were set forth by people… they can be changed and yes, there would be a bit of a learning curve. Do I think that this will occur in my life time? No I don’t. In fact, I fear that we will actually have increased governmental regulation on our personal lives regardless of who is our next president. I just believe that it would occur at a faster pace if President Obama is reelected.

 

[imaplanner]

Senator Rand Paul cut right to the chase when he said Obama's position on gay marriage "couldn't get any gayer".

 

[ofos]

Poll Dancing

Wish I'd coined the term poll dancing, puts presidential election campaigns in the right perspective.

 

[Gotta Speakup]

See, that is the root of the issue. You comment about how ‘states define marriage’. If they don’t defined it as it is not government regulated, then what is the issue? That is the only way for true equality isn’t it?



I can tell you from personal knowledge of three unmarried couples that I am friends with (one of which is a same sex couple who lives in a state where they cannot legally get married), it is not all that hard. Does it take time and effort, yes. But if the relationship is important enough, it will be worth it.



The idea that you need a lawyer to do up something like this is a joke. I personally spent less than $50 on mine and got them from USlegalforms.com and they work just as well. They are state specific, custom tailored to my needs, and include instructions on making sure they are registered and all the proper channels are followed. Everything you mentioned are in my legal documents. For example, in the event that my wife and I die, my sister and her husband take our kids. There is also very specific instructions regarding medical treatment, and allocation of assists upon my death.

As for the ‘how others treat you’ you are correct. But it is because it is based on the system and idea of government sanctioned marriage. Without it, rules change.


Social Security is a government run program that my generation knows will not exist when we are able to draw from it. As for a pension, when I had one from my first job, I was not married and therefore I was able to list someone else as the receiver of my pension. All I needed was the basics, name, SS number, and birthdate. I know that there are different processes based on different programs.

Let’s face it, everything mentioned above are based on regulations that were set forth by people… they can be changed and yes, there would be a bit of a learning curve. Do I think that this will occur in my life time? No I don’t. In fact, I fear that we will actually have increased governmental regulation on our personal lives regardless of who is our next president. I just believe that it would occur at a faster pace if President Obama is reelected.

Of course these things are developed by people and can be changed. But you are very wrong that there are easy work arounds. They can be difficult (joint debt), time consuming (try having your taxes done in Massachusetts if you are a same sex married couple) or very dependent on having a benevolent employer (you can designate anyone to get your pension only if you have a liberal employer). There are a thousand privileges given to married couples in the US legal code. Try to think of them all and do a work around on them. It's not easy. And the more complicated life becomes, children, taking care of aging parents, etc., the more diffult it is.

 

[wahday]

Of course these things are developed by people and can be changed. But you are very wrong that there are easy work arounds. They can be difficult (joint debt), time consuming (try having your taxes done in Massachusetts if you are a same sex married couple) or very dependent on having a benevolent employer (you can designate anyone to get your pension only if you have a liberal employer). There are a thousand privileges given to married couples in the US legal code. Try to think of them all and do a work around on them. It's not easy. And the more complicated life becomes, children, taking care of aging parents, etc., the more diffult it is.

Agreed.

Not to beat a married horse, but…

My personal opinion on this topic is that I see no real problems with using the boiler plate legal language that accompanies getting married (as provided by one’s state). I see no reason to craft my own language if the end result is the same. These myriad legal issues, which we have identified in rather tedious detail, are the only way in which the government gets involved in marriage aside from the recent push to allow same sex couples to access the same legal status as hetero couples. Unless I am missing something.

If getting government out of marriage really only amounts to pushing that burden of anticipating every potential legal complication that might arise in the context of your relationship onto the individuals involved, I don’t see why there is a problem. Are there freedoms being trampled on here (aside from current restrictions on same-sex couples)? In my mind, the advantages to state involvement are that they streamline these legal issues. Also, states have, over time, accrued a lot of experience about all the possible unanticipated issues that may arise. Its also rather affordable.

When I go to buy a car or sign a mortgage agreement, while I might have the legal right to insist on and draw up my own contracts, most people adopt boiler plate language. Of course one should review it, but the idea of crafting your own contracts to cover such complex arrangements seems silly and complicated and unnecessary. And many people get married fairly young, when awareness of and experiences with legal issues/problems are not a big part of their lives. The potential for poorly managed arrangements based on outright ignorance about legal matters seems rather high to me.

Again, no one is saying one can’t handle their “marriage” through their own contracts. Why not?! But why is it a problem for those that would rather not do all that to go with the state? What exactly is the perceived harm in having government involved in marriage? I’m not really clear on the argument here.

 

[Gedunker]

The state has certain interests in who gets married: the state outlaws polygamy, for example, and it sets age thresh-holds so that we don't see 12 YO brides/grooms/parents. These are legitimate interests for the state and compelling for the people to want the state to continue to have some say. To me these are where the Libertarian political philosophies just become so much hogwash.:not:

 

[michaelskis]

I have never lived in MA, but I am sure you are correct. Which is any I also think that the tax code needs to be burned and rewritten so that a 16 year old with basic math can understand it.

You are all welcome to your own opinions, but I still personally believe that government regulated marriage is an infringement on my personal rights. I personally think that for the past 100 years, the government's control on peoples lives has gotten out of hand and is going to progressively get worse, regardless of who wins in November. I will continue to express my opinion but I am not going to waste the effort arguing with people about it.

On a side note, a state rep switched parties before trying to get reelected. LINK
I wonder how much it is going to matter? I don't know if he will vote any different just because the letter behind his name is different. Besides, in recent years, there is not much difference between the two parties. They both waste too much money and increase regulations.

 

[btrage]

I have never lived in MA, but I am sure you are correct. Which is any I also think that the tax code needs to be burned and rewritten so that a 16 year old with basic math can understand it.

You are all welcome to your own opinions, but I still personally believe that government regulated marriage is an infringement on my personal rights. I personally think that for the past 100 years, the government's control on peoples lives has gotten out of hand and is going to progressively get worse, regardless of who wins in November. I will continue to express my opinion but I am not going to waste the effort arguing with people about it.

On a side note, a state rep switched parties before trying to get reelected. LINK
I wonder how much it is going to matter? I don't know if he will vote any different just because the letter behind his name is different. Besides, in recent years, there is not much difference between the two parties. They both waste too much money and increase regulations.

Did you sign a county marriage license? If you feel this strongly, why not divorce your wife in the legal sense, and then do all of your contracts, wills, power of attorney stuff?

Just trying to play devils advocate.

 

[michaelskis]

Did you sign a county marriage license? If you feel this strongly, why not divorce your wife in the legal sense, and then do all of your contracts, wills, power of attorney stuff?

Just trying to play devils advocate.

The only reason that we have one is because our Church required it and they did not want to do anything in violation of local law. But you appear to miss the point all together. My opposition is not that we have one now, it is that the Government required us to get one in the first place. I actually tried for over a month to just do the Church thing but they refused.

 

[btrage]

The only reason that we have one is because our Church required it and they did not want to do anything in violation of local law. But you appear to miss the point all together. My opposition is not that we have one now, it is that the Government required us to get one in the first place. I actually tried for over a month to just do the Church thing but they refused.

Oh I get your point. Again, just playing devil's advocate.

I'm all for government getting out of the way when it makes sense. We all want a more efficient governemnt. I think an argument can be made that government sanctioned marriage actually streamlines a multitude of issues (many of which have been already mentioned), in an extremely efficient manner, backed by hundreds of years of case law.

As wahday asked, What is the harm of government sanctioned marriage? If the answer is simply "I want the government out of my life", well I can't debate you on that point. But if the answer is because it's easier, more efficient, and less costly to handle marriage through a contract, then that is a debate worth having.

Marriage, any way you sanction, authorize or contract it, becomes a legal matter. If the government can provide the most cost efficient way of delivering this contract, while reducing potential litigation costs down the road, doesn't that make an argument for having the government involved.

Although marriage is often construed as a "social" issue, akin to abortion, sex education, or with who, or how, I want to have sex, I see it as an legal and economic issue, which should be sanctioned by the government in some manner. Call it marriage, call it a civil union, I don't care.

 

[imaplanner]

If the government was out of it completely, what would happen to all of our stuff if we got divorced? Would I get it all because I am bigger and stronger than my wife and could take it by force? Who gets the children if we had any? If I die and didn't have a will would my wife have any way to claim my finances?

. I personally think that for the past 100 years, the government's control on peoples lives has gotten out of hand and is going to progressively get worse, regardless of who wins in November. I will continue to express my opinion but I am not going to waste the effort arguing with people about it.

.

Totally. I wish I was a worker bee in the early 1900's. That would be sweeet!!!

 

[btrage]

Totally. I wish I was a worker bee in the early 1900's. That would be sweeet!!!

I would have LOVED to have worked in the meat packing plants!!!!! Screw Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive ideas.

 

[Planit]

Saw a recently article asking "How much money have "Fiscal Conservatives" spent defending unconstitutionl laws?" The base of the article is that a large group of people in several states were voted in power by saying they will balance budgets, cut wasteful spending and reduce the government.

Now these same people have passed anti-abortion laws which have been and are being challenged in court and losing. Kansas for example has spent almost $700,000 defending their anti-abortion law, Oklahoma has spent about the same only to have it thrown out. Utah is putting away $1 million getting ready to defend their bill, and Jan Brewer's bill in Arizona will run them over $800,000 to defend.

It was also mentioned that anti-gay marriage laws will be subject to the same appeals - so much for my state...

All seems very hypocritical to me.

 

[ofos]

Saw a recently article asking "How much money have "Fiscal Conservatives" spent defending unconstitutionl laws?" The base of the article is that a large group of people in several states were voted in power by saying they will balance budgets, cut wasteful spending and reduce the government.

Now these same people have passed anti-abortion laws which have been and are being challenged in court and losing. Kansas for example has spent almost $700,000 defending their anti-abortion law, Oklahoma has spent about the same only to have it thrown out. Utah is putting away $1 million getting ready to defend their bill, and Jan Brewer's bill in Arizona will run them over $800,000 to defend.

It was also mentioned that anti-gay marriage laws will be subject to the same appeals - so much for my state...

All seems very hypocritical to me.

How much is the current administration spending prosecuting Roger Clemons for lying to Congress about steroids? Or flying the POTUS to Afghanistan to hold a press conference at prime time in the U.S. of A.? No political party or philosophy has a lock on hypocrisy when it comes to spending.

 

[Maister]

I would have LOVED to have worked in the meat packing plants!!!!! Screw Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive ideas.

And you have to admit that part of you kind of wishes we had 60 hour work weeks once again. I tell you the moral fibre of this nation went straight to hell once those damn commie guvmint types came along. Used to be a man could make an honest living (selling wood alcohol as a medicine), but along came all these do-gooders interfering with our lives and imposing all those useless freedom-depriving regulations!

 

[dandy_warhol]

And you have to admit that part of you kind of wishes we had 60 hour work weeks once again. I tell you the moral fibre of this nation went straight to hell once those damn commie guvmint types came along. Used to be a man could make an honest living (selling wood alcohol as a medicine), but along came all these do-gooders interfering with our lives and imposing all those useless freedom-depriving regulations!

My parents would've had a lot more money to spend on rotten cabbage if all us kids had been put to work at age 5. Those little fingers are great at threading needles.

 

[hilldweller]

I would have LOVED to have worked in the meat packing plants!!!!! Screw Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive ideas.

yeah, what's a 12-year old to do nowadays?

 

[michaelskis]

[Complete Sarcasm warning]

Tell, you what, your right Let's put a government ban on everything bad. After all, we don't actually need alcohol, pop (or Soda for other parts of the US), tobacco, sugar, corn syrup, saturated fats, or any of that stuff in our lives. Fast food, pizza, and anything that can make us fat and unhealthy... gone.

Oh, let's just limit content on the internet, TV, newspapers, and radio. (sorry Maister, no radio show for you). Actually, just pull the plug on all media. We don’t want those crazy thoughts of a free society getting out there!

Why we are at it, let's also have it set up so everyone takes home the same amount of money, regardless of what they do or how hard they work. Who cares if there is some guy who wants to sit in his parents basement playing video games all day, he should make the same as the salesman who works 40 hours a week or the investor who has studied companies for 80 hours a week for the past 30 years… But let’s not stop with the US! Let’s make this a global policy! After all, we are all entitled to be happy!

Also, since sick and old people are such a burden on our medical system, let's just euthanize them all. Same thing with bald people... since it is a genetic defect. Oh, and people with disabilities too.

Since overpopulation is going to happen, let’s put forth a global law saying that each couple can only have one kid, It works in China, why not the rest of the globe. Of course you need a license before the kid can be born otherwise it is aborted as soon as the mother starts to show or the baby is born. Then every adult must be 'fixed' after a woman gives birth and the DNA test confirms who the father is. That way we don’t need to worry about it in the future. Or just euthanize unwanted babies as long as they are not more than oh... let's say 6 months old. They can't talk or speak their minds until after that anyways.
Same thing with adoption. It is a waste of resources and if the birth parents don't want them, they have no value, after all, they can’t talk so we can’t just assume that they have rights.

Historic buildings, cars, air planes, power plants, paved surfaces, and everything else that might pollute the planet in anyway needs to go too. We need to ban those too!

Heck with what the constitution says. Let's just go ahead and prohibit the construction of churches or other religious buildings and sites. After all, people use tax payer road money to for access and the buildings are hooked up to public utilities... on and people have to see them... IN PUBLIC! We can find a different place to vote. But we need to deal with guns! Only the government approved military should have them. We don't need them and they just kill people... after all, the people who pull the trigger can't be held accountable. It was the gun's fault you know!

As for marriage, your right but let’s not stop with requiring a license to get married. Let’s set up arranged marriages across ethnic, religious, racial, and economic lines to mix things up and balance everything. Who cares about love.

[/complete sarcasm warning]

And before you say, oh, they can’t do that, almost everything on this list has been done place on this planet within the past 100 years and some still occurs today. Do we need a federal government, absolutely and its duties are specifically spelled out in the constitution. Otherwise, they have no business doing anything else.

 

[mgk920]

To return to the world of real politics and away from the red herrings, it is looking more and more like the current attempt to have Wisconsin's governor (Scott Walker) recalled from office is crashing and burning. Public opinion polls are now consistently showing at least a 5% margin among likely voters favoring Walker over his Democrat opponent (the same opponent who he faced in November of 2010, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett) with that margin increasing. Wisconsin state Democrats are also bitterly divided over this election and are seriously POed that the DNC has cut off their national campaign funding for Barrett, essentially 'throwing them under the bus'.

The general election is on June 5.

Mike

 

[btrage]

To return to the world of real politics and away from the red herrings, it is looking more and more like the current attempt to have Wisconsin's governor (Scott Walker) recalled from office is crashing and burning. Public opinion polls are now consistently showing at least a 5% margin among likely voters favoring Walker over his Democrat opponent (the same opponent who he faced in November of 2010, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett) with that margin increasing. Wisconsin state Democrats are also bitterly divided over this election and are seriously POed that the DNC has cut off their national campaign funding for Barrett, essentially 'throwing them under the bus'.

The general election is on June 5.

Mike

I don't think anyone outside of Wisconsin really cares anymore about Walker. I don't think anyone with any intelligence thinks a sitting governor is going to be recalled.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

[Complete Sarcasm warning]

Tell, you what, your right Let's put a government ban on everything bad. After all, we don't actually need alcohol, pop (or Soda for other parts of the US), tobacco, sugar, corn syrup, saturated fats, or any of that stuff in our lives. Fast food, pizza, and anything that can make us fat and unhealthy... gone.

Oh, let's just limit content on the internet, TV, newspapers, and radio. (sorry Maister, no radio show for you). Actually, just pull the plug on all media. We don't want those crazy thoughts of a free society getting out there!

Why we are at it, let's also have it set up so everyone takes home the same amount of money, regardless of what they do or how hard they work. Who cares if there is some guy who wants to sit in his parents basement playing video games all day, he should make the same as the salesman who works 40 hours a week or the investor who has studied companies for 80 hours a week for the past 30 years… But let's not stop with the US! Let's make this a global policy! After all, we are all entitled to be happy!

Also, since sick and old people are such a burden on our medical system, let's just euthanize them all. Same thing with bald people... since it is a genetic defect. Oh, and people with disabilities too.

Since overpopulation is going to happen, let's put forth a global law saying that each couple can only have one kid, It works in China, why not the rest of the globe. Of course you need a license before the kid can be born otherwise it is aborted as soon as the mother starts to show or the baby is born. Then every adult must be 'fixed' after a woman gives birth and the DNA test confirms who the father is. That way we don't need to worry about it in the future. Or just euthanize unwanted babies as long as they are not more than oh... let's say 6 months old. They can't talk or speak their minds until after that anyways.
Same thing with adoption. It is a waste of resources and if the birth parents don't want them, they have no value, after all, they can't talk so we can't just assume that they have rights.

Historic buildings, cars, air planes, power plants, paved surfaces, and everything else that might pollute the planet in anyway needs to go too. We need to ban those too!

Heck with what the constitution says. Let's just go ahead and prohibit the construction of churches or other religious buildings and sites. After all, people use tax payer road money to for access and the buildings are hooked up to public utilities... on and people have to see them... IN PUBLIC! We can find a different place to vote. But we need to deal with guns! Only the government approved military should have them. We don't need them and they just kill people... after all, the people who pull the trigger can't be held accountable. It was the gun's fault you know!

As for marriage, your right but let's not stop with requiring a license to get married. Let's set up arranged marriages across ethnic, religious, racial, and economic lines to mix things up and balance everything. Who cares about love.

[/complete sarcasm warning]

And before you say, oh, they can't do that, almost everything on this list has been done place on this planet within the past 100 years and some still occurs today. Do we need a federal government, absolutely and its duties are specifically spelled out in the constitution. Otherwise, they have no business doing anything else.

I appreciate your passion in this area mskiis. However, we cannot turn the clock back 100 years even if we wanted to. The Feds have a track record of righting wrongs that the states cannot or will not address. Do they go overboard sometimes, yes. However, they have been the ones that spearheaded the labor laws, the environmental regulations, the civil rights regulations, food, medicine and health regulations, flood and stormwater. We live in a better, cleaner, safer, fairer country because of all of this. To revert to a more limited government society is a madness that would cost us dearly in the long run. To advocate this is short sighted at best. One need only to study the history of America before the feds got involved to understand why they got involved.

 

[hilldweller]

Bizarre story up here in Mass.: US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) claiming to be a Native American for many years, and was classified as a minority professor at Harvard Law School. The schools first "woman of color" in fact (albeit a blond-haired and blue-eyed one- go figure). Nary a shred of evidence has turned up she has any Native American (Cherokee) heritage whatsoever.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20220517harvards_woman_of_color/

 

[stroskey]

If we want to be post-racial we need to stop focusing on race for college admissions, employment, etc. Just let a person be, whatever their ancestry might be.

 

[michaelskis]

I appreciate your passion in this area mskiis. However, we cannot turn the clock back 100 years even if we wanted to. The Feds have a track record of righting wrongs that the states cannot or will not address. Do they go overboard sometimes, yes. However, they have been the ones that spearheaded the labor laws, the environmental regulations, the civil rights regulations, food, medicine and health regulations, flood and stormwater. We live in a better, cleaner, safer, fairer country because of all of this. To revert to a more limited government society is a madness that would cost us dearly in the long run. To advocate this is short sighted at best. One need only to study the history of America before the feds got involved to understand why they got involved.

While I totally disagree with most of what you said, I do agree that they have done some good and they do have their place. But they have over reached their boundaries on a prolific scale. I have come to this conclusion because of my study of the history of America. You are very correct that if a switch was flipped, it would result in total chaos. However much like the way we got into this mess, we need to transition into a society where there is decreased federal regulation and strengthening states rights.

Another component of all of this is the realization that there needs to be a drastic shift in personal responsibility. Corporations only react to demand and a lot of this has to do with education. I personally, will not buy anything from a restaurant or company that uses pink slime. We are a global society and while we have this frame of mind that the government is 'protecting' us is completely false. I would venture to guess that more than 1/2 of what you eat either directly or indirectly contains genetically modified corn. Do you know the working conditions of the person who made your shirt, pants, socks, or shoes? What about the electronics inside the computer your using now. What where the working conditions for those people? As consumers, we have no idea where our products come from, the conditions in which they are made, or the impacts that they have on other places. Or even locally. The biggest private funding source for the EPA is the drug companies. Do you think they would bite the hand that feeds them? Every part of the federal government is in bed with at least one major corporation and it continues to get worse. Even the Federal Reserve is cartel of private banks with 'government' oversight.

If we as consumers become educated and actually gave a damn and got off our NIMBYest platform on a global scale, then in reality, we would need very little government intervention. I however highly doubt that most of the people have the courage to do anything about it.

If we want to be post-racial we need to stop focusing on race for college admissions, employment, etc. Just let a person be, whatever their ancestry might be.

Amen to that!

 

[Brocktoon]

If we want to be post-racial we need to stop focusing on race for college admissions, employment, etc. Just let a person be, whatever their ancestry might be.

So the US was post racial before the Civic Rights Act of 1957 and 1964...I had no idea. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[wahday]

If we as consumers become educated and actually gave a damn and got off our NIMBYest platform on a global scale, then in reality, we would need very little government intervention. I however highly doubt that most of the people have the courage to do anything about it.

I think your last sentence makes a very good point. And that is why I personally believe the government has a very important role to play in setting rules/regulations for a safe and fair marketplace. Without government regulations saying that certain products or activities are illegal (employing children, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, etc.) the decision of consumers to correct abuses becomes an ethical one (as opposed to a legal one). To a certain degree I would say that this already happens. Certain working conditions that are illegal here are acceptable in, say, Bangladesh. But some people do decide not to buy those products based on ethics instead of legality. And I don't deny that this kind of market impact can be very effective. But it seems less the rule and more the exception.

Because, even with knowledge of those abuses, plenty of other people still buy those products (or others for which ethics may certainly be a worthy consideration). This is for a number of reasons, I think. Those places and those people are far away. The manufacturing process is also far away, remote and so abuses or problems are not tangible to the average consumer. And just time and effort - it is pretty exhausting to investigate the production process and conditions behind every single product we buy (from toothpaste to chocolate, to clothing, cars, the wood used on that addition, etc.) That’s a pretty big responsibility to put on “the market” not to mention the average consumer who has to be able to say “this doesn’t impact me directly, but my empathy for those it does harm is great enough to forgo that product.” And while some may argue that over time these issues would be worked out by consumer decisions, until then a lot of people suffer. Or die. And anyway, I personally don’t buy that free market vetting of inhumane or environmentally unfriendly processes is adequate to correct these problems effectively enough. In a vacuum, perhaps, but in a world with different countries, laws, boundaries, economies and crippling amounts of information, the market is not, and can never truly be “free.” As such, I believe regulation is necessary for a great many things.

Increasingly I am coming to the personal position that our world is so full of distractions (the internet, video games, cable TV, advertisements, etc.) that serve to draw our attention away from things that really matter (social issues, connecting with our communities, managing our relationships, being a responsible consumer, etc.) that it is likely to be our downfall. We may be so distracted by modern life that we don’t perceive or can’t organize/focus enough on the really pressing issues (or even identify what they are) to come up with an adequate plan to do something about them. I also think its what will make “market correction” less and less effective over time. The iPhone is just too damn cool (and distracting) for people to really care or consider the environmental impacts, worker conditions, etc. that come along with it, for example. Its also what is making it increasingly more difficult to coordinate the efforts of large numbers of people or countries to address things like climate change, immigration or even agree on a budget. There is so much information and mis-information out there that it can cripple any kind of collaborative process and hamper attempts to get at “the truth.”

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

However much like the way we got into this mess, we need to transition into a society where there is decreased federal regulation and strengthening states rights.

Amen to that!

What about states that don't a give a d@mn or are held captive by a particular industry. Should their citizens suffer because of this? What about economic development? Would states agree to look the other way regarding regulations in order to entice a factory to locate there or for it not to leave? Part of the reasons the feds got involved was because of inconsistent laws in the different states.

 

[michaelskis]

I think your last sentence makes a very good point. And that is why I personally believe the government has a very important role to play in setting rules/regulations for a safe and fair marketplace. Without government regulations saying that certain products or activities are illegal (employing children, unsafe or unhealthy working conditions, etc.) the decision of consumers to correct abuses becomes an ethical one (as opposed to a legal one). To a certain degree I would say that this already happens. Certain working conditions that are illegal here are acceptable in, say, Bangladesh. But some people do decide not to buy those products based on ethics instead of legality. And I don't deny that this kind of market impact can be very effective. But it seems less the rule and more the exception.

Because, even with knowledge of those abuses, plenty of other people still buy those products (or others for which ethics may certainly be a worthy consideration). This is for a number of reasons, I think. Those places and those people are far away. The manufacturing process is also far away, remote and so abuses or problems are not tangible to the average consumer. And just time and effort - it is pretty exhausting to investigate the production process and conditions behind every single product we buy (from toothpaste to chocolate, to clothing, cars, the wood used on that addition, etc.) That's a pretty big responsibility to put on "the market" not to mention the average consumer who has to be able to say "this doesn't impact me directly, but my empathy for those it does harm is great enough to forgo that product." And while some may argue that over time these issues would be worked out by consumer decisions, until then a lot of people suffer. Or die. And anyway, I personally don't buy that free market vetting of inhumane or environmentally unfriendly processes is adequate to correct these problems effectively enough. In a vacuum, perhaps, but in a world with different countries, laws, boundaries, economies and crippling amounts of information, the market is not, and can never truly be "free." As such, I believe regulation is necessary for a great many things.

Increasingly I am coming to the personal position that our world is so full of distractions (the internet, video games, cable TV, advertisements, etc.) that serve to draw our attention away from things that really matter (social issues, connecting with our communities, managing our relationships, being a responsible consumer, etc.) that it is likely to be our downfall. We may be so distracted by modern life that we don't perceive or can't organize/focus enough on the really pressing issues (or even identify what they are) to come up with an adequate plan to do something about them. I also think its what will make "market correction" less and less effective over time. The iPhone is just too damn cool (and distracting) for people to really care or consider the environmental impacts, worker conditions, etc. that come along with it, for example. Its also what is making it increasingly more difficult to coordinate the efforts of large numbers of people or countries to address things like climate change, immigration or even agree on a budget. There is so much information and mis-information out there that it can cripple any kind of collaborative process and hamper attempts to get at "the truth."

I think you would be surprised, if not appalled, if you knew the condition of the factories that make your shoes and the clothes on your back right now. But the idea that 'oh, because everyone else buys them, me not buying them doesn't matter. It is like the difference between integrity and character. A person with integrity might not do the wrong thing (rob a gas station), but a person of character will do what it takes to prevent wrongs from occurring (stopping the robbery if they are in the gas station).

As for your last paragraph, I agree and that is I don't watch TV or play video games. I will focus my time with my family, doing a recreational activity, or investing in quality information mostly from good books.

What about states that don't a give a d@mn or are held captive by a particular industry. Should their citizens suffer because of this? What about economic development? Would states agree to look the other way regarding regulations in order to entice a factory to locate there or for it not to leave? Part of the reasons the feds got involved was because of inconsistent laws in the different states.

If people don't like living in a state... move. If people don't like what a company is doing, don't buy their product or service. As for the inconsistent regulations, your correct. Not all regulations are the same in all the states. As an example, car companies locate in TN and not MI because they don't like the union environment in MI. But let's take your argument to the next level and look at things in Mexico and Canada. The border is just a line on a map and actions on one side influence the other.

A great example of this is Europe. Which is a collection of countries that sometimes work in cooperation with each other. They each have their own set of regulations and governments and to my knowledge, no single European country has gotten so bad that it has been declared a toxic waste dump and everyone left or died. Each of those countries is equivalent in size to many of the mid western or west-coast states. Do some countries fail economically or politically, yes. But each has a self governance which allows some to be better than others.

We would still have a federal government and as I have said before, their powers would be limited to those expressly permitted in the Constitution. This is the model that we had for a bit more than 125 years. Before 1776, each state was it's own country controlled under British rule. The reason for it changing was the understanding that the collection of states needed to have a unified front if they had any chance to win their independence. Thomas Jefferson was very specific when in the Deceleration of Independence he stated:

That these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent states may of right do.

 

[Blide]

If people don't like living in a state... move.

What bothers me about this mindset is some states take advantage of others with this. States like Texas can underfund their education system since they know their low taxes will draw educated people from places like the Northeast that actually fund their education systems through higher taxes. Massachusetts may have the best schools in the country but their tax base is slowly being siphoned away as people take advantage of the system then leave while putting nothing back into it.

That type of behavior is not sustainable. It just shifts resources around the country while actually creating nothing. Some states are just racing toward the bottom to attract growth which has a detrimental effect on other states since that's where the "growth" is coming from. In the end, the only people who benefit are corporations who drove this process in the first place.

Also these days, people really don't have an option of leaving a state if they don't like it. People go where the jobs are and if the jobs are moving, so are the people. If you're unable to move, you get left behind.

 

[Whose Yur Planner]

If people don't like living in a state... move. If people don't like what a company is doing, don't buy their product or service. As for the inconsistent regulations, your correct. Not all regulations are the same in all the states. As an example, car companies locate in TN and not MI because they don't like the union environment in MI. But let's take your argument to the next level and look at things in Mexico and Canada. The border is just a line on a map and actions on one side influence the other.

A great example of this is Europe. Which is a collection of countries that sometimes work in cooperation with each other. They each have their own set of regulations and governments and to my knowledge, no single European country has gotten so bad that it has been declared a toxic waste dump and everyone left or died. Each of those countries is equivalent in size to many of the mid western or west-coast states. Do some countries fail economically or politically, yes. But each has a self governance which allows some to be better than others.

We would still have a federal government and as I have said before, their powers would be limited to those expressly permitted in the Constitution. This is the model that we had for a bit more than 125 years. Before 1776, each state was it's own country controlled under British rule. The reason for it changing was the understanding that the collection of states needed to have a unified front if they had any chance to win their independence. Thomas Jefferson was very specific when in the Deceleration of Independence he stated:

A several fold problem with your ideas. First, as someone who has moved to different states, it's not that easy and I had the resources to do it. As for the don't buy the product arguement, Wahday seems to given a great rebuttal to it.

The seond problem is cross border problems. Pollution comes to mind. One state's issues are not confined to it's borders. We tried this once before, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed badly.

 

[michaelskis]

A several fold problem with your ideas. First, as someone who has moved to different states, it's not that easy and I had the resources to do it. As for the don't buy the product arguement, Wahday seems to given a great rebuttal to it.

The seond problem is cross border problems. Pollution comes to mind. One state's issues are not confined to it's borders. We tried this once before, it was called the Articles of Confederation and it failed badly.

Maybe your right. It is too hard for people to move from one side of a political line to another. Granted I moved to a City 18 hours away about ten years ago where I knew no one with only 5 days notice, then I moved 9 hours away from there a year after that (I had 14 days notice for that one...) Frankly, it was not much harder than moving to a house in the next community over.

I find it funny when people talk about consumerism... they talk about how global warming is destroying the planet. Then they hop in a private gulf stream jet and head to a house that uses 20 times more power than my house. People talk on their I-phones made by some 12 year old kid who speaks some Asian language who works a 15 hour day and gets paid only part of what some hippy would pay for a cup of coffee made from beans that are grown on the opposite of the planet and shipped in oil consuming boats, trucks, and planes just so they can have their double jungle java roast. They also complain about big corporations and corporate greed when the politicians, including the current president, gives in to pressure from lobbyists.

As for the pollution issue, your are correct, nature does not respect political boarders. But last time I checked, different countries have different environmental regulations. Even European countries have some variation in environmental regulation. Is it a perfect world and a perfect situation, nope. Do we still need a federal government, yep. But their powers are way more than what was intended.

Let's face it, you and many others are not going to agree with me and I am going to continue to think that your way of thinking on this matter is totally wrong and extremely destructive to our freedoms. The actions of the government (not just this administration but many many before it too) have been stealing from our kids futures and freedoms to address our current desires. If you can look into your kids eyes and be ok with the idea that many of their freedoms are not likely to exist when they become our age, than that is your decision.

 

[Maister]

Maybe your right. It is too hard for people to move from one side of a political line to another. Granted I moved to a City 18 hours away about ten years ago where I knew no one with only 5 days notice, then I moved 9 hours away from there a year after that (I had 14 days notice for that one...) Frankly, it was not much harder than moving to a house in the next community over.

Using this same line of logic why couldn't it apply to you - "Mskis if you don't like how the Federal govt operates, then move to another country. After all it's just a line on a map. I hear Somalia has little in the way of centralized authority and its citizens enjoy more or less complete freedom from governmental regulation/control."

It's one thing for a single 20 something guy to pack up and move to far-flung places, but it's quite another for folks who depend on or provide support networks for their children or aging parents. People put down roots for a reason.

WYP is absolutely correct. We already tried the strong state govt thing (the Articles of Confederation). It failed dismally. Historically this nation has prospered more where the federal govt has played a prominent role.

 

[Veloise]

Recessive genetics

Bizarre story up here in Mass.: US Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) claiming to be a Native American for many years, and was classified as a minority professor at Harvard Law School. The schools first "woman of color" in fact (albeit a blond-haired and blue-eyed one- go figure). Nary a shred of evidence has turned up she has any Native American (Cherokee) heritage whatsoever.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20220517harvards_woman_of_color/

FWIW, my family heritage includes AmerInd, in about the same teensy percentage. My mama was the only blue-eyed child of her four sibs, and most of my cousins have brown eyes. The two sisters who married Lithuanians got blue-eyed kids.

Family skeletons can be odd. I'm told that I am eligible to join the Daughters of the Confederacy and that my great-great (??) grandparents owned slaves.

 

[btrage]

I find it funny when people talk about consumerism... they talk about how global warming is destroying the planet. Then they hop in a private gulf stream jet and head to a house that uses 20 times more power than my house. People talk on their I-phones made by some 12 year old kid who speaks some Asian language who works a 15 hour day and gets paid only part of what some hippy would pay for a cup of coffee made from beans that are grown on the opposite of the planet and shipped in oil consuming boats, trucks, and planes just so they can have their double jungle java roast. They also complain about big corporations and corporate greed when the politicians, including the current president, gives in to pressure from lobbyists.

I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.

 

[hilldweller]

FWIW, my family heritage includes AmerInd, in about the same teensy percentage. My mama was the only blue-eyed child of her four sibs, and most of my cousins have brown eyes. The two sisters who married Lithuanians got blue-eyed kids.

Family skeletons can be odd. I'm told that I am eligible to join the Daughters of the Confederacy and that my great-great (??) grandparents owned slaves.

I bet you would never claim to be a "minority" though, or use it for professional advantage like Warren has done in her academic career. That is what I find really troubling.

I didn't know there was a Daughters of the Confederacy..

 

[Richmond Jake]

Confession time

I recently changed my political affiliation to Republican so that I can vote for my candidate-of-choice in the primary election. Because my dad was a New Deal Democrat, I can guarantee you this ashes are heaving the soil in which he was laid to final rest.

Dad, I promise, I'll rejoin the Democrats after the primary.

 

[michaelskis]

Using this same line of logic why couldn't it apply to you - "Mskis if you don't like how the Federal govt operates, then move to another country. After all it's just a line on a map. I hear Somalia has little in the way of centralized authority and its citizens enjoy more or less complete freedom from governmental regulation/control."

It's one thing for a single 20 something guy to pack up and move to far-flung places, but it's quite another for folks who depend on or provide support networks for their children or aging parents. People put down roots for a reason.

WYP is absolutely correct. We already tried the strong state govt thing (the Articles of Confederation). It failed dismally. Historically this nation has prospered more where the federal govt has played a prominent role.

Moving out of the country, while an option, is not something I am going to do. Instead I have started working with some of the state reps in my area and an international (US and Canada) group to slowly move away from increased regulation to increased freedoms as set forth in the Constitution.

You are 100% correct that the articles of confederation did not work all that great. That is why they were replaced with the Constitution which limited federal powers, established a system of checks and balances and maintained States rights and personal freedoms. However, there have been a handful of amendments that were put into place, two in1913, that need to be repealed as they changed the intention of the document.

As for the moving from one state to the next, you’re correct, it might not be ‘convenient’ but a family would need to ask themselves if it is worth it. It is like eating at McDonalds, yes the food there is extremely unhealthy and you are putting chemicals into the bodies of your children that you would not want in your pets, but it is more convenient than going to the local farmers market and getting a free range chicken or a few ponds of grass fed beef. We as a society have gotten so wrapped up in the idea of ‘oh, if it is hard it is not worth it,’ which in my eyes, tragic. We live in a microwave society and sacrifice quality at the risk of inconvenience.

Roger Bannister did need to work harder, mentally and physically, to do what had never been done before. But through unimaginable hard work, he did what scientists and doctors said was impossible and people had spent over a thousand years trying to achieve. On a cold windy morning on May 6, 1954 he did the inconvenient thing and ran a mile in less than 4 minutes. He could have stayed at home as it would have been 'too hard' to get out there. The weather conditions were not right, the track was wet, but he did it because he wanted it. And now, here we are, more than 50 years later, talking about some British runner.

History is full of names and faces of people who did inconvenient things to get unimaginable results. Abraham Clark who signed the Declaration of Independence had to sons captured and held in a prison ship until Clark pulled his signature. But he never did. He was willing to give everything he owned and even his own life to get his sons back, but he could not give his honor away. He would not even talk about the brutal torture of his sons in fear that it would discourage others of signing the Constitution. Later we find out that this was more common than not. Several of the founding fathers had similar situations happen.

Let me be very clear on something. I don’t want each state to be its own country, but I do want the United States restored to what the founding fathers gave so much to create. That is a unified republic with a strong state system as outlined in the Constitution.