Donald Trump

[pkk]

Someone said he's good at deals, but apparently he isn't that good.

[badpazzword]

Googling "first hundred days of obama" is easy, but on Trump it's not. Trump: not even once.

[Globemaster_III]

Badp, it is not a 100 days yet for trump.

[Papsmear]

QUOTE (phoenix1 @ Feb 23 2017, 03:55 PM) Jesus christ, apparently trans rights are state-level issues (you know, with people being murdered and stuff) while pot is a federal-level issue (you know, with people enjoying themselves and stuff).

$#@! this republican party man, if they had a shred of consistency across their beliefs I might have a shred of respect for them.

I'm just guessing that because illicit drugs might travel across state lines this would make it a federal level issue?
No idea why Trans rights would need to be a federal issue?
You don't think each state can look after their own populace?
Do they have to be told by the federal government what rights trans gender people must have?

[Raveen]

Aren't the first ten amendments to your Constitution entirely about the rights of citizens being set at a Federal level?

[Papsmear]

Not my Constitution, I live in Canada.

[cashto]

QUOTE (Raveen @ Feb 25 2017, 08:24 AM) Aren't the first ten amendments to your Constitution entirely about the rights of citizens being set at a Federal level?

Not really.

The Bill of Rights was drafted in order to allay concerns of anti-Federalists who were opposed to ratification of the Constitution for fear that the newly-formed Federal government might someday overstep its boundaries and interfere in matters reserved for the States at the time. E.g., the 1st Amendment says that Congress could not establish a national religion, but it didn't stop individual states from having their own state churches, which many of them had when entering the union.

It wasn't until long after the Civil War and the 14th amendment was ratified that an argument could be made that the Constitution recognized individual rights that states were obligated to respect.

Anyways the Constitution has precious little to say on the concept of gender-neutral bathrooms. I'm sure a legal argument could be made that these bans are infringing some Constitutionally-protected liberty, or right to equal protection, but far as I know no court has even begun to take up such a case.

In general the Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from discrimination -- only government discrimination by law, but private discrimination is legal unless there is some law passed against it (like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- but even then, the Federal government could only prevent discrimination so far as it impacted interstate commerce).

The president fundamentally can't tell the states what to do. That's not how it works. He only has a few limited powers, absent Congressional action (and don't hold your breath on that one, either). Federalism is complex, yo.

Obama did what he could: he issued an order preventing the federal government from working with contractors that discriminated against LGBT persons, and his Department of Education circulated an advisory letter indicating that the administration would interpret Title IX, which prevents federal money going to schools that discriminate on the basis of sex, to also cover discrimination on the basis of sexual identity as well. (Those are the same executive actions Trump overturned last week).

On the subject of murder, murder is usually prosecuted under state jurisdiction, unless there is some element that makes it a federal crime (state lines being crossed, interstate commerce being affected, the victim being a federal officer, etc).

On the subject of marijuana, that goes back to everybody's favorite case, Wickard v. Filburn (1942), which essentially ruled there is no such thing as intrastate commerce, because intrastate commerce indirectly affects interstate commerce, so the Federal government gets to regulate intrastate commerce too. And that was specifically upheld in the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where five liberal justices and Scalia (!) affirmed that the same argument worked in the case of medical marijuana as well.

tl;dr: the US's wonderfully schizophrenic system of government frequently gives us hope that one group of idiots in government will save us from another group of idiots in government. But it doesn't always work very well. We haven't quite figured out how to stop electing idiots into government in the first place, either.

[zombywoof]

QUOTE (Papsmear @ Feb 25 2017, 07:00 AM) I'm just guessing that because illicit drugs might travel across state lines this would make it a federal level issue?

No, it's a federal issue because of the supremacy clause. It's just weird to note that *most* people, including some 70% of Americans, tend to think that if a state chooses to legalize marijuana the federal government should shrug.

QUOTE No idea why Trans rights would need to be a federal issue?
You don't think each state can look after their own populace?[/quote]
I do not think each state can be trusted to look after its own populace, and if you knew the history of the US, neither would you. We had to have an amendment banning *poll taxes* for $#@!'s sake.

QUOTE Do they have to be told by the federal government what rights trans gender people must have?[/quote]
In short? Yes.

[zombywoof]

Also, paps, I think you missed the point: The point is that the Republicans are always ready to use the power of government to enforce their morality and yet cry about how the government is too big, and when someone actually needs a little help from the government the Republicans are the first to turn their back.

If the Republicans had been in power during the 1960s you can bet your ass black people would still be drinking from different water fountains.

[Papsmear]

You are correct.
You were trying to make a point but didn't come right out and say it.
So yes. it went right over my head.

Your opinion about black people still drinking out of separate fountains is of course your opinion.
I don't think it would have mattered which government was in power, eventually equal rights would have prevailed in the US.
It might just have taken longer with a Republican government.
Since this wasn't the case in the 1960s, we are only speculating on what might have been.