The U.S. Goverment

[ArvinJA]

And those who think that it is a god-given right for states to become theocratic mini-countries.

That is not his stance philosophically, that is his interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, and it's a correct one.
Many states have their own constitutions that would prohibit that though.
He's a politician on the federal level and has made the observation that centralization of power is bad for liberty, so he's using the constitution (which severely restricts federal power) to give more power to the states.
Once the states have more power they could legalize marijuana and many other things.

[Potjeh]

The way I see it he seems to think that the Constitution applies only to the federal government and thus state governments can wipe their asses with it and legislate whatever they please.

The ultimate goal, of course, is a complete Balkanization of USA. And I guess return to good ol' days when negroes picked cotton and managers could grope their female employees.

[ArvinJA]

The way I see it he seems to think that the Constitution applies only to the federal government and thus state governments can wipe their asses with it and legislate whatever they please.

The ultimate goal, of course, is a complete Balkanization of USA. And I guess return to good ol' days when negroes picked cotton and managers could grope their female employees.

Lolololoolool, I guess it's cooler to just ignore the tenth amendment and get things such as SOPA, NDAA, The War on Drugs and other infringements to our lives and liberty. Also, slavery is expressly prohibited by the constitution so the states would never gain the right to re-institute that, and I don't think that would ever be possible, and frankly I don't see why you bring up such irrelevant things.

[Potjeh]

As a resident of the Balkans, I can tell you that all that BS *is* in fact better than Balkanization. You should try living here for a couple of years if you don't believe me.

Also, presidency is not the problem here, it's the Supreme Court not doing it's job. And Ron Paul seeks to neuter it even further.

[ArvinJA]

As a resident of the Balkans, I can tell you that all that BS *is* in fact better than Balkanization. You should try living here for a couple of years if you don't believe me.

It's an apples and oranges comparison though, in the US decentralization is a matter of rule of law, there are no real factions that would declare war on another faction in the USA.
I wouldn't like it if the EU took over all legislative power in Sweden, it's essentially what the American federal government has done. The USA was founded because they didn't want a king, now they're at a point where they have a global power tending towards more and more centralization with more and more power being given to the executive branch. Any sane person would admit that this is a huge problem.

[Potjeh]

I can totally see state governors like Rick Perry declaring war on other states.

Also, who give a fuck about what the Founding Fathers intended? Were they some kind of omniscient entities who's timeless wisdom works for all societies no matter how they change? I really don't understand this hard-on for ruleslawyering, any sane person puts pragmatism before technical correctness. All that matter at the end of the day is the results. And yes, the results aren't very good. But that's all to blame on voters who mainly vote for personas rather than policies. This problem would still be there even after complete decentralization, and would probably be even worse since the crazy cancels out more on federal scale.

Also, "any sane person agrees with me"? And you have the guts to accuse others of smearing?

[ArvinJA]

Also, presidency is not the problem here, it's the Supreme Court not doing it's job. And Ron Paul seeks to neuter it even further.

You have a flawed understanding of the U.S. political system then and how the system of "checks and balances" should work.
First of all, the Supreme Court is intended to overturn unconstitutional legislation and have been slacking off (you're correct here) mainly because of a flawed interpretation of the interstate commerce clause. However, the Supreme Court is not the only check against unconstitutional legislation, indeed, the president has the power to veto bills he deems unconstitutional, that's why he has the power of a veto to begin with. It doesn't stop at the president though, the states could also choose to deem federal laws unconstitutional through the process of state nullification. Even courts may nullify legislation in individual cases by simply choosing to neglect to convict someone.

[Potjeh]

The president can't veto shit because Tea Partiers are holding the proverbial gun to the head of the entire world. He has to give them what they want or else they make USA default on it's debts and the whole global economy implodes.

[ArvinJA]

I can totally see state governors like Rick Perry declaring war on other states.

Also, who give a fuck about what the Founding Fathers intended? Were they some kind of omniscient entities who's timeless wisdom works for all societies no matter how they change? I really don't understand this hard-on for ruleslawyering, any sane person puts pragmatism before technical correctness. All that matter at the end of the day is the results. And yes, the results aren't very good. But that's all to blame on voters who mainly vote for personas rather than policies. This problem would still be there even after complete decentralization, and would probably be even worse since the crazy cancels out more on federal scale.

Also, "any sane person agrees with me"? And you have the guts to accuse others of smearing?

Seriously, that too much power has been usurped by the federal government and especially the executive branch is a considered a fact among almost anyone who is the least bit interested in american politics. Leftists don't appreciate the president declaring wars and strikes without the approval of congress (and having the federal government step in through the DEA when they try to legalize marijuana), and right-wingers don't want the federal government to shove health care solutions down their throats, it's not a controversial statement by any stretch, don't pretend that it is.

As for the founders, no they were not omniscient, they simply created a document based on the western tradition of what a lawful government is supposed to be. As for being "pragmatic" instead of technical, that is the rule to hell.
Any tyrant could claim to be "pragmatic" and ignore the rule of law, but for people to be safe the law can't change too much and too arbitrarily. It's not so much about the founders being omniscient as them incorporated well-tested principles for proper government into a governing document.

And yes, I don't like democracy either, thankfully the U.S. is a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, it has only been portrayed as a democracy post-Lincoln.

The president can't veto shit because Tea Partiers are holding the proverbial gun to the head of the entire world. He has to give them what they want or else they make USA default on it's debts and the whole global economy implodes.

You do realize that the alternative to a default would basically be either hyperinflation or significant cuts to the government? I don't see how it's relevant though, I was telling you about how the U.S. political system works.

[Potjeh]

And again, the Supreme Court was supposed to stop it. They had every tool to do it, but they didn't.

The problem is not the laws, it's the corruption. All the legislation in the world doesn't help one bit if the people implementing it are corrupt. It's a problem you can fight only with a pragmatic outlook, not a technical one. But I can't say I'm surprised that someone from Sweden doesn't *get* corruption, because it's virtually non-existent in your country. I've heard tons of stories from our emigrants about exploiting loopholes in your system like crazy, and the Swedes just scratching their heads in bewilderment because they didn't do anything wrong by the book.