But not entirely inaccurate...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Well I don't see how it could be inaccurate since it didn't actually state anything except possibly that Denmark is a "piss-ant country" and that the US is "the greatest naiton on Earth", both of which mean almost nothing without context and, regardless, are entirely matters of opinion.

I'm thrilled that hairball approves of the US and its illustrious Constitution (I'm rather fond of them myself) but I'm annoyed at continually seeing my countrymen needlessly insult other nations and go on about how "great" we Americans are. Such pointless braggadocio only makes enemies and causes people to view Americans as stuck-up, ignorant bores.

Anyway, after reading that post I felt the need to point out that not all Americans feel the need to respond to suggestions (or even criticism) by insulting the asker's homeland and acting like being American somehow makes us "above" such people and their remarks.

Yes, the will of the people to suppress the rest with their moral values.

The gamblers in your area are lucky, others have to drive for several hours.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I was referring to this statement. Read the bold text and it puts it in an better, and certainly accurate, context:

Seriously, who is someone from some piss-ant country like Denmark to tell the greatest nation on Earth that we are the ones who need to change our constitution?

I certainly don't want someone from Denmark (or anywhere else, for that matter) suggesting that we should change our Constitution...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Agreeed, everyone (ANYONE) has a right to an opinion. Not just irrational people like him.

Well, I think the bolded version you provided is certainly much more civil. I wouldn't really have had a problem with that.

However, I don't think Wallaroo was intending to somehow dictate national policy to Americans; that would be silly.

I think he was just offering a suggestion, something I have no problem with. Suggestions, questions, comments and constructive criticism should always be welcome. As it happens, I think that most Americans are disinclined to embraced Wallaroo's suggestion (for a number of good reasons, IMO), which is also fine. If nothing else, it makes for intersting discussion. Or it would if people didn't get all arrogant and insulting.

And why not have the same courtroom procedures and punishments for all these crimes like other countries have?
Cold war paranoia.

They would have to control the whole country with their military in the first place.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Meanwhile back to the OP,

I think it might be better is we had all CRIMINAL Laws national, together with regulatory rules necessary to provide equal rights nation-wide. That would leave local laws which were viable only to the locale being regulated.

But aren't some things illegal in some states but legal in others? How would that be resolved?

Yes I am as a matter fact, I think its a stinking mess compared to what we have.

Your legal system gives random punishments for the same crimes and seems to be focusing more on who and what you are, instead of what you have done. Everyone who believes in justice and in treating people equally should despise that.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

How does it focus on "who and what you are"?

And why the hell not? Get over your false pride!

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Why is it not important to know who the person is? If you make it an automatic, impersonal process it is not treating people equally. If a person who is down on their luck steals from a grocery store and are caught do they deserve the same punishment as a person who steals from a store in order to pawn the merchandise for drug or alcohol money? Depending on the amount stolen those are either shoplifting or petit larceny, but those people do not deserve the same punishment for their crime. That is why it is important to understand a person's character in determining how they should be punished if found guilty.

I would like to know how we focus "more on who and what you are"?

Really this whole issue is about federalism. I ask this question: who says the federal governments universal punishment will be any better or fair than the state punishments? If you can't prove it would be better beyond a doubt than i say why change what works fine now. You don't see many Americans complaining about how the system works.

And last states have a degree of sovereignty. They have a right to hold a trial and punish a person within their boundaries. Why involve the federal government if the state can handle their own people just as well?

__________________
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
-John Calvin

You obviously do not understand our constitution then. It is a compact between sovereign states that establishes agents of the parties involved; it is NOT an agreement that delegates the power of states to national organizations.

As Jefferson says: “The true barriers of our liberty in this country are our state governments, and the wisest conservative power ever contrived by man is that of which our Revolution and present government found us possessed. Distinct states, amalgamated into one as to their foreign concerns, but single and independent as to their internal administration.”

That quote comes from this testimony of 1978, I recommend that you read this man’s words. He is a Constitutional attorney, apparently, and as far as I can tell, knows what he is talking about. [Regional Governance | T. David Horton Testimony on Regionalism].

Why? Because it would be a breach of the constitution, of course. The federal government is the agent of the state government, who is the principal. If a state wants to withdraw from the compact called the US Constitution in order to establish a centralized bureaucracy to manage the public sector—a Ministry of Plenty, if you will—then the state legislature has that power, just as a principal is free to dismiss its agent. Of course, we would most likely see a federal occupation of the territory.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne