Originally Posted by Meridious

and I doubt that would happen when the main idea of it would be to strip away State's rights.

Originally Posted by Luap

I bet it will happen unless people and their state legislators become more aware. Centralized federal power seems to continuously grow in a sort of "quiet revolution," as I've seen it called in the previous link I provided. It seems the norm now, to the point that a lot of people see a powerful federal government as the way the US should be governed. Example; Americans on this board support the idea that all criminal laws should be federal, which is a complete breach of our constitution.

Originally Posted by mpd8488

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.

Originally Posted by Non Sequitur

yea but the poll shows that a majority of people are against the idea.

Originally Posted by Meridious

Bet all you like...nothing of the sort will ever happen. The day that the federal government decides to toss out the constitution and prepare a new one that takes away individual state rights is the day we lose the majority, if not all, states to independence.

It is a nutso, speculative, wild dream that the premise that holds our states together as one nation will be tossed out the window in favor of creating one state.

Never, ever happen.

It is in fact.....ridiculous to even act as if it is a credible possibility.

/shrug

Originally Posted by mpd8488

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.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It's not so much the moral values that people were voting for but rather against the squalor that goes along with the gambling. We didn't want the pawn shops, the cheap motels and all the other seedy stuff that you see in cities that allow gambling. But even if it had been strictly about morals, the vote passed, which means a majority of the people was against it. Do you think that majority shouldn't count?

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I agree and our systems does that too, but they do it within the limits of reason which is where I see a huge problem with your system. It is simply too loose and emotional (the opposite of uptight) and the outcome of that seems to be random and irrational punishments in many cases.

Originally Posted by Meridious

Take away the ability for a state to have its own laws and rights (Keeping in mind that they must not supercede the US constitution) and we are no longer a "United State(s)." We are merely one large state.

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

One large superstate with 50 provinces that have their own civil laws. Apparently a nightmare for most Americans.
Meaning that the constitution is stuck in itself.

Originally Posted by Meridious

It is amusing, though, to see non-citizens trying to school US citizens on what it is WE really want for our country.

Originally Posted by DGG

What is so wrong with imposing moral values upon others, when it comes to gambling. It is hardly an important question. You began by talking about criminal law. All criminal law is imposing moral values of the majority on everyone.

Even the laws against murder is imposing moral values on everyone. In old Scandinavia, you could murder people without being punished for it in some cases. For instance, in a preserved Code of Penal Law from Vastergotland (i am unsure of the English name of this province, but as a Dane, you must know what I mean) in Sweden, it was a harder punishment for murdering people from this province than from neighbouring provinces. People from farther away, such as Denmark, could be murdered without this being illegal. Do you think that a man from this province in Sweden is surpressed by the morals of others because it is these days illegal for him to murder a Dane, punishable by life imprisonment?

Personally, I am in favour of legalising gambling, but I cannot see why it has to be legal everywhere.

Originally Posted by Meridious

Never going to happen. In fact, it is not even a concern for citizens nor legislators. Only someplace like this would it be purported as some sort of realistic possibility.

It isn't.

It is amusing, though, to see non-citizens trying to school US citizens on what it is WE really want for our country.

/chuckle

Your opinions are just opinions...there is no basis in fact whatsoever to support the notion that even the smallest minority of people or legislators wish to do away with states' rights and turn the USA into a one-state nation.

It is fun to watch the discussion as wild speculation with no basis in fact...but when you start arguing it as if it stands some hope of coming about??? Well, that has gone from being amusing to being ludicrous.