Comments on: conceding the point http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/ exciting, informative, snarky, and very likely fabricated tales of life as an american expat in london Tue, 27 Sep 2011 09:06:21 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jen http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1231 Jen Sun, 27 May 2007 12:26:45 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1231 <i>Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws</i> i don't want all laws made at the federal level - i do want civil rights protected (not denigrated) at that level. i mean, the right to vote, the right to own a gun (whether i agree with it or not) and the right to marry - these are things where there should be a modicum of uniformity because all the variations end up creating different classes of citizenship, depending on where you live. stacey was right in pointing out that the speed of wide-scale change works both for and against. Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws

i don’t want all laws made at the federal level – i do want civil rights protected (not denigrated) at that level. i mean, the right to vote, the right to own a gun (whether i agree with it or not) and the right to marry – these are things where there should be a modicum of uniformity because all the variations end up creating different classes of citizenship, depending on where you live.

stacey was right in pointing out that the speed of wide-scale change works both for and against.

]]> By: Anglofille http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1228 Anglofille Sat, 26 May 2007 22:39:27 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1228 I often get frustrated by these differences in state to state law, especially where individual rights are concerned. I think it's ridiculous. But to play devil's advocate for a moment, Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws that drive conservatives crazy. The biggest insult aimed at John Kerry during his presidential campaign was that he was from Massachusetts (code word for "evil" to conservatives). I often get frustrated by these differences in state to state law, especially where individual rights are concerned. I think it’s ridiculous.

But to play devil’s advocate for a moment, Bush & Co. have been running the country for 7 years or so. If all the laws were made at the federal level, then places like Massachusetts would lose the right to have more liberal laws that drive conservatives crazy. The biggest insult aimed at John Kerry during his presidential campaign was that he was from Massachusetts (code word for “evil” to conservatives).

]]> By: Jen http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1226 Jen Sat, 26 May 2007 00:29:34 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1226 I just thank god it's not a constitutional amendment! I just thank god it’s not a constitutional amendment!

]]> By: Stacey http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1225 Stacey Sat, 26 May 2007 00:20:13 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1225 the "constitution" and related jurisprudence, sorry! the “constitution” and related jurisprudence, sorry!

]]> By: Stacey http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1224 Stacey Sat, 26 May 2007 00:19:33 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1224 Well, as usual, you make an excellent point about things like the defense of marriage act. I think of the constitutional and related jurisprudence as the real threshold, I guess. Bad federal laws eventually get straightened up to that standard. But, yeah, it does take a really, really long time. :mad: Well, as usual, you make an excellent point about things like the defense of marriage act. I think of the constitutional and related jurisprudence as the real threshold, I guess. Bad federal laws eventually get straightened up to that standard. But, yeah, it does take a really, really long time. mad

]]> By: Jen http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1223 Jen Fri, 25 May 2007 16:38:15 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1223 Oh wise legal eagle! :lol: <i>it’s easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren’t able to go below that level</i> unfortunately i find the minimum federal threshold unacceptable (i.e. the "defense of marriage act") because in that case it actively *suppresses* anything states try to enact above that threshold in providing more rights, when it refuses to recognise those rights. and i'm sure at some point it'll end up back in the supreme court due to state challenges, etc. but in the meantime, the inconsistencies really are just incomprehensible to me. but that's a good way to explain it to j. ;) Oh wise legal eagle! lol

it’s easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren’t able to go below that level

unfortunately i find the minimum federal threshold unacceptable (i.e. the “defense of marriage act”) because in that case it actively *suppresses* anything states try to enact above that threshold in providing more rights, when it refuses to recognise those rights. and i’m sure at some point it’ll end up back in the supreme court due to state challenges, etc. but in the meantime, the inconsistencies really are just incomprehensible to me.

but that’s a good way to explain it to j. )

]]> By: Stacey http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1222 Stacey Fri, 25 May 2007 15:17:16 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1222 on the civil rights front, it's easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren't able to go below that level. increased state civil rights are like a social laboratory, and often migrate to the federal level, thereby raising the overall threshold. it's all a process. it can be frustrating that things don't move as quickly as one would like, but that also means that things don't move as quickly in directions one doesn't like. on the civil rights front, it’s easier to view it as the federal level setting a threshold and the states being free to locally vary *above* that threshold (provide more rights), but they aren’t able to go below that level. increased state civil rights are like a social laboratory, and often migrate to the federal level, thereby raising the overall threshold. it’s all a process. it can be frustrating that things don’t move as quickly as one would like, but that also means that things don’t move as quickly in directions one doesn’t like.

]]> By: Jen http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1220 Jen Thu, 24 May 2007 19:38:02 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1220 <i> people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people.</i> see, i'm not so convinced. i mean here in the uk, while there are some regional variances by country, fundamental civil rights laws are uniform across britain. that's 60 million people. human rights laws are uniform across the eu. i do think that marriage is a civil right which should be protected for all at the federal level. i think the right to vote falls into that same category. (thanks for the lovely compliment btw!) :) people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people.

see, i’m not so convinced. i mean here in the uk, while there are some regional variances by country, fundamental civil rights laws are uniform across britain. that’s 60 million people. human rights laws are uniform across the eu.

i do think that marriage is a civil right which should be protected for all at the federal level. i think the right to vote falls into that same category.

(thanks for the lovely compliment btw!) )

]]> By: aj http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/comment-page-1/#comment-1219 aj Thu, 24 May 2007 18:56:51 +0000 http://www.jensdenofiniquity.com/2007/05/24/conceding-the-point/#comment-1219 i'm a fan of your site. usually i always agree with you and think you are very insightful. but i disagree about your opinion on fed, state and local laws. people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people. the great thing about this system is that good ideas spread - abolitionism or women's suffrage or civil rights or today's smoking and environmental laws. hopefully gay marriage will spread state by state as people see that it doesn't undermine the institution of marriage. i’m a fan of your site. usually i always agree with you and think you are very insightful. but i disagree about your opinion on fed, state and local laws. people need to govern themselves locally to some degree. and these laws will undoubtedly differ at times. no one set of individuals could ever successfully make decisions for all 300million people.

the great thing about this system is that good ideas spread – abolitionism or women’s suffrage or civil rights or today’s smoking and environmental laws. hopefully gay marriage will spread state by state as people see that it doesn’t undermine the institution of marriage.

]]>