From the bit I heard on the radio, it sounded to me as though the focus was on states rights and is it permissible for a state to act unilaterally in a federal election. In this case I think I'd support the federal government Oven states rights. Out of ignorance I don't know the proper procedure to prosecute a federal officer for seditio…
From the bit I heard on the radio, it sounded to me as though the focus was on states rights and is it permissible for a state to act unilaterally in a federal election. In this case I think I'd support the federal government Oven states rights. Out of ignorance I don't know the proper procedure to prosecute a federal officer for sedition to prevent them running as a candidate for becoming president. It just strikes me as a federal issue as opposed to the responsibility of one or more of the states.
The theocratic six that decide issues before the court, are all for states rights when it comes to cultural issues, gun control and voting., and for federal control when it advances their ideological (theocratic) agenda.
I have a different view on your comment. I interpret what you wrote as somewhat like comparing oranges and apples. What I mean is that I see choosing who represents the USofA as a nation at the federal level seeming to me to be^ very different than states having the right to decide how they want to organize and govern themselves as citizens residing in any particular state (how they want to nurture each other's wellbeing as state residents; their culture (the extent they want to allow their residents to kill each other (gun control); the extent they want to allow their male residents to control their female residents such as female bodies (abortion issues); the extent to which they want to allow, their residents to be fully informed and educated with the most honest information (censorship issues); the extent to which they want to share risks to health (universal health care), etc. In my opinion, the later are for the most part state issues, except where they violate the US Constitution as agreed by citizens of all the states as US citizens.
From the bit I heard on the radio, it sounded to me as though the focus was on states rights and is it permissible for a state to act unilaterally in a federal election. In this case I think I'd support the federal government Oven states rights. Out of ignorance I don't know the proper procedure to prosecute a federal officer for sedition to prevent them running as a candidate for becoming president. It just strikes me as a federal issue as opposed to the responsibility of one or more of the states.
The theocratic six that decide issues before the court, are all for states rights when it comes to cultural issues, gun control and voting., and for federal control when it advances their ideological (theocratic) agenda.
I have a different view on your comment. I interpret what you wrote as somewhat like comparing oranges and apples. What I mean is that I see choosing who represents the USofA as a nation at the federal level seeming to me to be^ very different than states having the right to decide how they want to organize and govern themselves as citizens residing in any particular state (how they want to nurture each other's wellbeing as state residents; their culture (the extent they want to allow their residents to kill each other (gun control); the extent they want to allow their male residents to control their female residents such as female bodies (abortion issues); the extent to which they want to allow, their residents to be fully informed and educated with the most honest information (censorship issues); the extent to which they want to share risks to health (universal health care), etc. In my opinion, the later are for the most part state issues, except where they violate the US Constitution as agreed by citizens of all the states as US citizens.
States' rights in federal elections unless hanging chads are involved. They are playing fast and loose with whatever suits their agenda.