So y'all ready to never see a regional at the Dude again?

[BrunswickDawg]

This is incorrect. It took a while for the constitutional structure to be flipped from where powers were presumed to be held by the states unless specifically provided otherwise to one where powers were presumed to be held by the federal government unless specifically proscribed. While there was disagreement between the founders as to just how much power the national government should have, the ones that favored a limited federal government won, at least nominally. While the supreme court has more or less interpreted it out of the constitution, we still nominally have a federal government of limited, enumerated powers with every authority not specifically delegated to the federal government held by the states or people.

We still had a real distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce until the great depression. Until the series of obamacare cases, it was still a live question as to whether there were meaningful limits on the federal government's powers under the commerce clause besides those specifically proscribed in the bill of rights.

Your statements back up what I am saying. You are saying that outside forces (Supreme Court interpretation, new laws, Obamacare) are the cause of us shifting to a more centralized government. I'm saying that from the beginning, the Constitution was written in a way that while starting with limited, enumerated powers, the door was left specifically and intentionally open to give more powers to the central government - at the choosing of the majority. That power of choice still rests with the people - albeit the choices we make regularly push us further toward a more powerful central government. The flip side of it is that the power of the majority still has the right and authority to remove those powers that have been ceded to the central government (theoretically). As a people, we seem to elect people who crave and believe in the power of governing as they see fit, not as a voice of those they represent. And that is not an exclusive held by either party.

[Johnson85]

Your statements back up what I am saying. You are saying that outside forces (Supreme Court interpretation, new laws, Obamacare) are the cause of us shifting to a more centralized government. I'm saying that from the beginning, the Constitution was written in a way that while starting with limited, enumerated powers, the door was left specifically and intentionally open to give more powers to the central government - at the choosing of the majority.

That is the opposite of the saying the federal government "only cedes power to states as decided by the Federal Government". The Federal government was only given certain, enumerated powers, and then there were ten amendments immediately saying, "these are specific things we are worried about that the federal government, but make no mistake, we are just listing these out b/c we know these are things corrupt governments like to do, it's not that we are acknowleding that the federal government's power is unlimited except when we say otherwise."

There were people worried about judicial supremacy, and there were people worried about imperial presidencies, but I don't think any of them properly predicted that the legislature would just cede a lot of its power to the executive b/c it was politically easier to rail against the executive than to go on record with votes, and I don't t hink they predicted that the executive woudl just voluntarily cede its authority to the judicial branch, where we have this inverted structure where instead of the legislature being 1st among equals, it's the judiciary that's 1st among equals (or maybe just supreme), and then the exeuctive and then the legislature.

That power of choice still rests with the people - albeit the choices we make regularly push us further toward a more powerful central government. The flip side of it is that the power of the majority still has the right and authority to remove those powers that have been ceded to the central government (theoretically). As a people, we seem to elect people who crave and believe in the power of governing as they see fit, not as a voice of those they represent. And that is not an exclusive held by either party.

Maybe theoretically. It's not clear exactly how they can do that short of the threat of tarring and feathering elected representatives and judges.

[SheltonChoked]

I agree about the flag, they made no bones about it. The statues are more complicated. You see very similar ones in the north. Those were to honor the soldiers who fought. Those in the South were too. Everybody seems to want to equate statues with history. They aren't the same thing. History shows that monuments and memorials always exist at the current generation's pleasure. You can erase statues, the history will still exist.

I agree. You really have to see what, why, and when the statues were placed.

Some are easy to know what to do with. Some are harder.

Some need to come down ( like the one that was in new Orleans that was put up to remind everyone of white supremacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle...Place_Monument), some need to be moved, some should remain.

[Political Hack]

I am of the opinion that if you want to keep the current flag it's probably because you're racist. That's harsh. I get it, but there's no legitimate reason to keep it. See Liverpool's post above. It was meant as a form of intimidation. It's reprehensible that it's still up in 2020.

[KOdawg1]

I am of the opinion that if you want to keep the current flag it's probably because you're racist. That's harsh. I get it, but there's no legitimate reason to keep it. See Liverpool's post above. It was meant as a form of intimidation. It's reprehensible that it's still up in 2020.

Not harsh at all. There is literally no valid reason to keep it. Anyone pushing back on it is either openly racist or a closet racist. Not sure which one is worse

[DownwardDawg]

Not harsh at all. There is literally no valid reason to keep it. Anyone pushing back on it is either openly racist or a closet racist. Not sure which one is worse

So what if you’re black and you don’t support changing the flag? Asking for a friend.

[KOdawg1]

So what if you’re black and you don’t support changing the flag? Asking for a friend.

For every black person that doesn't want to change the flag, I can find you 100 who do.

[DownwardDawg]

For every black person that doesn't want to change the flag, I can find you 100 who do.

Oh no doubt. That wasn’t my point. But one of my closest friends is black. He’s married to a black woman. They have kids. He’s well educated and makes a lot of money. He’s blown away about all of this and could care less about the State flag. I just thought I would ask if he’s a racist. I need to know if he can’t be trusted. It’s all so confusing these days. Hard to keep up.

[KOdawg1]

Oh no doubt. That wasn?t my point. But one of my closest friends is black. He?s married to a black woman. They have kids. He?s well educated and makes a lot of money. He?s blown away about all of this and could care less about the State flag. I just thought I would ask if he?s a racist. I need to know if he can?t be trusted. It?s all so confusing these days. Hard to keep up.

I didn't say people who don't care were racist. I said people who pushed back on it are. Is he actively advocating for us to keep the flag? I didn't think so.

[SheltonChoked]

Oh no doubt. That wasn?t my point. But one of my closest friends is black. He?s married to a black woman. They have kids. He?s well educated and makes a lot of money. He?s blown away about all of this and could care less about the State flag. I just thought I would ask if he?s a racist. I need to know if he can?t be trusted. It?s all so confusing these days. Hard to keep up.

Read to him what the guys that chose the flag said about him. It was not covered in my Mississippi history class. I bet he doesn't know.

That should help.

[DownwardDawg]

I didn't say people who don't care were racist. I said people who pushed back on it are. Is he actively advocating for us to keep the flag? I didn't think so.

No, he doesn’t advocate to keep the flag either. He works for a living, takes care of his family, and enjoys life. He’s a great guy and doesn’t let people make him think he’s inferior. He’s way too smart for that.

[sandwolf]

I am of the opinion that if you want to keep the current flag it's probably because you're racist. That's harsh. I get it, but there's no legitimate reason to keep it. See Liverpool's post above. It was meant as a form of intimidation. It's reprehensible that it's still up in 2020.

I'm sure that some of it is just good old fashioned racism, but I think the majority of people that want to keep it are just too self absorbed and stubborn to get past the idea of outsiders calling the shots in their state. They would rather damage the state on their own terms than move it forward on someone else's. Basically, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

[KOdawg1]

I'm sure that some of it is just good old fashioned racism, but I think the majority of people that want to keep it are just too self absorbed and stubborn to get past the idea of outsiders calling the shots in their state. They would rather damage the state on their own terms than move it forward on someone else's. Basically, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

So they don't like being told what to do?

Kinda like a .... rebel?

[Political Hack]

I'm sure that some of it is just good old fashioned racism, but I think the majority of people that want to keep it are just too self absorbed and stubborn to get past the idea of outsiders calling the shots in their state. They would rather damage the state on their own terms than move it forward on someone else's. Basically, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I can see that too. It's like when you hear someone call the union army the army of "northern aggressors" or say the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. It's completely disingenuous and makes no sense from a justice, business, or social standpoint. It's bad for the state. Period. Change it. Even if it's not racist, change it because it makes the state look bad. I can't understand why people are resistant. There's literally no valid justification for keeping it.