Thread: Should the following topics be under state rights, and not Federal Law?

It seems to me that alot of topics that the government has no involvement in are showing up right on their doorstep wrapped up in a pretty bow, with a legislature attached to them saying "Please make this a law based on your opinion".Of course, many of you may think that I am just simply speaking about Gay Rights. I am, but it is not the only one.1. Gay Rights: Why would this even qualify as a need to be a federal law? I have many issues on this topic, mostly for the reason of "Separation of Church and State", but it should also be a matter for states to decide only. If a state bans Gay Marriage, they can just go to a different state to get married. 2. Alcohol laws: I am not just speaking of age limit for drinking, but more or less the most annoying law in the entire country (that was put up for federal law consideration), the "Before Noon" Alcohol purchase laws in several states. People rallied this under a federal law, but thankfully it was declined.3. Marijuana: This should be a completely state only law. California has tight restrictions on it, but I still believe this should be a matter left only for the states.4. Education: Unfortunately, this is the only law that I am actually in agreement on, but I am posting here for the fact that this was argued for so long as a state right only. And they do have valid points too, if a state is below standards, it will only affect college inductees. Not to mention the worlds view on how intelligent we are. If a state is below standard, people can just move to a different state.4. Random Topic, was highly controversial: Assisted Suicide: This is in my earnestness a completely state topic. If someone really wants to kill themselves, make them file a months worth of paperwork, travel across the country to a state that supports it, and allow them. By the time all the stuffs been filled out and everything, they may have changed their minds.So, how is your standing on State vs Federal on these above said topics/any else you can come up with?Watchful Occupier: I know, wouldnt it? I think this is a question EVERYONE should read.djinnsterr: Very interesting topic... But then again, that would have involved with the Unalienable rights, which would mean the 1960's would have been federally enforced anyway..But then again I go against my own topic... Nice counter-point.

Yes. It would certainly clear up a lot of the division amongst people during elections. Then the feds can concentrate on what is fundamentally good for the country's survival, and not worry about every social issue under the sun.

all of themif the USA survives this fiascowe need to take the federal government by the throat and redistribute power back to the states

I agree with most of your points. However, I do believe that gay rights should be enforced by the federal government and not left up to the states. Gays should have the same rights as all other Americans, and it shouldn't be up to the states to decide whether gay rights should be enforced or not. I understand why churches will refuse to allow gays to be married, but civil unions should be allowed in all 50 states. States can be very discriminatory in nature, think about it. If we had left minority rights up to the states do you think that states like Mississippi or Alabama would have extended equal rights and protection under the law for blacks during the 1960s? I highly doubt it. We are supposed to be a fair and equal society, how would it be fair to the gay community if they are treated unequally across the United States? It wouldn't be.

The authority of the federal government was LIMITED by the Constitution of the United States. The areas of authority are listed in Article I, Section 8 for the legislature, Article II, Section 2 for the President and Article III, Section 1 for the judicial branch. None of the things you mention are mentioned in the Constitution so they are ALL state's rights questions. If the citizens of a state do not want to recognize homosexual "unions" as "marriage", that is their right.