JWeinCom said:
No, I was not... maybe if you read the original post you'd know that? The post was about whether or not it is constitutional to force people to do certain things. I said it was, and provided a few examples. I never mentioned anything about the federal government or the state, nor did the original post I was replying to. So I really don't know why people outside the conversation started bringing that into it. And yes, the constitution does govern state rights. This is the supremacy clause of the constituition. Article VI section 2 I think. A state cannot limit your free speech, perform an illegal search and seizure, or make discriminatory laws. A state cannot put something in its state constitution that is not in compliance with the federal constitution. So, if a state can force people to take certain actions, then it is constitutional to force people to take certain actions. It's not a strawman argument, it's basic logic. If you think that it is unconstitutional for government to force you to wear clothes, wear a seatbelt, or drive a certain speed limit, then please go out naked and drive 140 miles per hour without a seatbelt. Plus, I gave examples where the goverment can at a federal level force you to do certain things (income tax, drafting) and gave a specific part of the constitution that allows for taxing for common welfare (article one section 8). So I have no idea why you're harping on one example you didn't like. |
You provided examples of state laws, not federal. please figure out the difference. The consitution only allows the feds control over certain things. Everything else is left up to the state governments. two seperate entities with different rules (51 different sets of rules, more if you count US territores)
If you read the constitioin those are both covered in the constition. But the other stuff you mentioned isnt. that is the difference.
