House Bill 2 - North Carolina

[Mistress]

I haven't read this entire thread. This is a big stink in Texas. But imo, its just insane there needs to be a Law about this sort of thing at all. People are doing what they want anyhow, we don't look up anyone's skirts. All a Law does is give someone who does something inapropriate a scapegoat to hide behind. In addition, if someone is prowling in the ladies room, I cant mace him now because there is a Law stating he can be where ever he wants to be. I shouldn't have to bring along my husband or girl friends to guard the bathroom door in order to have a little respected privacy, that's what my mace and stun gun are for.

I grew up in a time when we didn't openly announce our sexual preferences, unless we were looking to get some. I don't care what people do or don't do, but kids today are far too hung up on determining wether or not they are gay or bi, when its just natural to idolize other people with the intent to emulate them.

Still, do we really need a Law?

 

[Logan]

I haven't read this entire thread. This is a big stink in Texas. But imo, its just insane there needs to be a Law about this sort of thing at all. People are doing what they want anyhow, we don't look up anyone's skirts. All a Law does is give someone who does something inapropriate a scapegoat to hide behind. In addition, if someone is prowling in the ladies room, I cant mace him now because there is a Law stating he can be where ever he wants to be. I shouldn't have to bring along my husband or girl friends to guard the bathroom door in order to have a little respected privacy, that's what my mace and stun gun are for.

I grew up in a time when we didn't openly announce our sexual preferences, unless we were looking to get some. I don't care what people do or don't do, but kids today are far too hung up on determining wether or not they are gay or bi, when its just natural to idolize other people with the intent to emulate them.

Still, do we really need a Law?

You can mace them if they are doing something they shouldn't be. You can stun gun them, and even shoot them depending on what state you live in.

If they aren't doing anything wrong and are just trying to use the goddamn bathroom, then the burden of blame for making it an awkward situation is you. Mind your business and other people will mind theirs, just like how it's been going for the past however long. Trans-gendered people have been using the bathrooms that they identify with for a long time now, but for some reason now that they and their lifestyle choices are buzzwords for VOTES - this has suddenly become a giant issue. It's ridiculous.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

But education funding risks damaging an entire generation of workers for the state and threatens to cause far more issues for years to come than just the frustration of not being able to go in the bathroom with girls.

Right. So if it is such a trivial matter just let them do it. Your state gets the money, your kids get to learn about why these transgender people are so evil, and the transgender freedom saboteurs get to not be discriminated against by a really archaic and out of date system of waste disposal. Or, crazy and I know, take all this energy State level towards telling people how to poop/pee and put it towards education reform if it is such an issue?

You can mace them if they are doing something they shouldn't be. You can stun gun them, and even shoot them depending on what state you live in.

I really don't get this huge fear mongering in this thread or abroad when people mention someone (always invariably a man) going into an opposite bathroom. As if this is some sort of sexual assault Mecca that has been given to them by their sexual assault Jesus. That or the idea of some board of directors of sex predators holding a lands meet with a giant whiteboard and at the center is just the word "BATHROOMS" circled as they rub their hands viciously together (lathered in some sort of lubricant I assume, I don't go to these things).

If ya do something unlawful in the bathroom you were gender assigned you are going to face the same consequences if you went into the opposite gender bathroom in a scenario where it is legal.

 

[Logan]

Right. So if it is such a trivial matter just let them do it. Your state gets the money, your kids get to learn about why these transgender people are so evil, and the transgender freedom saboteurs get to not be discriminated against by a really archaic and out of date system of waste disposal. Or, crazy and I know, take all this energy State level towards telling people how to poop/pee and put it towards education reform if it is such an issue?


I really don't get this huge fear mongering in this thread or abroad when people mention someone (always invariably a man) going into an opposite bathroom. As if this is some sort of sexual assault Mecca that has been given to them by their sexual assault Jesus. That or the idea of some board of directors of sex predators holding a lands meet with a giant whiteboard and at the center is just the word "BATHROOMS" circled as they rub their hands viciously together (lathered in some sort of lubricant I assume, I don't go to these things).

If ya do something unlawful in the bathroom you were gender assigned you are going to face the same consequences if you went into the opposite gender bathroom in a scenario where it is legal.

I don't get it either. I think it boils down to humans being simple creatures who unnecessarily fear something they don't understand. It's really, really sad tbqh.

 

[Tank]

I've read a good portion of this thread, and it's been touched on, but I'd like to hear from everyone on the issue of the fed vs. the states. Personally it seems like every few months I read an article where a state has made a law, like HB2, that the supreme court or the federal government deem unconstitutional. It makes me wonder why states even bother making their own laws, why not just copy down word for word what the federal government passes; because it seems that the states have no real authority to pass their own laws.

I'd rather see the federal government have little to no power when it comes to law making. I think that power should lie with the state. I think it's ridiculous that one country with thousands of different cultural subgroups, fifty states (Of which Alaska is the size of twenty states and Texas and California are the size of five.), 320 million people, and seven different biomes can all be united under one rule of law. The only thing that has kept it together for so long, IMO, is national pride. There's not a lot of that left and now we see the nation beginning to split. In my mind it would make much more sense to give the power back to the people (The states) and allow them to govern as they see fit. North Carolina doesn't want to allow transgender people to use whichever restroom they feel like? Fine. You don't like it? Move to a state that does. You want to carry a gun with more that 10 rounds in the magazine? Then get the heck out of California and live somewhere else. You don't support fracking? Don't live and pay taxes in North Dakota.

Obviously this will never happen. But my question boils down to this:

TL;DR Should the federal government have the power to strike down state laws? Or should states be allowed to govern themselves the way they see fit?

Hopefully this isn't too far off topic.

 

[Outlander]

I've read a good portion of this thread, and it's been touched on, but I'd like to hear from everyone on the issue of the fed vs. the states. Personally it seems like every few months I read an article where a state has made a law, like HB2, that the supreme court or the federal government deem unconstitutional. It makes me wonder why states even bother making their own laws, why not just copy down word for word what the federal government passes; because it seems that the states have no real authority to pass their own laws.

I'd rather see the federal government have little to no power when it comes to law making. I think that power should lie with the state. I think it's ridiculous that one country with thousands of different cultural subgroups, fifty states (Of which Alaska is the size of twenty states and Texas and California are the size of five.), 320 million people, and seven different biomes can all be united under one rule of law. The only thing that has kept it together for so long, IMO, is national pride. There's not a lot of that left and now we see the nation beginning to split. In my mind it would make much more sense to give the power back to the people (The states) and allow them to govern as they see fit. North Carolina doesn't want to allow transgender people to use whichever restroom they feel like? Fine. You don't like it? Move to a state that does. You want to carry a gun with more that 10 rounds in the magazine? Then get the heck out of California and live somewhere else. You don't support fracking? Don't live and pay taxes in North Dakota.

Obviously this will never happen. But my question boils down to this:

TL;DR Should the federal government have the power to strike down state laws? Or should states be allowed to govern themselves the way they see fit?

Hopefully this isn't too far off topic.

I frankly think that's a terrible idea. Besides how impractical it is to expect people to move whenever the state does something they don't agree with, you'd be willing to allow states to commit virtually whatever biased ruling against whoever they feel like because the Federal government is doing it's job intervening in things like these civil rights issues?

 

[Richie B.]

@Tank thing is that is a very important point but the problem with state having power over federal government goes to how do they all stick together, the reason for federal government is because it allows the nation to focus an not split between some states wanting something and the other states not wanting it.

In the case of the American civil war this was the primary reason some states wanted slavery (south) while others wanted to keep the nation whole and weren't that into slavery (north) An ultimately I rather have a federal government that makes sure some states don't repeat this type of mistake again. A point on how without federal power the nation can fall apart.

 

[Tank]

I frankly think that's a terrible idea. Besides how impractical it is to expect people to move whenever the state does something they don't agree with, you'd be willing to allow states to commit virtually whatever biased ruling against whoever they feel like because the Federal government is doing it's job intervening in things like these civil rights issues?

Fundamental philosophical difference between the two of us. I'd rather give 50 people the right to do that ^ than one person (The federal government). I don't want to live a country that forces me to support people and lifestyles that I don't agree with. It'd be far easier for me to move over a few states than an entire country. Again, it's a difference of philosophy. We won't agree, just wanted to let you know my thinking.

@Tank thing is that is a very important point but the problem with state having power over federal government goes to how do they all stick together, the reason for federal government is because it allows the nation to focus an not split between some states wanting something and the other states not wanting it.

In the case of the American civil war this was the primary reason some states wanted slavery (south) while others wanted to keep the nation whole and weren't that into slavery (north) An ultimately I rather have a federal government that makes sure some states don't repeat this type of mistake again. A point on how without federal power the nation can fall apart.

I agree having one strong centralized federal government will typically create more unison between the member states; but as we've seen with the civil rights movement, with gay marriage, and now with LGBT rights we are NOT a unified culture or people group. There is a large portion of the population who doesn't agree with the outcomes of these issues.

The civil war is a complicated issue that can't be boiled down to one issue (taxes, slavery, state's rights). The CSA had a central government but the states were (or would have been) the centers of power. If they had succeeded in seceding they would probably resemble something similar to what I described above.

The main issue I have with the current system is the nine supreme court justices (who are not appointed by the people) can say, "Nope. We don't like that." And the entire country has to bend over for them. That doesn't make sense to me and is my main issue with the federal government.

 

[Outlander]

Wait. Are you seriously advocating for the Confederacy?

Fundamental philosophical difference between the two of us. I'd rather give 50 people the right to do that ^ than one person (The federal government). I don't want to live a country that forces me to support people and lifestyles that I don't agree with. It'd be far easier for me to move over a few states than an entire country. Again, it's a difference of philosophy. We won't agree, just wanted to let you know my thinking.



I agree having one strong centralized federal government will typically create more unison between the member states; but as we've seen with the civil rights movement, with gay marriage, and now with LGBT rights we are NOT a unified culture or people group. There is a large portion of the population who doesn't agree with the outcomes of these issues.

The civil war is a complicated issue that can't be boiled down to one issue (taxes, slavery, state's rights). The CSA had a central government but the states were (or would have been) the centers of power. If they had succeeded in seceding they would probably resemble something similar to what I described above.

The main issue I have with the current system is the nine supreme court justices (who are not appointed by the people) can say, "Nope. We don't like that." And the entire country has to bend over for them. That doesn't make sense to me and is my main issue with the federal government.

 

[Richie B.]

@Tank

Being a unified culture doesn't mean we cant at least live together and with a unified government it is easier to protect minorities even if you don't agree with them, they have every right as anyone else. Bringing up that not everyone supported the civil rights movement is really more of a reason to have federal intervention as every citizen should have a right to the same chances as anyone else.

For those that disagreed that the US federal government shouldn't have force black and white students in one school are usually those that did not see blacks as equals usually. (My opinion not a attempt to be rude) Honestly though whether you like it or not there has been states that were wrong in doing what they did to blacks, woman and so on, and it required mostly the federal government to make sure these minorities get the same rights. Since though US history states have usually been the ones to keep back traditions more so than the federal government. (Not saying the federal government hasn't been guilty of doing bad things to minorities in the past both are guilty but recently it has been the federal government supporting more the minorities than states.)

The supreme court also has control over the federal government, and that the supreme court that which you talk about is the one that has allowed many progressive and good things happening like gay right to marry and so on.

 

[Johnnysaurus Rex]

Wait. Are you seriously advocating for the Confederacy?

Best thing ever said on this site. Ever.

 

[Tank]

Wait. Are you seriously advocating for the Confederacy?

Do I support the atrocities committed by the CSA? Absolutely no.
Do I think the Confederate form of government is better than our current one? Yes.

@Tank
Being a unified culture doesn't mean we cant at least live together and with a unified government it is easier to protect minorities even if you don't agree with them, they have every right as anyone else. Bringing up that not everyone supported the civil rights movement is really more of a reason to have federal intervention as every citizen should have a right to the same chances as anyone else.

For those that disagreed that the US federal government shouldn't have force black and white students in one school are usually those that did not see blacks as equals usually. (My opinion not a attempt to be rude) Honestly though whether you like it or not there has been states that were wrong in doing what they did to blacks, woman and so on, and it required mostly the federal government to make sure these minorities get the same rights. Since though US history states have usually been the ones to keep back traditions more so than the federal government. (Not saying the federal government hasn't been guilty of doing bad things to minorities in the past both are guilty but recently it has been the federal government supporting more the minorities than states.)

The civil rights act of 1964 was passed by the federal government. I'm not studied up on it enough to say for certain but I bet there were states that accepted blacks more readily than others........ So in the case of the civil rights act, the federal government was following those states and forcing the rest to follow suit. Now, obviously, everyone is equal and should have equal rights no matter what their race is and in the case of the civil rights act it was the correct thing to do, and it's crazy it took so long.

The supreme court also has control over the federal government, and that the supreme court that which you talk about is the one that has allowed many progressive and good things happening like gay right to marry and so on.

Again, due to philosophical differences I wouldn't say those are "good things". And whether the supreme court cures cancer or ends hunger in America; it doesn't change the fact that I don't believe nine people should have that much power.

 

[Outlander]

Do I support the atrocities committed by the CSA? Absolutely no.
Do I think the Confederate form of government is better than our current one? Yes.

Do I need to remind you that, while the Civil War was charged by more issues than slavery such as the right to nullify federal laws as exemplified in the Nullification Crisis, it was in fact largely do to slavery, considering the South's entire economy through Cotton was based around slave labor, as well as the various compromises and clashes the North and South had experienced for the past 50 years leading up to the Civil War. And the Confederacy government exemplified a group ill-suited to making any drastic change social or otherwise for the betterment of a huge portion of their population, instead keeping in place archaic laws the federal government was slowly moving towards changing. I'd argue they're actually the best example of why this shouldn't happen.

 

[Tank]

Do I need to remind you that, while the Civil War was charged by more issues than slavery such as the right to nullify federal laws as exemplified in the Nullification Crisis, it was in fact largely do to slavery, considering the South's entire economy through Cotton was based around slave labor, as well as the various compromises and clashes the North and South had experienced for the past 50 years leading up to the Civil War. And the Confederacy government exemplified a group ill-suited to making any drastic change social or otherwise for the betterment of a huge portion of their population, instead keeping in place archaic laws the federal government was slowly moving towards changing. I'd argue they're actually the best example of why this shouldn't happen.

True; but you can't hold the form of government accountable for what couldn't be done during wartime in the 1800s. It's a completely different world now and during peace democratic government is always more effective than in war time. As they never had time to set up a stable government with secure borders I don't think it's fair to acess what could be done in a confederacy by what didn't happen 200 years ago.

I'd also ask you not to equate a confederacy with THE confederacy or with slavery or the CSA. And instead think about the form of government itself and address the issues with a confederacy and not with a country that formed that government.

In American culture everyone is taught from a young age confederacy=slavery and evil. Thus confederacy is bad. If you can separate it out and still think it's a poor system of government; that's fine. I don't think it is a bad system.

Edit: Also, 1000 messages boiz!

 

[Outlander]

True; but you can't hold the form of government accountable for what couldn't be done during wartime in the 1800s. It's a completely different world now and during peace democratic government is always more effective than in war time. As they never had time to set up a stable government with secure borders I don't think it's fair to acess what could be done in a confederacy by what didn't happen 200 years ago.

I'd also ask you not to equate a confederacy with THE confederacy or with slavery or the CSA. And instead think about the form of government itself and address the issues with a confederacy and not with a country that formed that government.

In American culture everyone is taught from a young age confederacy=slavery and evil. Thus confederacy is bad. If you can separate it out and still think it's a poor system of government; that's fine. I don't think it is a bad system.

I would agree with you; if we hadn't seen years prior to the Civil War that a confederacy wasn't viable after the Articles of Confederation where tossed for our current Constitution.

 

[Prudence]

I would agree with you; if we hadn't seen years prior to the Civil War that a confederacy wasn't viable after the Articles of Confederation where tossed for our current Constitution.

A middle ground isn't bad though. One where states have power, but the feds do as well. What the Federal government controls now is disgusting. The ability for them to flippantly play with the education and future of an entire state, 1/50 of the country, over which bathrooms transsexuals identify with.

While Anti-Black sentiment has no legitimate legs to stand on, the bathroom issue does. While you might not think its proportionate to lesbian rapes, or that it might not happen often, you cannot say that you know without a doubt that no boy will ever walk into a women's restroom and defile their privacy or assault them. And if we can stop one instance of assault or privacy invasion, and all that we do is prevent people from choosing an alternate identity, I am okay with that.

 

[Outlander]

A middle ground isn't bad though. One where states have power, but the feds do as well. What the Federal government controls now is disgusting. The ability for them to flippantly play with the education and future of an entire state, 1/50 of the country, over which bathrooms transsexuals identify with.

While Anti-Black sentiment has no legitimate legs to stand on, the bathroom issue does. While you might not think its proportionate to lesbian rapes, or that it might not happen often, you cannot say that you know without a doubt that no boy will ever walk into a women's restroom and defile their privacy or assault them. And if we can stop one instance of assault or privacy invasion, and all that we do is prevent people from choosing an alternate identity, I am okay with that.

This is a slippery slope argument. Once you say one Civil Rights issue is less than another, it becomes that much easier to justify oppressing others. Not to mention, last time I checked, it was primarily up to the states to run their own education systems, which is a fundamental part of the State's Rights argument.

Not to mention the stories I linked earlier of crimes against people based on their gender identity. This, to me, feels like one step towards less rights for them, and it becoming more socially acceptable to target them specifically. Again, slippery slope. Can you say to me with complete certainty that this won't directly cause more hate crimes against transgendered people based on people's own irrational fears? And if we can keep just one person from being physically injured due to the consequences of this law, i'm OK with a few people being uncomfortable.

 

[Tank]

I would agree with you; if we hadn't seen years prior to the Civil War that a confederacy wasn't viable after the Articles of Confederation where tossed for our current Constitution.

They were tossed out because the federal government wasn't making money. And it wasn't the people demanding a new form of government it was the governors who sought out a new form of government. I find it highly suspicious when our ruling body says, "We aren't making money so we're going to change." I also find it highly suspicious that we don't recognize the presidents under the articles of confederation, sure they had short terms and didn't do much of anything, but why ignore them completely? Again, we obviously have different views on the way things should be run. Maybe I'm wrong, or just an idealist, but I like to think having states in power would work better than a single ruling body.

 

[Outlander]

They were tossed out because the federal government wasn't making money. And it wasn't the people demanding a new form of government it was the governors who sought out a new form of government. I find it highly suspicious when our ruling body says, "We aren't making money so we're going to change." I also find it highly suspicious that we don't recognize the presidents under the articles of confederation, sure they had short terms and didn't do much of anything, but why ignore them completely? Again, we obviously have different views on the way things should be run. Maybe I'm wrong, or just an idealist, but I like to think having states in power would work better than a single ruling body.

Uh, Citation needed? From what I know, one of the main reasons the Articles where thrown out was due to the instabilities in the system as exposed by Shay's Rebellion, as well as the lack of a stable economy due to an abundance of different currencies in circulation, not to mention the requirement of all states to make a decision meant little was actually accomplished. I'm aware this would be changed in the system you propose, however I can still consider many of these issues still being a present.

 

[Richie B.]

@Tank ok the reason they needed money was to be actually able to run a government, like a military, build roads and other stuff that required federal government to do something. It wasn't working because with no way to collect taxes the government couldn't really run. It wasn't about oh the government needs money because it wants it but because it does actually need it to run.