that's even more totalitarian than what we have now. Besides, what's to keep the state from repealing/ammending/adding to the law, thus totally warping it from its original intention?

Satis, then whats the point of having States?

States are supposed to be a more individualized form of government. If every State has to obey each other states laws then there is no point in haveing a state. There is no point in having a State legislator. We might as well be one big state.

My point of view:

If California creates a law making the legal age to have sex with a girl 5, and States obey other states law, then a guy from California can come to Texas and have sex with a 5 year old and have nothing happen to him.

If this were the case then we should abolish State governments because they serve no purpose and only election Congressional reps to create nation wide laws.

Your point of view:

If in Ok. it was illegal to sell weed. But in Texas it was legal. And a guy from Texas sells weed in Ok., then he gets arrested. Yes, thats what I am saying. He should be arrested.

This makes government more individual. This way, all the weed sellers can move to Texas and sell all the weed they what legally, and those people who dont like weed and move to Ok.


Let me give you a more realistic example. BAC (Blood alcohol content)

Lets say in Texas the BAC level is .08 but in Ok. its .1.
You live in Ok., you come over to the Texas border to visit some friends, get drunk, get pulled over, and have a .1 BAC. Are you going to jail? Yes, because your in Texas and have a higher BAC than is legal in Texas.

Now thats a fact, and thats a real law that is really enforced.

Ill give you another real world example.

Back when I was in high school, Vinton, Louisiana (45 min drive from where I live) it was legal to buy beer at the age of 18. True story. Now me being from Texas, the legal age was 21. So all the 18 year olders would drive over the border to Vinton and buy beer, get drunk. Did Louisiana stop us from buying beer because we were from Texas and Texas law states you have to be 21? No. They went by their law which was 18. And just because Vinton had a 18 drinking age limit did people from Vinton go to Texas to drink if they were under 21? HELL NO! because Texas did not acknowledge the Vinton law.

Now, what would happen if Texas acknowledge the Vinton, La law? Why, we wouldnt have to had to drive 45 mins to Vinton to buy beer, we would have just went to the local store.

See what I mean? So thats why States should not have to acknowledge other state laws.

Points taken.

In reply to Satis: That which you point out is a problem indeed. I guess a solution may be that the govt, should be in charge of the legislature. But, thats pretty much a no-no because of issues regarding corruption, fascism, centralisation. So perhaps the real solution would be to have a legislative body collective of all the states which acts as a council to the government. Bothe the govt and council can put forward suggestions for development, but ultimately, it is the council that decides.

yea, I guess I can see your point.

What about the porn example? To adapt it, let's say someone takes a video of you in Vinton (I used to do that shit when I went to Lamar U in Beaumont) drinking. You're being driven back to the dorms by someone that's sober, and the cops pull you over.

Do the let you go? Do they arrest you for being underage and intoxicated? What about the video? If it was filmed in Vinton, is it admissable as evidence that you drank underage? IF the person driving you (and sober) is 21, would they get in trouble for aiding in the delinquency of a minor?

Anyway, I'm not saying there aren't remedies, but it's stuff that has to be taken into consideration. As far as federal vs state laws...I guess you'd just have to sit down and spell out every single area as to what's for the states to decide and what's for the government. Kinda like our current constitution, but more detailed and less likely to be loopholed.

Well, i cant really apply that scenario to my proposition in the last post because i didnt refer to any inter-state rules.



This is more a case of legislative interpretation. The fact is clearly that this person got drunk in a state where it was legal to do so at his age. I know that in the legislation process of the UK (and prbably, USA) you follow the words in the legislature. If the words are old and unclear, then chances are your lawyer will be either attempting to re-interpret the law to his clients favour, or use precedent. Precendent, meaning previous case decisions relevant.

In other words. The scenario you describe has a legal consequence that relies entirely on the written legislature. If the law is vague, the lawyer can bend the words easily and help find the defendant cleared of such charges. If it is specific, it is very hard to bend the words.

I hope you understood. Damn im tired, i dont know if i skewed off completely, gotta get up at 0450 tomorrow for work.

Do the let you go? Yes, because the person driving is sober. Unless you where speeding or something. The cop had to have a reason to pull you over. If on your return you are obeying laws, the cop has no reason to pull you over

Do they arrest you for being underage and intoxicated? No, because you werent in the act of getting intoxicated. You are just in a car, unless you wondering around downtown(and get a public intoxication) he has no reason to bring you in.

What about the video? If it was filmed in Vinton, is it admissable as evidence that you drank underage? I say no, because you werent in Texas. Even though your a resident of Texas, your not Texas property so what you do out of the States lines is your business.


IF the person driving you (and sober) is 21, would they get in trouble for aiding in the delinquency of a minor? No because same as above.

IMO

that's fine, and if stuff was implemented properly, I'm sure that's how it would be handled. Lawyers, police, and politicians are a bunch of grubby bastards, many times, so I could see them twisting this kind of thing to suit their own ends.

hmmm...for an odder example, let's take gay marriage in California. Say you're bi and you go to California to get married to a dude. You head back to Texas, where the marriage isn't recognized legally. Would they allow you to marry a woman? They can't really NOT let you marry a woman, since you're not married in Texas.

But California still acknowledges heterosexual marriages, so at that point would they recognize you as being married to both a man and a woman? Or would the second, hetero marriage be considered void in Cali? If not, you're a polygamist. If so...what happens if you get a divorce from your male partner? Texas still sees you as married to a woman...would Cali suddenly (and retroactively) recognize your hetero Texas marriage, or would you be single in Cali? If the latter, you could marry a woman in Cali...and then you're a polygamist in Texas? Or are you legally married to one woman in one state and another in another state?

There have been documented instances where a man has wifes scattered all over the US. Right now, it's not legal, but if done the right way, you could potentially work the system to make it legal.

*passes over to 11b*

So the basic argument in the states is that if there was a totalirian version of decentralised or centralised government it would create problems. However, if we ignore the actual existing models could it be possible to create a new one. Looking at True, Radical Democracy, that Athens had, people went into town to the Pnyx where a certain number could enter a day (round 6000) they could then discuss and vote on issues concerning them. Could we then use each town to decide an issue then representatives from each town (which could be randomly selected to prevent well trained orators winning cases) in a central government to decide the issue which can then be applied to a nation. Would that be a possible way of having a new government. Because one of the critical flaws and strengths of present politics is that we have professionals which may not speak for the people, instead for their interests. Yes the system does have flaws since scapegoatism can be practiced so special attention needs to be given to the education system to discourage it by logically arguing that using people as a scapegoat would result in problems (this happened a lot towards the end of the Second Peloppennisan War as the Trial of the Generals proved (trial of the generals of a fleet that won a battle then failed to pick up the survivors due to disobediance of subordinates. through the use of unconstitutional practices the generals were found guilty and sentenced to death then later pardoned posthumously)).

I think the key point of this discussion is a division between legal 'status' and acts. Legal statuses like being married, being a serial homicidal maniac obviously need to be (and generally are) respected cross-boundries.

Legal acts, that's another thing. What I mean is when you commit a crime/action under a certain jurisdiction, you fall under that set of laws.

Basically it comes down to if the crime you commited was punishable in the first place when and where you first did so. Because it usually only works one way: if you're a cannibal in, say, S-E Asia where it's not a crime and you travel to the US/Europe, you won't get arrested -there's no price on your head anyway, and you didn't commit the crime under US/European jurisdiction.

But the other way around, when you commit a crime (using the child porn example) in a country/state and then travel to a place where it's legal, you're very likely to get turned over to that former country. Unless there aren't any delinquent-exchange programs in place (N Korea or something) you'll pretty much always will.


Erh...discussion wasn't about this anymore. Ignore me, I think i'm slowly getting back to Rinoxial good shape. Been feeling really weird of late.

hmmm...good point. What if you do something illegal in LA, then go to TX where it's legal. Does TX extradite you to LA for prosecution, or do they let you stay in TX as a political refugee?

And I think Athenian-style democracy is impossible for various reasons.

1. Athens was tiny....even a medium size city nowadays had more people in it than all of Greece had at the time.

2. People that debated in public were knowledgeable on the issues. People today are not.

3. People are stupid. They may have been stupid then, too, but they're definetely stupid now.

4. How do you enable an entire nation to vote on every issue? The internet comes to mind, but not 100% of the nation is internet-connected. And how do you get around security concerns? The internet is insecure. It's not a good way to guarantee 100% accuracy. Look at electronic voting machines and all the issues they have.

Exactly, that's what it's all dependent of: international (or federal) relationships. And those often are largely based on cultural kinship, too. (and with that comes a set of values that is more or less equal) If and when a country lets someone stay as a political refugee it's -99% of the time- because of political reasons. If N Korea harbours an enemy of the US (provided he's not insane and a threat to their own country) it's a middle finger to the US as a political/national entity, nothing to do with values. And vice versa.

So I would say that if the convicted person is not a threat to the country's/state's wellbeing he would be allowed to stay there. No way TX is going to extradite someone to Cali for parking tickets or some ancient law on sodomy (tho in this case that would probably work the other way around ), but robberies, murder, rape, arsony? Sure. It works like that pretty much everywhere in the world afaik...nobody wants to have a maniac rapist roam free in their own country for no other reason than principal ones. But in case of someone like Bobby Fischer: insane, sure, but dangerous? Nah. So no extraditing for him.

Bobby Fischer is a retard.

lol, so am I, and I'm not in jail (yet) either. Yay for retardation!

bleh, the guy frustrates me. He starts out as a genius, then in a fit of hubris pisses off his country. Then, rather than learn from his mistakes, he runs around the world hiding, only to pop up every once in a while and make some uninformed commentary about something. He's a moron.