I know that ‘the process’ is what you often go to when trying to work through an argument, but how meaningful is ‘the process’ when an authority ditched it to exercise authoritarian power? If the Trump Administration continually seeks to find cracks in the process or ignores it in hopes that it can redefine or escape the consequences, then there is no process being followed. Rather, the absence of process is being probed.Whiskey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:45 amI am looking at the process. And the process is clear. The feds punted the authority to the states with regards to abortion and to some extent with education. What the states do with that is up to them and to their voters. I don't give a crap what Mississippi or Rhode Island do. Don't care. Doesn't matter to me.canpakes wrote: ↑Tue Oct 07, 2025 4:03 amNo. The fact that ‘authority’ exists is not the problem; rather, it’s what is done with the authority that is the problem.
You’re trying to distract away from your conflation between power guaranteeing/protecting choice, and power dictating choice. Matters not what level - Federal, State, County, Municipal, whatever. Guaranteeing a choice isn’t authoritarian. Dictating a choice is more authoritarian and controlling. You know this too, which is why you avoid discussing that point and keep trying to distract with doublespeak. You’re trying to sell your desire to control the options of others as an example of greater freedom for them. It isn’t.
Maybe try to extend your claim to the 2A, as suggested earlier. Tell me how striking the right to bear arms from the Constitution and ceding that power to the States would yield you a greater chance to own firearms.
Your interpretation of that is that the punt was authoritarian because the outcome could be authoritarian, meaning not what you like. My interpretation is that the feds punted the authority.
We both agree, I believe, that the feds have the authority to enforce the constitution. The change to the constitution would require 2/3 of the states to ratify. I don't believe either party disagrees with that and a hypothetical, as if that were not the case, is pointless.
We are back to my point - with the exception of education and abortion, both sides rest the authority of the feds evenly and exactly - outcomes may vary.
in my opinion you are still stuck, rather, on the concept - of authority - rather than the process. In other words, the concept that an authority exists. As one always does. That mere concept doesn’t define the outcome, because how the authority is used is what matters. Another case in point is to look at certain Texas counties such as Lubbock, Goliad, or Cochran, that have attempted to enforce criminalization of travel outside of the State of Texas to obtain an abortion. This is a lower level of authority than your State vs Fed comparison, yet the County is attempting to exercise its control over citizens who may obtain an abortion beyond the State borders. What has stopped them from enforcing criminal penalties has sometimes been courts at the Federal level. That doesn’t mean that the Federal government is more authoritarian than the County. It means that the Federal government is ensuring the rights - the choice - of the individual.
Flip that a bit and ask yourself how you’d regard if the City of San Antonio decides to decriminalize abortion and allow it in all cases even if the State of Texas retains its abortion ban. How would you define the authority of each versus the authoritarian nature of each’s decision vis-a-vis the citizenry? Or apply your reasoning to the 2A example again without inserting meaningless limitations such as ‘two thirds approval.’
Again, the power structure always exists. It’s a common element in every single group of people numbering three or more. What is decided, however, is the point. How the power is used is the point. Not the mere fact that decisions can and will be made one way or the other.
