Bill to de-fund Planned Parenthood re-introduced in Congress

Penalizing abortion would make any and all cases of abortion illegal. Even incest or rape, and [I may be wrong - God, I hope I am] in cases where the mother would die, due to complications with the fetus.

A lot of schools are still teaching abstinence. Or they're being extremely vague and just teach about reproduction systems and gestation. Absolutely no knowledge of safe sex practices or anything, you know, practical. My school had this policy. It taught me nothing of substance, so I turned to the internet like many people my age.

Overriding state sovereignty is a terrible move for America. It's unconstitutional, in a very literal sense. States should be able to self-determinate. If a bible-belt state wants to outlaw it, fine. All the independent women can move to a progressive state with more realistic and appropriate women's services policies.

But making Federal law supreme? That goes against the very basis this country was based on.



A. That veers wildly and inappropriately off the topic at hand.

B. The 50's are calling: They want their outdated misogynist "benevolent sexism" back. It deeply perturbs me that you cling to these ideas that women essentially belong in the kitchen with their babies and pies, and then go so far as to claim the advancement of women's rights is killing America. The idea that only women can be maternal and nurturing parents is the same argument that my Grandmother uses to explain why 'Homosexual marriage is an affront to God'. Times are changing, and guess what? The roles of women in a society are a part of the reason industrialized nations prosper - independence, education, and the right to self-determinate results in lower birth rates, which results in lower rates of poverty and child neglect. India actually formed their "Small Family, Happy Family" program around this western ideal - you remember India, the nation you quoted as being 'something worth following'?

[Nevermind the fact you completely ignored the fact that only 31% of the nation has access to proper sanitation, women literacy rates are less than 50%, and only half of children past age 10 continue education because the poverty is so widespread that children have to help support their large families. The westernized progression of women rights is helping to combat all that. This is the very ideal that you fight so 'valiantly' against. So in essence... you're fighting against societal progress in its entirety.]

That is exactly what the President has done with his Affordable Health Care Act,
we don't know what the economic reprecussions are, but if it's anything like Britain then taxes will go up, doctor waits will be even longer, etc.

But I'll assume you supported the AHCA, so is it okay for some laws and not for others?





This particular topic will no doubtedly bring about the debate, as to whether we continue to allow Liberalism to drag us down the depths of Lesser Europe/South America, or if we're going to continue to develop this country on economic and practical ideological premises.

In other words, it's quite on topic.

The Founding Fathers created this country, Liberalism has rode its coattails and their only claim to fame is that America hasn't fell yet. It will, Liberalism destroyed its own empire(Soviet) within a 40-year span. Liberal America(starting from the 60's), is right on pace.








Please tell me you're not kidding? Lower rates of Child Neglect? Theory is beautiful, but when reality points to something else please don't be mad:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9624696/Parents-lack-time-for-their-children-study-suggests.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w_ParentingResource/working-parents-spend-time-daily-kids-diet-exercise/story?id=17096216

http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/

In fact, this is a huge contention point for why the divorces are so low. Yet you actually proclaimed to me that women working excessive hours(as well as men) is the reason for Westernized development?

Next up, the "lower rates of Poverty".

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html

This site contain historical graphs of poverty in the U.S. related to several categories, I'll be brief on the details:

-Table 20 references to related children under the age of 6. This table goes from
1969-2011. So it's historically and presently relevant.

During the mid 70's, the poverty rate for these children ranged from 15%-to 20%
During the 80's(The First Great Recession) the poverty rate ranged from 20%-25%(Actually 24.6 but I'll do you the favor of rounding)

During the 90's the poverty rate ranged from 23%-25.6%(It'll be noted that the
rate dipped down a bit starting from 1995 in fact to 18% in Clinton's final year)

Don't get your hopes up though, Liberals tend to want to point to the Bush Administration but during 8-year administration, the rate ranged from 18.2-to-23.8(24). But the creep up was so slow that there wasn't a true significant uptick until 2007(The height of the housing bubble).


From 2010-onward the rate ranged from 25%-23%

At best, we can say the poverty rate has virtually remained unchanged. At worst, I can argue Liberal Policy has seen poverty have severe upticks, followed by
modest declines at best.

Or if you want, we can look at graph #7, detailing the poverty rates among the sexes.

This pertains especially so to your argument that Women have advanced through working more grueling hours: The 18-64(females) group historically were less
impoverished in 1969 than they were in 2011. In fact, it's the highest rate on the chart.

Just so we're clear, men in the 18-64 group aren't doing much better presently(12% for men, versus 15% for women).

Where you have an argument, is among the elderly, who started at a startling 32% poverty rate(But let's put this in perspective now, that means 2/3rds of women in 1969 were at least in fair territory.) They have since only improved to 10%,
men of the same age group are at 6%

There are plenty more charts and statistics, but I've proven that the rate of poverty has barely moved at all.

Furthermore, I never said India was a path I wanted to follow. What I did pronounce is that public media consumption raved about India's progress. Wages were high at one point, and the technology is advancing there as well.

But let's entertain your statements, first regarding India's literacy rate for Women: Not only is it wrong, but it's actually improving.

http://www.census2011.co.in/literacy.php

To be sure, it's nowhere where they would like to be, but an uptick is an uptick. They're moving in the right direction.

Yeah, India is a developing country as far as sanitation is concerned but they're not as catastrophically awful as you put it:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_acc_to_san-health-access-to-sanitation

India's at 70%, ranked at 72 in the world.

It is not an idea that only women can be nurturing and loving parents, it's a statistical fact. Single-household parents on both genders struggle miserably.

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cb-9701.pdf

It's also interesting that the majority of single-parent households were once full at one time and now divorced. Meaning that the move of independence has sacrificed the well-being of the children.

And now we seek to send women onto the battlefield, further sacrificing the ideas of family, love and nourishment and for what? For egotistical claims of 'equality', claims that aren't realistic in reality?(As I pointed out in my previous post).

The idea that a woman's life is disposable is killing America, that women have given so little thought to their offspring is killing America. That you feel the need to not show yourselves self-respect is saddening.

This is your idea of equality, not standing as a man's equal, but letting yourselves and your children get killed, and disgracing yourselves sexually in the process.

My idea of equality is that a woman deserves to be treated to the best of everything. I'll pull the weight of the family, and I'll do my honest best to provide for my wife, for my children.

I won't allow, under any circumstances for the love of my life or my potential young daughter to get killed in this experiment. To do so, disregards my honor and pride.

I have mixed feelings about this law, but ultimately I firmly feel that the U.S. in and of itself was founded around the belief that federal government and state government should remain distinct and separate, and the people should have the right to choose the laws that govern - after all, the idea our country is based on is 'popular sovereignty'. Not that it's right, but forcing everyone to be taken care of does far less evil than taking away a woman's right to choose.



I refuse to address your arguments that have nothing whatsoever to do with the legalization vs. penalization of abortion in the U.S. Regardless of how you personally feel that women doing anything with their bodies besides putting on lipstick and making babies is a 'crime against womankind' - this thread is about one subject and one subject only. Stick to it. You're only making yourself look like a misogynist blowhard hiding behind a facade of benevolence.




How did you get 'excessive hours' from the progress of women roles? What the hell is the matter with you? Why do you hate women so much, that you feel women working, self-determinating, and serving their country is 'the root of all evil'?! No matter HOW you spin it, you're renouncing a woman's personhood. Rather than accepting that all of humankind are people; with sexes only slightly coloring individual experience, unless they live in a fundamentalist society where gender roles are firmly implanted, for fear of homosexuality or gender confusion.





Women are people, LA. If they want to work overtime, that's their choice.



I never argued about elderly having a poverty rate. I argued that they're a drain on the economy. They require services and pensions, while contributing nothing after the point of retirement.




Because they're following the West's ideals about women roles. <3 Increasing education, statuses, and employment opportunities - specifically modeled after the American woman, because our birth rates are favorable and at the state they'd like theirs to be, in order to lower poverty rates and their overinflated population.




That is a grotesque and offensive overstated supposition. You sound like a haughty, rightist misogynist attempting to rationalize oppression of women.



So what you essentially just said is: Your idea of equality is for women to not be able to self-determinate, but rather sit back and let the men do all the work, because it's such a valiant and generous decision on your part, to feel so 'strongly' about a woman's 'femininity', so as to strip all womankind of any rights to choose how they wish to live.

...

There is no rationality here, there is no logic, and absolutely no presence of realism or secular, progressive understanding. What it boils down to is you want women to regress back to silent, pious housewives with no sense of self or ambition. I suggest moving to Sub-Saharan Africa. You'll feel right at home, there. Nevermind the endemic disease or widespread poverty - it's fine as long as the feminine is preserved, and children don't get aborted right? <3

I refuse to argue this further with you. I'd rather speak to someone that actually lives in this reality.

Thank you for at least admitting that you won't address the arguments, I don't know why but I'll do you the honor of addressing yours. Do you see men degrading themselves? Do you see us eager to give up our lives for nothing? For that matter, do you see us wanting to dress in bra's and women's clothing? Save for the crossdressers, you'll find that isn't happening.


Secondly, let's look at the definition of a 'misogynist', considering you got everything else wrong I wouldn't be surprised if you got this wrong.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

Wow, really? Please don't tell me you actually think this? You proclaim that I hide under a facade of benevolence, but for my words to be benevolent means that I hold no hatred.

If I hate anything, its the social decline of women and how women are all-too-willing to go along. I don't feel hatred towards women in of themselves, its more sadness and apathy.

Just the same as a parent would feel towards a child who took drugs, the parent feels saddened, ashamed and perhaps still loves the child but the relationship is strained.





Because as I've demonstrated quite clearly to you(and you still won't listen), there's no progress to be had. If your illusionary world held any merits in reality we would see them, my supposed hatred wouldn't exist.

http://marriagegems.com/2010/01/12/top-reasons-americans-give-for-their-divorce/

People have a hard time conversing with each other, the long hours on both ends takes away from the child. Gender roles were not implanted for fear of homosexuality or gender confusion(this is laughable)

There's a necessity for men and women in this world, and there's a necessity for us to fulfill certain roles. Marriage, our sexual orientation. All of these things are important for the decision we make when we eventually do have kids.

As tempting as it is, we can't let our petty emotions rule our decision making.









It's a choice that clearly hasn't been working, but that doesn't seem to faze you.





**Sighs** I never said you argued about the elderly having a poverty rate. You clearly argued that our 'Western civilization' has been some marvelous invention for women like The Wheel!

And my argument is, this idea of Liberal Theorism has destroyed the continent, it has destroyed the fabric of families and thereby future societies.

The Holmes, the Loughner's and that other dude from Sandy Hook. All of them emotionally disturbed and I can guarantee you they were probably isolated at one point or another.


http://reversemortgagedaily.com/2011/08/23/number-of-seniors-working-past-age-65-surges-58/

And I could've sworn I pointed out this economic development two or three posts ago. The argument that seniors are drying up the funds is incorrect, whats drying up the funds is our beloved liberal government, fighting wars everywhere and being the ambassadors for every country and person's well-being but our own.

To drive home the point about how insane Liberal America is, here's the state of affairs for married couples:

http://money.msn.com/tax-planning/7-tax-reasons-not-to-get-married-schnepper.aspx

Our married couples get taxed more! Yes, they're trying to build a family, have kids, etc and they're the ones that get taxed.








Did I, or did I not proclaim my independence? If you have to categorize me as anything, I'm a centrist. I'd like to believe I'm a center-populist, but I find that to take the considerations of the citizens at heart, is to often ignore their wish-washy, illogical decisions.

Somewhere down the line, government has listened to these liberal wishes and this is the devastating result. A country divided, children brought up without a culture and a nation whose identity is torn. Oh, and a country facing massive deficits.

You might think of me as some misogynist, which is utterly absurd. But the truth is staring you in the face. These are the results of the Liberal world, there's no in between black or white. The color gray does not exist in ecological factors for survival.

The world before the Liberal Revolution was actually productive. And the only thing the Liberal can argue is that "It'll get better" with no proof as to how that's going to happen.

Tell me Loli, I'm sure this Liberally leaning country will give Democrats a Super-majority once again, since the amiosity towards House Republicans is at an all-time high. When that occurs, there'll be literally no opposition.

Should things fail with this ideal, non-realistic world what will the Liberals do then? Reality and dreams are totally different things. To make the world of your dreams a reality, your dreams must meet that reality, the reality cannot be shaped to meet your dreams.










I live in this reality, and I am rather ashamed with its pathetic results. These results are attached to this reality, you may not wish it so but its the truth. It's actually rather fitting that the Statue of Liberty is in fact a woman.

Just as the country is falling under its own hubris and incompetence, so too is the woman. You proclaim your own independence, to find your own womanhood yet you can't even respect it. In fact, you don't even know what it is.

Yet you said I have no reasoning or understanding? I too refuse to speak with you, you wish to live in a dream world. I live in the reality of these times and the failed results.

[color=#2e1a6b]Quote for truth

Constitutionally correct yes, realistically speaking? No. The divide between Conservative and Liberal is so deep, as to be a political representation of the Continential States(IE: When the currency of Pennsylvania, was different from the one in New York.)

If different states should have different laws, one acknowledging gay marriage and the other one denying it, different abortion laws, etc. Imagine the inefficency of our police squads and of government regulation?

You can either have State Governance or Federal Governance, but you can't have both. The attempt of such has led to a Plutocratic Anarchy of sorts.

[color=#2e1a6b]The divide between liberal and conservative has nothing to do with colonies having different currencies.



[color=#2e1a6b]Seems pretty simple to me. The only thing that might be complicated is whether or not a gay couple can have power of attorney while traveling in a state that doesn't acknowledge gay marriage.



[color=#2e1a6b]You can have both, just not both over the same issue. I'm not proposing that they both have governance over the same issue.

It's actually specifically stated in the Constitution that States have sovereignty - whatever is legal in a state, has to be recognized by the others. If a gay couple gets married in Washington, everyone else has to recognize them as married.

Back then, the colonies having different currencies would lead to complications in the economic system. I'm suggesting that the very wide-range and scope of the political reality in Today's America makes a separate governing system virtually impossible.

Hell, see: The Supreme Court VS Arizona regarding Arizona's immigration bill. The liberal-leaning White House was going to go as far as the U.N. to punish State rights.



Don't you find that pretty significant? Similarly, a woman might want to have an abortion and let's assume she waits until the very last practical minute. Oh wait, the state in question doesn't support abortions.

Consistency within the laws of the land, is what makes for an efficient(and fair, safe and just government). The Soviet Constitution, for example was reportedly hundred of pages long and no one knew of their rights. Checks and balances were a neat idea, but I've since come to the belief that a vested few in political leadership, a concentrated and simplified direction for a country leads to prosperity.

That's not to say checks and balances don't have a place, but an over-reliance on them has made government inefficient with several political ideologies that were not a part of this nation's founding, its principle or the foundation of our original leadership.

See this: http://marketdailynews.com/2013/01/23/barack-obama-to-shut-down-southern-air-defense-systems/

Why? Because Liberals know better than anyone else, that's why. There are defense contractors who make too much money(Read: Blackwater/XE) There are lobbyists who make hundreds of thousands, the president himself went on about how the people in parliament make hundreds of thousands, did they decline pay? No.

But as far as surveillance and radar? Sure, let's cut that.

The Neo-con isn't any better, as I said I'm an independent, but as an independent I can judge the past four years, and the way this current one is shaping up.

And I outlined in a previous post, past economic history under Democratic administrations and its been very disappointing and self-sabotaging to say the least.

"Democracy is the most vile form of government... democracies have ever
been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property:
and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent
in their deaths."-Sir James Madison.

Well, Mr. Madison, the formerly American Republic has become much more violent, so much so that it's sacrificing its women and children. People complained about rulers, and for good reason. But while there were evil tyrants, there were also examples of righteous men and women.



Leaders who were fully capable of making the correct decision. If only George Washington had accepted the title of King. A citzenry that rules a country is ideal, but its not practical. It could have been, but I'm afraid the descendants of our founders ended up being so much more stupider than our ancestors that we somehow let the world's greatest country be a footnote in world history.

America's flaw ended up being that it trusted way too many people with power. Instead of a select few with the worthy qualifications and proven sound judgment.








Agreed, it could be possible if roles are clearly defined and neither one steps over the boundaries over the other. But that's idealistic and unfortunately hasn't played out as we would like.



Let's look at the specific text in question:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

We find further clarification of their intentions in the former Article of Confederations:

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

Hence, why there was a currency problem that me and Lelouch alluded to before. While we have a universal currency now(the dollar), we don't have universal laws(There are, of course, basic fundamental laws) but as we discuss gay marriage, abortion, etc. Obviously there's no universalism.

The state of California supports gay marriage for example, Loli. The state of Pennsylvania, does not recognize gay marriages.

I would like a unified national government, but doing so under present conditions and present political thought would be disasterous.

I'm a supporter of people having rights irregardless of sexual orientation, however a gay marriage is not a union between man and woman.

I could support something that establishes fundamental rights to same-sex couples, but marriage has a symbolic purpose in our country. It symbolizes the merger of two opposite sexes, two people who've come together for the better of each other.

I would say, for gay marriage to become a reality it would have to be in a country that recognizes the very idea as a symbol.

Let me repeat Loli: I've nothing against gay/lesbian relationships, but I find it socially disingenous for two women to call themselves wives or mothers. Or two men to call themselves fathers or husbands.

The argument here, usually is: "It shouldn't bother you, so don't pay attention."
That wouldn't be a problem, if said couples weren't looking to be a symbol.

If they weren't looking to be "equal". True equality in this case, is in silently fitting in amongst the crowd. Do you see straight couples making a point out in public?

To solve this issue, all we need is legislation supporting the rights of gay men and women. Lets call it a domestic relationship, instead of a marriage. A social union is about not trampling on people's feelings.

One's "equality" doesn't mean one's inferiority.

https://www.fakku.net/viewtopic.php?t=20488
This isn't IB, post to contribute to the topic or something related to the topic, or don't post at all. If your post was meant as an insulted to LA, explain why you disagree with his views.

[color=#2e1a6b]Still don't see how currencies have anything to do with this. I'm not advocating for each state to have it's own currency, since the constitution gives congress the power/responsibility to coin money.



[color=#2e1a6b]No, though I really don't know how the court system works. I think we should clarify this before we continue referencing this issue.



[color=#2e1a6b]Cool story. Don't wait 'till the last minute



[color=#2e1a6b]If by consistency you mean that every region is supposed to have the same policies, then there isn't necessarily a correlation between consistency and an "efficient, fair, safe, and just government". There might be some policies that would be more efficient when nationalized. but nationalizing any policy will increase the percentage of people governed by policy they disagree with (especially when it's a controversial policy). Nationalizing policy also increases corporate interest, resulting in more lobbying.


And I don't understand how checks and balance relate to this.


[color=#2e1a6b]That 10th ammendment you quoted seems pretty clear. So tell me, where does the constitution delegate the power to fund Planned Parenthood?



[color=#2e1a6b]Sadly, most people get away with posts like that,

You forgot to mention that at the national level a citizen has less of a voice unless they mass together as a special interest group, which have already been shown to corrupt the political process.

You are more likely to have influence over your state level congressman than your federal level one.

Oh look, LA responded to me, with more nonsense that I'm accustomed to. This should be fun.



More socially progressive fiscal conservatives. You know. Libertarians being called Republicans. "Look, homosexuals are being accepted by the general public. We need to stop being intolerant or we're gonna get steamrolled."



Lol, no they haven't. They don't have control of it now. They control the SENATE, but the Republicans still hold the majority in the House. And that generally alternates every couple years.



Ok, if you have a problem with the Federal Reserve's existence, that's your problem. But it's not an economic disaster, it's an institution. And raising tariffs isn't bad. That's like saying, "Raising taxes is bad" because...it's not.



Well, according to this paper, the New Deal wasn't all bad, nor all good, but it was a pretty good thing overall. So yeah.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8108.pdf




Ahem. "In the decade following the 1964 introduction of the war on poverty, poverty rates in the U.S. dropped to their lowest level since comprehensive records began in 1958: from 17.3% in the year the Economic Opportunity Act was implemented to 11.1% in 1973. They have remained between 11 and 15.2% ever since."

http://www.census.gov/prod/2010pubs/p60-238.pdf



What was the point of the Stimulus? To save jobs. Primarily what jobs? Automobile industries.

...And the industries are still around...meaning...how did it fail again? Oh, and I love how you're labeling Obamacare an economic disaster even though you concede that you don't know the economic effects yet, as if it's inevitable that it will fail, when you have no evidence. It's just laughable. This is why nobody takes you seriously LA.



You have no idea what you're talking about. I just don't even care to explain how dumb this comment is and just move on.



Self-evident huh? Bet you have no idea what that means. If it was self evident everyone would agree with you. That's what self-evident means, it cannot be denied because its existence is evidence of itself, and even acknowledging its existence acknowledges the evidence, and its validity. Use terms you actually know the meaning of before you sound like a silly ninny. Of course, you won't take my advice, you never do.



Lol, you have no idea what Liberalism is.



You actually mentioned some successful liberal programs, but whatever. You wouldn't know that because you're very ill informed, and heavily bias towards your own myopic worldview.



Yeah, and he was a democrat. And he was successful, and gave us a surplus on our budget...reducing our deficit completely to nothing...so...what was wrong with him again?



Well you have, you just don't know they're successes because you're not very well researched.



Japan's actually doing pretty good. Especially since 1955. It's been progressively getting way, way better.

In 1955 the US dollar exchange rate for the Yen was 360.00 Yen per dollar.

Now it's 88.

In 1980 the GDP of Japan was 240,707,315, now it's almost doubled.

Their only real issue is they don't have many natural resources to support their booming businesses, so they have to export like all hell. But yeah, Japan's doing pretty good for themselves. Largest electronics producer in the world.

Never mind that all of this stuff that I just showed you is easily research able, leading me to believe you never bother to confirm anything you say with credible sources, you're just not a very well informed, or intelligent individual LA.




I'm gonna go ahead and assume you don't know what state sovereignty is Lelouch.

Anyhow, concerning Lollikittie's comment, this is, and I'm sorry to say, horribly ignorant of the law. State sovereignty only means that what one state does, cannot be infringed by another state. But there's a fine line between that, and saying the federal government shouldn't be able to overrule a state's law.

Under the latter system, we are no longer a democratic republic, but a confederacy of states. That's not what we are, especially in accordance to the constitution. The constitution allows the states to make laws that aren't addressed by its wording and interpretation. And under the decision of Roe Vs. Wade, abortion is in fact a constitutional issue, meaning, if any one state tries to outlaw it, it will be taken to court, and it will be shot down, in accordance to the constitution.

Now it's time for "how do laws work Lundi?"

So here's the deal. Laws and rights are determined by the strongest factor that has the will to power in the world. That's horribly simplistic but bear with me. States, have small governments, that all fall under the territorial purview of one single government, the United States Federal Government. The United States Federal Government is allowed to make whatever law they want, so long as they have precedence for this law. That precedence includes constitutional interpretation by Supreme Court judges, or at the very least constitutional lawyers. If the federal government makes a law, then that law is up to the president of our government to enforce among the states. If a state makes a law that is in contradiction to federal law, then the federal law wins, unless, when taken to court, the Supreme Court or other courts decide that the Federal Law is unconstitutional(goes against the constitution, or is not authorized by it). So you might be asking how this isn't tyrannical beyond all measure. Why isn't it? Because the United States Government doesn't live in a vacuum. There's another entity that has more influence than it, and that's the United Nations. If countries that are members of the United Nations, and as such countries that are allied with the United States under treaties, say that the United States cannot do something, then it cannot do that thing, even in its own land. If it says the President MUST enforce a law he'd rather not, then he MUST enforce that law, or incur penalties. An example of both of these would be when George W. Bush signed an executive order to deny a Guantanamo Bay prisoner Writ of Habeus Corpus, and the Supreme Court informed him that under UN law(The Geneva Conventions) he's not allowed to do that, and struck it down. During Obama's administration, the UN pressured him to enforce the law against marijuana, even in states that had legalized medical marijuana, as such he had little choice but to enforce existing law in accordance to his allies' wishes, and send federal agents to shut dispensaries down.

SO! Why is THIS not tyrannical you ask? Foreign countries get to just tell our country what to do?! Well no, not that simple. See, the UN has no army. The United States, has an army. This is where power over politics comes into play. Without the United States army, the UN is, effectively, powerless to stop people from doing horrible things all over the world. Hence, the U.S. is allowed leeway to reject orders that can be sufficiently found to be unjustified, or superfluous. This is a reasonable agreement. The U.S. gets trade agreements and a stimulated economy, and in return it provides an army(and of course export/import business)for the U.N. Both can use their services to threaten the other to do what they want each other to do, but overall the most reasonable conclusion is reached.

What does this have to do with State Sovereignty? Well, imagine each state is a mini United States, and the United States itself is the UN. Same exact method.

In other words, it's perfectly fine when the Federal Government makes a reasonable, constitutional law, and states don't get to just not follow it because they don't like it.

But! I hear you protest. Abortion is not a federal law. No, but the issue was constitutionally decided upon. Which means that laws FORBIDDING its practice cannot be put into play. And now we've gone full circle.

[color=#2e1a6b] http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sovereignty
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/democracy
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/republic

You're gonna have to substantiate your definition, especially since your objection is based on that definition.

We would still have a democratic republic regardless of whether or not the states had supreme power or authority.


[color=#2e1a6b]I really don't know enough about the UN to make an informed response. I'd like to read a brief analyses of the UN by a government skeptic before I talk about the UN.