Even though the majority here will fight you to the death over states' rights to not be ruled by the federal government, the same people will do a 180 and say that a state should be allowed to come down on any municipality like a dictator ...

if the rule(s) being proposed align with their team's predefined set of "correct" stances on issues.


http://www.startribune.com/republicans-a...415994584/

Quote:Progressive policies enacted in Minnesota’s largest cities in recent years are at risk from Republicans who control the state Legislature as they seek to block, undo or change local ordinances on everything from sick leave and the minimum wage to plastic bags and bike lanes.

A handful of measures making their way through the Legislature would have ramifications for cities across the state. But the biggest targets are Minneapolis and St. Paul, where new ordinances on sick leave and plastic bags are set to go into effect within months — and where the priorities of progressive city leaders and their constituents are at odds with conservative lawmakers from other parts of Minnesota.

So a handful of rural bumpkins can elect a rural bumpkin, to tell people of a city that they don't live in how they must live their lives???

Glad our governor can veto this crap.

You really need to take a civics class.

(03-13-2017 08:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You really need to take a civics class.

Seems like you agree with me. We got one on board! Any other takers??

(03-13-2017 08:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You really need to take a civics class.

Seems like you agree with me. We got one on board! Any other takers??

Here's a hint: When someone tells you to take a civics class, its because you dont understand our constitution.

We are not the United Municipalities of America
We are not the United Big Cities of America

Also, only libturds refer to rural people as bumpkins.

Now, let me educate you on what likely happened. You are butthurt that people in the rural parts of the state can control those in the city. This likely occurred because the people in the city dicked the rural people over and over again, and they came out in droves and voted out the libturds and voted in people with common sense. Now the twits in the city are butthurt. This is what it feels like when the people start to take back their government. Otherwise known as #Winning.

(03-13-2017 08:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Even though the majority here will fight you to the death over states' rights to not be ruled by the federal government, the same people will do a 180 and say that a state should be allowed to come down on any municipality like a dictator ...

It depends on the state's law to be honest.

I think the state should intervene and I have seen it first hand in my state and town.

I live in a town that shares a county with a large city. The large city started running the county school system into the ground on purpose to try and force the school debt onto the other municipalities in the county and on top of that loading the school board so the municipalities had no say in school policy. The state intervened and allowed municipal school systems. Problem solved and the municipalities are thriving because of the good school systems.

On top of that the same large town was annexing areas of the county and driving down property values. The state made it so the city could not do that unless 60% of the people living in the area agreed to the annexation.

So yeah states do need to intervene at times.

(03-13-2017 08:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You really need to take a civics class.

Seems like you agree with me. We got one on board! Any other takers??

Here's a hint: When someone tells you to take a civics class, its because you dont understand our constitution.

We are not the United Municipalities of America
We are not the United Big Cities of America

Also, only libturds refer to rural people as bumpkins.

Now, let me educate you on what likely happened. You are butthurt that people in the rural parts of the state can control those in the city. This likely occurred because the people in the city dicked the rural people over and over again, and they came out in droves and voted out the libturds and voted in people with common sense. Now the twits in the city are butthurt. This is what it feels like when the people start to take back their government. Otherwise known as #Winning.

+3

There are some things a city does have a large amount of control over, but in the end - in the United STATES, the state is the governing power.......unless the cities can successfully sue that some Federal law has been broken...barring that, the city folks eat it...

Tastes good, huh Bison?

The rights of individuals are paramount.
Then should come local government, then states, then federal.
When one level of government oversteps its bounds, the next level up can and should intervene, particularly when that overstepping infringes on individual rights.
Otherwise, hands off.

Most state constitutions allow the state legislature to come down on municipalities.

State is not to Municipality as Federal Government is to State.

That's a basic thing.

(03-13-2017 08:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Even though the majority here will fight you to the death over states' rights to not be ruled by the federal government, the same people will do a 180 and say that a state should be allowed to come down on any municipality like a dictator ...

We have two fouls on the play...


We have a straw man argument, on Mpls, trying to say conservatives rail against all federal authority when they only want the deferal government to stay within it's constitutionally restricted roles.


On the offense... Assuming if you want to restrict federal authority you must reject state authority.

(03-13-2017 08:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  So a handful of rural bumpkins can elect a rural bumpkin, to tell people of a city that they don't live in how they must live their lives???

Handfull? It takes *the majority* in the house and senate of Minnesota to do this. And "bumpkins"... I was not aware Eagan, Eden Prarie, and Bloomington were backwater towns.

FFS, your attitude is why the dems lost control of the Minnesota house and senate, despite Clinton winning the state.

===

All that being said... I hope this gets shot down. If Minneapolis and Saint Paul want to slowly hang themselves by pushing the jobs out into the first ring suburbs all the better for those of us in the first and second ring suburbs.

(03-13-2017 08:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  only libturds

I'm certainly no libertarian, so I guess I'm not sure where you were going with that.

(03-13-2017 08:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  refer to rural people as bumpkins.

I never said all rural people are bumpkins. But some are.

(03-13-2017 08:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  This likely occurred because the people in the city dicked the rural people

Entirely false. All of the items referenced in the article were rules/regulations that the city enacted for the city alone. It had nothing to do with people living outside the city.

(03-13-2017 09:03 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  The state intervened and allowed municipal school systems. Problem solved and the municipalities are thriving because of the good school systems.

Sounds like you're for strong municipality government. OK!


And as an aside, I'm of the opinion that all public K-12 schools should be controlled, run, and funded via the state, with a harmonized curriculum and class/activity offering. But anyway ...

(03-13-2017 10:30 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  It takes *the majority* in the house and senate of Minnesota to do this.

All of which are people who don't live in Mpls or St Paul, elected by people who don't live in Mpls or St Paul, who think they should get to tell people living in Mpls and St Paul how to live their lives.

False.

(03-13-2017 10:30 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  If Minneapolis and Saint Paul want to slowly hang themselves by pushing the jobs out into the first ring suburbs all the better for those of us in the first and second ring suburbs.

There you go, even conservatives think its government overreach.


And yes, the suburbs are the new conservative hotbeds. Basically, the place where people who wish they could live a rural lifestyle, but who know they have to live close to the city for work, go to live nowadays.

Milk the city of opportunity, while paying little back into the system in their suburban/exurban shelters.

Hence why I'd like to see outer portions of Hennepin, Anoka, Dakota, Ramsey, and Washington counties be forced to apply a tax to the residences living there that feeds back into the inner, poorer cities in each county.

(03-13-2017 10:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Entirely false. All of the items referenced in the article were rules/regulations that the city enacted for the city alone. It had nothing to do with people living outside the city.

bull****.

(03-13-2017 08:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  http://www.startribune.com/republicans-a...415994584/

Quote:A handful of measures making their way through the Legislature would have ramifications for cities across the state.

Philosophically federalism suggests that all political decisions should be made "closest to the people" that are affected. Within the Constitution, this is addressed with the 10th amendment that states

Quote: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.

Note "to the people" which further delineates powers. The states' constitutions may address powers that are delegated to the states. Anything else, should be the province of the municipalities. It is often up to the courts to decide where to draw the line. (And it frequently falls to the commerce clause when a disagreement over federal versus state authority.)

But would the OP apply the same logic that decisions about the content of a public school curriculum should be left up to the local boards? Following this logic, the Department of Education should be abolished.

(03-13-2017 10:48 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  bull****

No, it just means you didn't take the time read/understand the article.

Some cities across the state have already enacted municipal rules, which would then be overruled by the new state laws. That is what the part you quoted is saying.

The state of Minnesota is sovereign (subject to some limitations). Unless, there is something in their constitution granting certain powers to municipalities, then the state has every right to intervene. Whether or not they should is simply a political question.

(03-13-2017 10:57 AM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  Whether or not they should is simply a political question.

No kidding????

(03-13-2017 08:56 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 08:41 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You really need to take a civics class.

Seems like you agree with me. We got one on board! Any other takers??

Also, only libturds refer to rural people as bumpkins.

Yep, it's crap like that that helped get Trump elected. Some folks will never learn.

(03-13-2017 10:51 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-13-2017 10:48 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  bull****

No, it just means you didn't take the time read/understand the article.

Some cities across the state have already enacted municipal rules, which would then be overruled by the new state laws. That is what the part you quoted is saying.

And most states CAN do that. So what's the problem?