Such is the tyranny of Democracy.

Which is thankfully why we don't have a straight democracy!

Checks and balances, even against the masses. *nods*

yea thats why we usa is a Republic ^^ or democratic republic. we vote for it but if the vote hinders anothers rights its vetos or revoked and allowed or so on.

Yep. A healthy government protects minorities so they're not trampled upon. Even back in the medieval period you found the more tolerant empires did better in aspects that minority contributions can...well..contribute with. Ain't a miracle pill after all, just more benefits from a tolerant (or accepting) government.

let's face it, if we had put black rights to the voters (namely, the white voters since blacks couldn't vote), we would still have share cropping to this day.

Nah, I think slavery and black rights would have been 'mostly' fixed by now. But seething hate on both sides would still be present and "gang violence" would be common.

Interracial marriage though, thaaaat might have ended up as the gay marriage of today in this alt-history timeline.

Buuuut, according to history this was put up for vote! Sorta. Just one teeny piece of the puzzle though, thankfully. I mean, it's better than all the rights up for vote. :( In comparison...

the courts mostly sorted out the jim crow laws. The words separate but equal are inherently unequal came from the courts.

I mean, DOMA is blatantly unconstitutional, even though it was voted in by the majority of congress. Section 3 clearly violates the full faith and credit clause. And as OP mentioned, the people voted on prop 14 despite it being unconstitutional. Hell, there was a midwestern state that voted to ban sharia law from ever being considered for a court decision. That is like voting to ban pink flying elephants from congregating in groups larger then three.

well reason sharia law should not be allowed in courts is cause it woudl conflict with the actual courts. or least the judgement parts of it. and frankly if going to leave a coutnry to get away from their laws why the heck do you demand those laws in another country? freedom of religion can only go so far. cause sharia law judgement to theivery is chop hands off last i read. [but thats inhumane and so on.

whats odd is when reading it its liek you have alot fo rules to know your freedoms logic. [like facade in NIER] x.X

yes but in america, the establishment clause prohibits sharia law from even being considered, as well as a waist high stack of legal precendents. As I said, that law banning sharia law from being considered is like banning groups of flying pink elephants.

yet also reason why it wont be allowed to take over is cause it contradicts agisnt constitution as it hinders freedom the constitution means freedom basicly you can practice sharia but cant use the punishments as most of them are considerd inhumane and crimes. yet if the state says hell no then you wish to work or live there need to abide by that lands rules not your old country

Federal law trumps state. My point is, passing this redundant law was a massive waste of time.

not all the time state laws and state rights so on. if the fed and government cant do their job in protect the states the states can take matters into own hands. like with arizona laws they were perfectly legal just the government doesn tlike to lose power. but by state rights and stuff we can take matters into hands if feds and government fails to provide.

Legal precedent and Constitution disagree. Federal law will always trump state, that is why the arizona law is being challenged by the federal government. This is due to the surpremacy law of the constution.

yet states have their own rights and own laws. and crossing over ilegally is aginst constitution and if went by the odl way any found her ilegal wise woudl be killed due to possible spying. if the feds arnt enforceing the constitutional laws the states can take up arms to enfroce it them selves if they must. the feds so far have done nothing to stop ilegals crossing over so arizona took up arms. feds are just mad hat the states do better job then them.

A different argument altogether, but the difference between strengthening the border with troops and police and such and passing laws that are constitutionally question is pretty big.

If police officers wanted, they could easily start bringing in a bunch of "white folk" Yankees and there is nothing that could be done about it (they could be Europeans illegally hiding in the US!). Nothing could be done, aside from repealing the questionable law thingy. I can never remember the names of things when tired. I do hope they utilize that tactic to show what a mistake it was, and from what I've heard there's plenty of officers in favor and opposed to the law for various legitimate reasons. Anyway...

Yankees should be worried about laws like these and California's prop 8 because it legitimizes the ability for rights to be eroded or put up for vote. And the masses are just as easily terrorized or persuaded into sorts of things as they have been in the past.

But aside from all that, immigration it a very complex issue in which the US is equally to blame for the problem as other countries are. No way around it, goes both ways and everything.

But yeah, anyway! Gay rights! Go!

and yes, WOOT WOOT for gay rights.

Look, the case law is clear, the Constitution is clear, federal always trumps state laws. That is why the DEA raided state sanctioned pot dispensaries in California.

then we had the civil war for nothing to defend states rihts and civil rights to defend them selves if they are under attack. when ilegals are crossing over and some shooting and throwing rocks and attacking the border garuds its attack on the state and due to the government going staes cant defendthem selves there spitting in faces of the ones that died to keep state rights and civil rights.

The civil war proved that federal rights trump state. Seriously, research the articles of confederation.

As for illegals,http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037.....8143969bb3.jpg

As K9k said, the civil war was primarily about the confederates (state right advocators) versus the Union (federal power advocators). It's a complicated war though, that involves far more things than just simple slavery or states rights. Industrialization played a role, for example.

It's also not every illegal immigrant doing these things. Some =/= all.
We also bring it upon ourselves given that we buy the drugs in the first place. We also screwed up their economy by subsidizing our corn industry to the point that it drove many farmers in Mexico out of business when corn was the main crop of Mexico. We stole land in the Mexican American war. And remember, most Mexicans are primarily Native Americans. The Spaniards didn't replace the natives when they came in. So they're actually more entitled to the land than Yankees are.

Also, our immigration laws are tougher than they used to be as well, and if the same laws were applied back when the US was industrializing then we'd be sparsely populated and would lack many of the scientific achievements we seem to pride ourselves with. Heck, most Yankees wouldn't likely pass immigration tests if they had to take them to maintain their citizenship... I'm pretty sure this has been used for comedy on TV too.

However, the most important thing to remember is that these are people. Yes, they're illegal, but they're still people. They want a better life. They want a job that pays comfortably just like you do. They want peace, they want security, and they want prosperity. They come here for a reason. Even those selling drugs are doing it because they want the prosperity. The immigration problem is far too complex a situation to just say "build a giant wall and we're fine". That doesn't solve the problem, but merely puts a band-aid over it.

I don't think there's a single person on this planet that actually understands the complexity of the situation (I sure don't!), because it goes into very abstract ideas as much as it goes into the simplest of reasons and logic. You have culture, economics, politics, history, and whole host of other things factoring into this situation. It's just too complex to issue blanket blame to random people.

if refering to alamo battle i remember us being in that area before hand and we got attacked and defended it. yet most that are here ilegaly that annoyme the most state they have rights or protected fully by constitution. [ony things they are righ to is preamble i think it was right to persuit of happyness religion and so on] yet it usualy only applys to US citizens if they come over aginst law andn ot swear the oath they stil under mexican law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
It's more than just one battle and it's more than just Texas. The US stole several states (see the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). And since we're talking about immigrants taking things, it was the Yankees that "invaded" (immigrated) Mexico and later revolted (while they had some legitimate complaints [pro-slavery was not one], they still invaded, revolted, and essentially stole the land). So yeah, Texas and California should be Mexico's along with several other states. If Mexico wasn't such a threat, they'd both likely be independent instead...but that's besides the point.

As far as the rest of what you said, I ...don't really understand what you're talking about, sorry.
From what I can gather, it still doesn't change anything I said. The issue is more complex than "they came over illegally", particularly when that's used as an excuse to treat them as less than human beings. As said, they're just like everyone else. They just want the same prosperity we enjoy. Besides, our immigration laws don't meet the reality of who's trying to immigrate. If it was easy to get in legally, would so many would do it illegally? Doubtful.