I'd say primarily states right and if needed you can Ammend the constitution

So what happens when a couple get married in one state and move to another?

I think the country would be better off if there were no state governments at all. There is really no good reason why people living in one state should have to follow different laws than those in another. I know getting to that point would be a slow process, but the closer we can get, the better.

Gotta be trolling at this point. It's not as though state governments only function to obfuscate federal law. They carry out a variety of functions that we could never expect the federal government to undertake for all the states simultaneously.

A common misconception... history written by the winners to justify.

There was no declaration to free slaves which caused the south to say we ate leaving, and they fought for years before the central government declared slaves free.

Slavery was a big devicive issue, but the southern states did not cecede because they were facing slavery abolishment...it was primarily a states rights fight.

What is the name of the country?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/20/...states-rights/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...=.30dd8d3092eb

Why would it be? We get two cards and they/the flop might become very strong and there we sit w/ no chips and feel dumb. If we get junk we fold. The people who are willing to play a hand w/ 'going home' chips miss out constantly, ime.

I loled.

Champion.

Wat? That crap doesn't have to be in the Constitution. Congress makes laws.

Are you serious with this, or just trolling? You've never heard of Amendments?

LOL, no.

There are some things better settled on a state level. Water management in California, for instance, is something neither the federal government should be concerned with nor local governments empowered to handle.

But there are things better handled on the federal level - making sure that our shared labor pool has some baseline educational level, for instance. And obviously foreign policy and national defense.

And some things better handled on the local level. Since we have abortion and gay marriage in the thread already, I'll just add guns to the mix. Constitutionality aside, the general rule should be anyone you can hit gets a say in whether and how you own a gun. So it makes sense that shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft rockets are banned nationwide, AK-47s are allowed in rural districts but not urban ones, handguns with hollow tipped bullets generally allowed but with background restrictions/training requirements, and non-concealable small caliber rifles allowed basically everywhere. It doesn't make sense for a gang-infested neighborhood in Oakland to have the same gun laws as a farming community in Idaho.

Now it's a gangsta party, or a coyote hunt, and everything in between.

Regarding the repeal of the gun restrictions for mentally ill: I don't like guns so I don't want one. However if I was gonna move to NH, I would want a rifle in case a bear didn't like me for some reason. All that said, I don't think I should have one though. Only where necessary for protection from nature imo.

"You're moving where?!"
"right between the projects and the junk yard."
"you bringing a gun? lol"
"No."
"Ok good luck."

Isn't "amend the constitution" adequate recourse for your quartering troops ---> abortion hypo above?

If there was a federal amendment legalizing abortion I would accept it. I wouldn't agree with it and I certainly wouldn't vote for legislators that would approve it but if it got passed i also wouldn't be out protesting planned parenthood clinics

not moving would be one solution, albeit not ideal and unfair. The. Hoping the negative economic ad social impact on the states (e.g. All the events that pulled out of NC) cause them to change their laws/policy.

So "full faith and credit" does not apply?

In LC news, GTO poker makes it into today's FiveThirtyEight Riddler column.

Or technically I guess it made it into last week's. But the solution appears this week.

I can recall several hands I won where I would have folded if I had a full stack. It's not really a disadvantage. Why do you think there are minimum buyin rules?

I'm not advocating buying in short, I just think the need to always have a full stack is overrated.

Specifically, when implied odds are small (like from the blinds), having a short stack may be less of a disadvantage than when implied odds are large (late position).

I recall a thread somewhere about someone ending up with exactly one small blind on the small blind - in that extreme example you actually maximize the EV of your small blind.

Would this be necessary? I always figured Congress could pass a law legalizing it nationwide if they ever wanted to. Of course then the next congress could pass another law cancelling it.

But how much did you lose tossing in your last chips the other times?

Yes. Short stacking blinds, specially the big blind is a massive advantage. I'm sure there exists a point where you would rather have say 20 bets than 3.5 but being able to play the big blind with 1/2 bet for example would be awesome.

Yes it would. The Constitution says any powers not granted to the federal govt in the Constitution are states powers and the Constitution doesn't grant that power to the fed govt.

I love it when I'm down to a couple BB in the bb. Ima raising if it isn't capped, then I just watch the hand play out.

Show of hands: Which of you actually plays a hand having only 2.5 BB's from any position at stakes above 4-8?

I don't obv.

I've probably done it a few times if I lose a big hand in MP and intend on leaving when the blinds hit.