Do you support State's rights over the Federal Government?

[konradv]

Well the "to the people" clause was added after the fact but yes that is what I am referring to more or less. My point is that the Constitution was about limiting the Federal Government and laying out precisely what it was allowed to do. I see how you could view this the other way though by saying it lays out what the State's can't do and restricts the states by (sorta)specifically saying what the Fed can.


This wasn't meant to be a debate on the Constitution though. It is a general and vague question on how people would feel about the State being the main governing force on almost every topic.

Oh, in that case a resounding NO.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Open to everyone. I'd be pleased if you listed who you voted for with your response.


How would you feel about having the smallest Federal Government possible and letting each state govern as they see fit. That way instead of having an entire country dividided because we are trying to institute what half the voters want nationwide, each state could do what the majority of their voters desire and people would be able to relocate to a state that matches their desires?

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

 

[del]

Well the "to the people" clause was added after the fact but yes that is what I am referring to more or less. My point is that the Constitution was about limiting the Federal Government and laying out precisely what it was allowed to do. I see how you could view this the other way though by saying it lays out what the State's can't do and restricts the states by (sorta)specifically saying what the Fed can.


This wasn't meant to be a debate on the Constitution though. It is a general and vague question on how people would feel about the State being the main governing force on almost every topic.

Oh, in that case a resounding NO.

second

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Open to everyone. I'd be pleased if you listed who you voted for with your response.


How would you feel about having the smallest Federal Government possible and letting each state govern as they see fit. That way instead of having an entire country dividided because we are trying to institute what half the voters want nationwide, each state could do what the majority of their voters desire and people would be able to relocate to a state that matches their desires?

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

 

[LibertyLemming]

Well it was fun while it lasted. Don't care to be lectured by people about the Constitution when the vast majority of this board applauds the trampling of civil liberties

 

[konradv]

Open to everyone. I'd be pleased if you listed who you voted for with your response.


How would you feel about having the smallest Federal Government possible and letting each state govern as they see fit. That way instead of having an entire country dividided because we are trying to institute what half the voters want nationwide, each state could do what the majority of their voters desire and people would be able to relocate to a state that matches their desires?

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

What does general welfare mean?

 

[LibertyLemming]

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

What does general welfare mean?

What's the difference between promote and provide?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Europa has always failed and been embroiled in endless wars and strife due to the above philosophy which the founding fathers deliberately tried to avoid in writing the US Constitution.

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

What does general welfare mean?

general welfare is not a right
But the right too keep and bear arms is and one that cannot be infringed on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Europa has always failed and been embroiled in endless wars and strife due to the above philosophy which the founding fathers deliberately tried to avoid in writing the US Constitution.

I'd be THRILLED to see you defend this position.

US Constitution

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

the constitution is replete with the role of a central gov't - and the limitations placed on states.

It has a lot more about the limits on the federal government than it does on the government of the states.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Open to everyone. I'd be pleased if you listed who you voted for with your response.


How would you feel about having the smallest Federal Government possible and letting each state govern as they see fit. That way instead of having an entire country dividided because we are trying to institute what half the voters want nationwide, each state could do what the majority of their voters desire and people would be able to relocate to a state that matches their desires?

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

You keep saying that, I keep asking you about abortion, and you keep running away like a scalded rabbit.

Why is that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No right is absolute, and rights are subject to restriction where appropriate and justified – that applies to both states’ rights and individual rights.

Each citizen is guaranteed the protection of the Federal Constitution, regardless his state of residence; one does not forfeit his civil liberties as a consequence of his state of residence, and one’s civil liberties are not subject to popular vote.

The states may exercise their rights within the context of Constitutional case law: they may not violate their residents’ rights, they may not deem a class of persons a stranger to their laws, and they must afford each resident due process of law.

The states may not ignore or ‘nullify’ Federal statutes, Federal law trumps state law, and state law may not usurp Federal authority.

The states are subject to, and must abide by, the rulings of Federal courts.

Each citizen has the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and live in any state or jurisdiction of his choosing, and no state or jurisdiction may abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, as required by the 14th Amendment.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

What does general welfare mean?

It doesn't mean what you think it means.