State's rights, tyranny and the Federal Government

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and far left are not going to be allowed to use the govt, state or fed, to oppress their fellow citizens.

 

[Edgetho]

Because of the 14th Amendment, the federal government not the states protects individual rights.

Well..... Okay.

But what ISN'T an Individual right? Seriously.

If someone wants to boink 12 year olds, is that an individual right?

We got people right now, this very minute, asking for the right marry into a polygamous marriage. Isn't that an individual right?

What if.......

Do you see where this is headed? You can take ANYTHING and claim it's an individual right. Anything outside of Foreign Wars. Anything.

I need money, so I have an individual right to rob that bank.

I want to do hard drugs and I have an individual right to do so. I also need to rob and steal to support my drug habit, so I have an individual right to do that.

My wife won't listen, so I have an individual right to slap her around.

Do you see how incredibly stupid all this can, AND WILL, get?

States have powers that the Feds aren't supposed to have.

It's why I recommended to our resident Mod, with what appears to be a PBS education, that he/she read that little document called the Constitution of The United States of America.

And some commentary on why it was written the way it was written.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edgetho, your point is well taken, and your questions will be answered by the federal judiciary if it is a civil right.

I strongly suggest until it is decided that someone gets to boink twelve year olds, that that someone should not.

 

[Edgetho]

Edgetho, your point is well taken, and your questions will be answered by the federal judiciary if it is a civil right.

I strongly suggest until it is decided that someone gets to boink twelve year olds, that that someone should not.

Well, unless you're a dimocrap vacationing on a tropical isle..... Then you can

 

[JakeStarkey]

Edgetho, your point is well taken, and your questions will be answered by the federal judiciary if it is a civil right.

I strongly suggest until it is decided that someone gets to boink twelve year olds, that that someone should not.

Well, unless you're a dimocrap vacationing on a tropical isle..... Then you can

The far right are the ones vacationing the most in those spots in Asia. Perverts all.

 

[Edgetho]

The far right are the ones vacationing the most in those spots in Asia. Perverts all.

That's a lie and you are a pathological liar.

We have documented PROOF of dimocrap scum visiting those places.......

Flight Logs Put Clinton Dershowitz on Pedophile Billionaire s Sex Jet

All you got is invented lies.

But for a dimocrap, that's about as inventive as it gets

 

[JakeStarkey]

The doctored flight logs are lies.

The far right visits those sex spots far more often.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Obergefell had nothing to do with Federal 'overreach' nor the relationship between the Federal government and state governments.

The case concerned a conflict between the states and their residents, where the states that enacted measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to state marriage law had those measures challenged in Federal court. And in accordance with 14th Amendment jurisprudence, those measures were invalidated because they violated the right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law.

Indeed, had the states simply obeyed the 14th Amendment and allowed same-sex couples access to marriage law gay Americans are eligible to participate in, there would have been no need to involve the Federal courts, as the states have only themselves to blame for their un-Constitutional measures being invalidated.

States have rights but they are not absolute, they are subject to, and limited by, the Federal Constitution, its case law, and rulings by Federal courts, ultimately the Supreme Court. The states are also subject to Federal law, they may not seek to 'ignore' or 'nullify' Federal measures, and likewise they may not 'ignore' the rulings of Federal courts.

But the OP's premise is essentially correct, Americans are first and foremost citizens of the United States, residents of the states subordinate to that, where citizens' inalienable rights are immune from unwarranted attack by government – Federal, state, and local. States do not have the 'right' to deny American citizens their fundamental freedoms and liberties, citizens do not forfeit their civil rights merely as a consequence of their state of residence, and states do not have the authority to decide who will and will not have his civil rights.

This is why there is no such thing as 'judicial tyranny,' 'legislating from the bench,' or courts 'ignoring the will of the people,' as the residents of the states who enacted measures with the intent to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law were never authorized to do so in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's not 'states' rights' to advocate for constitutional amendments to ban same sex marriage or ban abortion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We need the Convention of states to put this country back on the right track.........
And put the Fed back on a leash.

Nonsense.

The country is currently on the right track, as originally intended by the Framers, where the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – the now invalidated measures seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are proof of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

oh brother. the people in California voted down Homosexual marriage and you all had black robe justices step and OVERTURN their rights to vote on it in their own state. so you might like being RULED over but that isn't how our country used to work. now it's just mob rules

Wrong.

The residents of California – or any state, for that matter – were never authorized to decide whether or not gay Americans are entitled to due process and equal protection of the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

Here ya go. Try reading this one of these days --

Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

It's telling how you and most others on the right always fail to read or comprehend this part of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

 

[Darkwind]

State government by definition is more accountable to its citizens. It is also not bound by the Constitutional limitations on government that the Federal government is.

So State government overreach is acceptable?

You would have no problem at all if your local state government decided to impose strict gun control requiring that every single weapon must be registered and licensed and that you would have to undergo mental health screenings every two years?

Because as you just said, it is "not bound by the Constitutional limitations" on the Federal government, right?

Words and phrases have meanings.

Overreach occurs when government steps beyond it limits of authority.

If the State government is not bound by an authority that the Feds are, then the State government is not overreaching....

Comprehend this?

In addition, you and the OP are creating a strawman.

Simply because I support States rights does not mean I support the States being tyrannical in the Feds place.

Critical thought is a wonderful tool.

 

[Darkwind]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

Here ya go. Try reading this one of these days --

Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

It's telling how you and most others on the right always fail to read or comprehend this part of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment X

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.

Its amazing how YOU fail to know anything about law, on a consistent basis.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Phrases and words in the Constitution have meaning, and they are not at the liberty to be defined by libertarians.

Sorry, darkwind, that is just the way it is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Amendment X

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.

Its amazing how YOU fail to know anything about law, on a consistent basis.

Ironic!

Individual rights cannot be infringed by the states which is what you failed to comprehend in C_Clayton_Jones's erudite posts.

The states are subject to Federal law and since the 14th Amendment grants every individual the right to equal treatment under the law the states cannot deny gays their right to marry the consenting adult of their choice.

Per the OP the states OVERREACHED by passing unconstitutional laws limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

And per the OP you are one of the ignorami who applauded and condoned that state government overreach.

Too bad that it is beyond your meager cognitive powers to grasp this fact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision regarding same-sex marriage, a lot of discussion has gone on over whether the Federal Government is tyrannically oppressing "state's rights".

Aside from the root issue that almost every mention of "state's rights" is referring to states having the right to discriminate against it's own citizens, I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

Why is one government telling you what to do better than the other?

Here ya go. Try reading this one of these days --

Constitution - Bill of Rights Institute

It's telling how you and most others on the right always fail to read or comprehend this part of the Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, US Constitution

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Amendment X

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.

Its amazing how YOU fail to know anything about law, on a consistent basis.

It's not amazing how you fail to understand that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, where it was neither the intent nor understanding of the Framers that the 10th Amendment should 'authorize' the states to violate the rights of American citizens residing in the states, that the states may not 'ignore' Federal law or the rulings of state courts:

“The Tenth Amendment is not a limitation upon the authority of the National Government to resort to all means for the exercise of a granted power which are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.”

United States v. Darby US Law LII Legal Information Institute

And as a fact of Constitutional law it was the original intent of the Framers to make the National government supreme, its acts the supreme law of the land, and the states subject to the rulings of the Federal courts:

“The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

No state legislator or executive or judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his solemn oath to support it.”

Cooper v. Aaron 358 U.S. 1 1958 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

Now, unless you can cite a Supreme Court ruling overturning US v. Darby and Cooper v. Aaron, your post is factually incorrect, nothing more than irrelevant, subjective opinion completely devoid of legal merit.

And the fact that there are same-sex coupes currently marrying in the states subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, further renders your opinion wrong as a fact of law.

 

[guno]

The term 'states rights' gained widespread popularity at the start of the civil rights period, when Jim Crow laws were challenged at the federal level.

That's exactly what Ronald Reagan did when he kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980. Reagan even kicked it up a notch, by holding his presidential campaign kick-off in Philadelphia, Mississippi (which was Trent Lott's idea ). Philadelphia, Mississippi was where the famous murders of three civil rights workers occurred in 1964. Did Regan denounce those murders or mention them in any way in that speech? Nope. He instead told a nearly all white crowd that he believes in 'states' rights'. It was a chilling message to send to black Americans everywhere . It was political genius on their part, It was a way to woo the southern democratic vote (dixie-crats) over to the Republican party.

This is why we have to remember the context of the phase states rights and who is using it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

States don't have rights. They have powers.

The states have powers that are not included in the US Constitution.

It's clear in the US Constitution, the 14th Amendment, that equality of the laws is essential. The state govts did not have the power to treat people with inequality. They did it anyway.

They overreached their power.

 

[SwimExpert]

I wonder why people with such dislike and distrust of the federal government seem to have no problems with state government overreach.

People as such often label themselves as "conservatives" but are in fact nothing of the sort. They are big government oppressive statists who lust after the tyrannical domination and total control of government over the lives of other people. They desperately long for massive government power to take root and rule with an iron fist. But they don't want that power to be wielded at the federal level for one very simple reason: The federal level is much too far away from their own personal control. So they rally for state power to abuse the people, hoping and believing that they themselves can control the government, and thus control the people.

There are many comparisons that could be drawn here, none of them good. In many ways, it's like a sick and twisted rape fetish game gone awry. You lure strangers on Craigslist and convince them to come to your house and "rape" you, pretending that you love being out of control, but then turning around and calling the police to file actual rape charges.