State's Rights

[Wolfstrike]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

 

[Seawytch]

My state legalized interracial marriage...your state outlawed it. Gosh, what did the SCOTUS do?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"State's Rights"

The states do not have the 'right' to deny or violate their residents' civil liberties.

Residents of the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, possessing inalienable rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Consequently, it was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution, its case law, the Federal courts, and the rule of law be supreme, binding on the states, and immune from attack by the states (see US Constitution, Article VI, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

Texas is doing quite well thank you very much....

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

We haven't banned "gay marriage" (a synonym for "I want to get my degenerate hands on little boys") in Colorado yet, but a bunch of democrats are about to get bounced out of office, so things are looking up.

BTW Molesting children isn't a "civil right" no matter how much queers would like us to believe otherwise.

Didn't we learn a thing from the Catholic Church debacle? Given the chance, queers molest little boys. It's been proven to the detriment of thousands of children. Does the heterosexual American left give a damn about children anymore? Do they care about their welfare?

 

[HenryBHough]

States Rights.

What a quaint outdated concept!

 

[Skylar]

"State's Rights"

The states do not have the 'right' to deny or violate their residents' civil liberties.

Residents of the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, possessing inalienable rights that can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Consequently, it was the original intent of the Founding Generation that the Federal Constitution, its case law, the Federal courts, and the rule of law be supreme, binding on the states, and immune from attack by the states (see US Constitution, Article VI, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

The McCoulloch case had nothing to do with rights of State citizens. It was a State power v. Federal Power case related to taxes on currencies. There's not the slightest mention of the bill of rights applying to the States in the McCulloch decision.

Here's the decision. I invite you to find any mention of the BIll of Rights applying to the States in any capacity:

FindLaw Cases and Codes

It never happened.

The USSC did address the issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights applied to the States in the case of Barron V. Baltimore. And they were pretty clear that it didn't:

These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States.

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

At this point in our history the issue was so commonly known and well understood that Justice Marshall actually got a little flippant about it:

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html

Which is about as close as a Justice of the 1830s would get to saying 'Muthafucka, please!"

 

[OnePercenter]

Texas is doing quite well thank you very much....

Except one of your hospitals missed Ebola.

Your Governor has been indicted.

Your NOT the biggest State.

 

[Jackson]

Screw gay marriage. I think you missed the point. I think Wolfstrike is saying we are not using States Rights to our advantage.

We could be making laws in our states that affect out tax base, our schools, many everyday things that affect all of us.

We have to remember that the federal government is only permitted to take on the task of handling certain things and the "general welfare" clause has stretched the meaning and scope its purpose of the constitution.

Perhaps it should be challenged. If need be, a n amendment to the constitution is in order to limit its use to be a token unmbrella for covering every aspects of a citizen's life.

 

[AtticusF]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

In my lifetime, "states rights" has simply meant the right to discriminate against minorities. Screw the right/white wingers who encourage that.

 

[Jackson]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

In my lifetime, "states rights" has simply meant the right to discriminate against minorities. Screw the right/white wingers who encourage that.

Wow, that was an answer I never expected. Would you explain that?

 

[ShackledNation]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

Does a state get to pass a law saying anyone who criticizes the state is to be killed? Why not? What about allowing states to experiment with this? No? Why not?

The reality is that states do not get to do whatever they want. Individual rights protected by the Constitution trump states rights.

 

[ShackledNation]

Screw gay marriage. I think you missed the point. I think Wolfstrike is saying we are not using States Rights to our advantage.

We could be making laws in our states that affect out tax base, our schools, many everyday things that affect all of us.

We have to remember that the federal government is only permitted to take on the task of handling certain things and the "general welfare" clause has stretched the meaning and scope its purpose of the constitution.

Perhaps it should be challenged. If need be, a n amendment to the constitution is in order to limit its use to be a token unmbrella for covering every aspects of a citizen's life.

States do have different tax laws, education policies, etc. and laws regarding marijuana and same-sex marriage do have a serious affect on people. I would actually say that with some states legalizing marijuana, in defiance of federal laws, states are asserting their power in potentially productive ways more than any other time in recent history.

 

[elektra]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

 

[Jackson]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

Perhaps states rights can overcome some of that.

 

[Piss Bucket]

In addition to creating a "marketplace" ( where people are free to move from state to state based up factors like taxation and public services), the primary reason to reserve power in states is the notion of de-centralized power which runs throughout the constitution and other authority of the Founders, such as the Federalist Papers. The Founders were keenly aware that if power becomes too concentrated then it will slip away from the people and into the hands of a despotic ruler or rulers.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

 

[Skylar]

Screw gay marriage. I think you missed the point. I think Wolfstrike is saying we are not using States Rights to our advantage.

We could be making laws in our states that affect out tax base, our schools, many everyday things that affect all of us.

We have to remember that the federal government is only permitted to take on the task of handling certain things and the "general welfare" clause has stretched the meaning and scope its purpose of the constitution.

Perhaps it should be challenged. If need be, a n amendment to the constitution is in order to limit its use to be a token unmbrella for covering every aspects of a citizen's life.

You haven't factored in the 14th amendment. Which extended most of the bill of rights to the States. So among all the tasks you indicated that the federal government is able to take on, you forgot 'protect the rights of federal citizens from abuse by the States'. Which is where decisions like Romer V. Evans, Loving V. Virginia and McDonald v. Chicago come in.

The Feds absolutely have the authority to step in and protect rights of individuals by declaring a given state statute is unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

In addition to creating a "marketplace" ( where people are free to move from state to state based up factors like taxation and public services), the primary reason to reserve power in states is the notion of de-centralized power which runs throughout the constitution and other authority of the Founders, such as the Federalist Papers. The Founders were keenly aware that if power becomes too concentrated then it will slip away from the people and into the hands of a despotic ruler or rulers.

The founders were quite concerned with the idea of the federal government having too much power. They considered the federal govenrment the protector of the States and the States the protectors of the rights of the people.

Alas, that didn't necessary work out so well. As among the 'market place' of State laws were quite a few that flagrantly violated the rights of citizens . Which the US constitution could do exactly dick about, as the Bill of Rights and other protections against federal authority didn't apply to the States. (see Barron V. Baltimore for the quintessential legal precedent on the manner)

Which was why the 14th amendment was created; to extend the Bill of Rights to the States. Which it did, albeit selectively and over about a century. The federal judiciary has the authority to overturn laws -federal or state- that violate the rights of individuals.

The concept of judicial review was also part of the founder's plan. Read Federalist Paper 78 on the role of the Supreme Court in ruling if a given law was constitutional.

 

[Siete]

Who cares about states rights and everything else, the government on all levels are too big with too much power.

Can anyone think of one thing that the government does rule and regulate.

every year we are burdened with more laws and regulations, when the old law or regulations fail, the make new ones and enlarge the government further.

The government workers now rule the private citizens, we work so they can live fat off our labor,

we are slaves to the bureaucracy

haven't you been whining about the government not taking care of you over this Ebola Virus crapola?