State's Rights

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Not taking care of...Government policy got in the way of this being taken care of. The federal govt fucked up by not issuing a travel ban. The federal government has hamstrung the CDC and WHO.

 

[konradv]

Your hero Koresh set the fires

I understand that you expect your food stamp allowance to be increased by ignoring the CS gas and incendiary grenades.

Neither of which explains a widespread conflagration. That was the result of an accelerant being spread by the Davidians themselves.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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 .

so the commerce clause, the supremacy clause and the general welfare clause and all of the amendments were just kidding?

if what you were saying was half true, we'd have remained under the articles of confederation.

un-American? lol

as for every state falling like dominos, that would be false. there are some very successful states... they just either have oil or something else to commend them. red states generally don't do too well.... (see Mississippi and Alabama, etc). or we could say how well Wisconsin has done with it's use of it's state's "rights".

Not at all. One thing you libs cannot seem to grasp is this the relationship between laws of the states and those of the federal government is not an "either or" issue.
You libs hear "states rights" and your immediate response is either "BS the states have no say" or you start spouting off about how your convenience is affected.
The commerce clause as well as full faith and credit were written in respect of States Rights to insure that while states rights are preserved, the federal government saw fit to insure there would not be a hodgepodge of confusing laws and regulations which would make trade and travel between the states burdensome.
The general welfare clause is so misused and is misinterpreted. Many people mistake it's meaning. They believe the federal government exists to "help" people and they believe that's what the general welfare clause means. It does not. Promoting the general welfare of the people means just that. The federal government has the duty to permit the people to prosper. That is the meaning of "promote".
Think of US as a gigantic baseball field. Each state has an umpire. The federal government has one, but he or she watches the game from the sidelines. Now as long as the game ( country) runs smoothly and the other 50 umpires agree on every call, the federal umpire is not required. If there is a dispute or a decision on which the other umpires cannot agree, the federal umpire steps in and makes the decision for them( arbitrates). He promotes the peace( general welfare)

 

[Contumacious]

Your hero Koresh set the fires

I understand that you expect your food stamp allowance to be increased by ignoring the CS gas and incendiary grenades.

Neither of which explains a widespread conflagration. That was the result of an accelerant being spread by the Davidians themselves.

The parasitic fucktards never cease to amaze me


incendiary grenade

 

[Skylar]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Save, of course, that the cases you've cited don't address the issues you claim they do. And are explicitly contradicted by the United States Supreme Court and about a century of actual history.

 

[Skylar]

The general welfare clause is so misused and is misinterpreted.

Maybe. But if it is, its misuse has an excellent pedigree. As Madison was lamenting about the same thing no less than 3 years after the constitution was ratified.

 

[Contumacious]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Save, of course, that the cases you've cited don't address the issues you claim they do. And are explicitly contradicted by the United States Supreme Court and about a century of actual history.

Is the SCOTUS case law based on actual Historical evidence or did they succumb to pressure in order to avoid a Constitutional crisis?

 

[Skylar]

Think of US as a gigantic baseball field. Each state has an umpire. The federal government has one, but he or she watches the game from the sidelines. Now as long as the game ( country) runs smoothly and the other 50 umpires agree on every call, the federal umpire is not required. If there is a dispute or a decision on which the other umpires cannot agree, the federal umpire steps in and makes the decision for them( arbitrates). He promotes the peace( general welfare)

You've left out a party: the people. Your description is reasonable description of the way the US was run before the 14th amendment. With that amendment (and a 30 year gap before the courts started to get it), the federal government took on a new role: protecting the rights of the individuals from the States. Something the 14th explicitly empowered the feds to do.

As time progressed, the federal government took on a third role: protecting the rights of the individuals from other individuals. And that's where I think the Feds kinda jumped the shark. As the Feds kinda made up their own authority on that one. And used some fucking ridiculous legal reasoning to do it. See the 'one nail crosses the border' discussion from earlier.

Don't get me wrong. The rights of individuals definitely need protecting from other individuals. But my beef is the how. Just arbitrarily deciding that the interstate commerce clause grants the Federal Government complete regulatory jurisdiction in intrastate commerce rather snuffs the point of a constitution. Or the meaning of words. Or any functional limits to federal power.

 

[Listening]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Errant opinions.....moron. How can an opinion be errant ? THEY ARE OPINIONS.

Moron.

There is never anything "settled" or accepted. Else why was Teddy (so glad he's dead) Kennedy yelling at Roberts and Alito about "preserving" the gains of the past 50 years ?

Looking forward to that answer.

 

[thereisnospoon]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue.... they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

The Equal Protection Clause would apply.
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Public accommodations laws are the province of the individual states. And they are fine as long as they do not violate the US Constitution. Or superseding federal law.
For example Title IX of the US Code prohibits discrimination in gender equity in any educational institution that accepts federal funding. If a state had laws that for instance mandated that boys and girls must take phys ed in separate rooms and do different activities. Such was the case in my public school system. The girls and boys had phys ed class at different times and did different things in class. Once Title IX became the law, those practices came to an end.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Errant opinions.....moron. How can an opinion be errant ? THEY ARE OPINIONS.

Moron.

There is never anything "settled" or accepted. Else why was Teddy (so glad he's dead) Kennedy yelling at Roberts and Alito about "preserving" the gains of the past 50 years ?

Looking forward to that answer.

I was going to respond to that myself.
Be not surprised. Liberals believe there are opinions that are wrong and should be silenced. Any opinion with which they disagree.

 

[Skylar]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Save, of course, that the cases you've cited don't address the issues you claim they do. And are explicitly contradicted by the United States Supreme Court and about a century of actual history.

Is the SCOTUS case law based on actual Historical evidence or did they succumb to pressure in order to avoid a Constitutional crisis?

Whose case law? The caselaw that Clayton cited of the Bill of Rights applying to the States with the McCulloch decision? Oh, fuck no. The McCulloch decision was about a currency dispute. It had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights and never mentions them once. Nor did Clayton's assertions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights to the States play out historically.

In Barron V Baltimore, the city of Baltimore just took Barron's shit without compensation. Barron said the city of Baltimore (well, the Mayor anyway) had violated the just compensation provision of the 5th amendment. The Supreme Court dismissed Barron's case, as they said that 5th amendment didn't apply to the States. That none of the Bill of Rights did. That the Bill of Rights was created to limit Federal action, and didn't limit State legislation.

Bitchslapping Clayton's entire argument. But it gets worse.

When the 14th amendment was being introduced, Senator Jacob Howard expliclty states that the purpose of the amendment is to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. Something that would be pointless if it already did, as Clayton claims. Congressman John Bingham, one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment actually read the Barron V. Baltimore decision on the House floor when explaining why the 14th amendment was necessary; because the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States.

It wasn't until 1898 that the Bill of Rights in any form was finally applied. This time, a provision of the 5th amendment. One of those little historical ironies....that the amendment that was used to demonstrate that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States was the first used to demonstrate that it did under the 14th amendment.

So historically and legally, all the evidence is on one side of the debate: the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified.

 

[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

Some of those laws could be minimized by other laws. Ever think of that?

 

[DriftingSand]

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

Interracial marriage between a man and a women. Huge difference.

 

[Contumacious]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Save, of course, that the cases you've cited don't address the issues you claim they do. And are explicitly contradicted by the United States Supreme Court and about a century of actual history.

Is

So historically and legally, all the evidence is on one side of the debate: the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Incorrect.

Bill Bennet correctly argues that it was the INTENT of the Founding Fathers to make the BOR applicable to the states viat the Ninth Amendment.

 

[Contumacious]

Conservatives subscribing to this thread are posting only subjective, errant opinions, absent any facts or case law in support.

And they're entitled to post their subjective, errant opinions, provided they understand that as a fact of settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence they are indeed wrong.

Save, of course, that the cases you've cited don't address the issues you claim they do. And are explicitly contradicted by the United States Supreme Court and about a century of actual history.

So historically and legally, all the evidence is on one side of the debate: the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States until after the 14th amendment was ratified.

Bill Bennet CORRECTLY shows that the BOR applie to the States pursuant to the Ninth Amendment.

.

 

[Skylar]

Bill Bennet CORRECTLY shows that the BOR applie to the States pursuant to the Ninth Amendment.

So Bill says. Yet it didn't.

It would be like someone 150 years from now saying that gay marriage was legal since the time of the founders. Its a lovely sentiment. Still doesn't change the fact that until quite recently, if gays had gone to get married by the local justice of the peace, they would have been told to go fuck themselves. History doesn't magically change just because someone posts a blog article on the internet.

Likewise, Barron's case was *still* dismissed in 1833 by the USSC which cited the lack of federal jurisdiction since the BOR didn't apply to the States.

You can't even argue original intent. As no where in the Constitutional Convention or Federalist papers is the idea forwarded that the BOR applied to the States. The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 amendements. Number 14 read as follows:

14. No state shall infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.

https://www.sethkaller.com/slideshow.php?id=182&t=t-182-001-Ks20650.12_detail_w.jpg

Now Article 10 of this first draft already had provisions for trial by Jury. Article 3 already covered rights of conscience. And Article 4 the right to free speech and the press. If the Bill of Rights was always intended to apply to the States......why in the fuck would they list the right to trial by jury, right of concience, right to free speech and right of the press TWICE each? The second explicitly naming the states?

It makes absolutely no sense.

Clearly the 10th amendment provisions for trial by jury didn't apply to the States. Nor did the 3rd's right of conscience. Nor did the 4th's free press or free speech provision. Only an amendment explicitly limiting States in the same manner would apply to the States.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and by "Bill Bennet', did you mean Bennett B. Patterson?

 

[Contumacious]

Bill Bennet CORRECTLY shows that the BOR applie to the States pursuant to the Ninth Amendment.

So Bill says. Yet it didn't.

It would be like someone 150 years from now saying that gay marriage was legal since the time of the founders. Its a lovely sentiment. Still doesn't change the fact that until quite recently, if gays had gone to get married by the local justice of the peace, they would have been told to go fuck themselves. History doesn't magically change just because someone posts a blog article on the internet.

Likewise, Barron's case was *still* dismissed in 1833 by the USSC which cited the lack of federal jurisdiction since the BOR didn't apply to the States.

You can't even argue original intent. As no where in the Constitutional Convention or Federalist papers is the idea forwarded that the BOR applied to the States. The original draft of the Bill of Rights had 17 amendements. Number 14 read as follows:

14. No state shall infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press.

https://www.sethkaller.com/slideshow.php?id=182&t=t-182-001-Ks20650.12_detail_w.jpg

Now Article 10 of this first draft already had provisions for trial by Jury. Article 3 already covered rights of conscience. And Article 4 the right to free speech and the press. If the Bill of Rights was always intended to apply to the States......why in the fuck would they list the right to trial by jury, right of concience, right to free speech and right of the press TWICE each? The second explicitly naming the states?

It makes absolutely no sense.

Clearly the 10th amendment provisions for trial by jury didn't apply to the States. Nor did the 3rd's right of conscience. Nor did the 4th's free press or free speech provision. Only an amendment explicitly limiting States in the same manner would apply to the States.

The Representative from Georgia opposed the BOR in a debate conducted on June 8th, 1789.

He stated therein

"
. But do gentlemen suppose bills of rights necessary to secure liberty? If they do, let them look at New York, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. Those States have no bills of rights, and is the liberty of the citizens less safe in those States, than in the other of the United States? I believe it is not."

Mr Jackson (from Georgia) made the same argument Hamilton made in the Federalist. That UNenumerated rights were also protected by state governments.

 

[Skylar]

. But do gentlemen suppose bills of rights necessary to secure liberty? If they do, let them look at New York, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia. Those States have no bills of rights, and is the liberty of the citizens less safe in those States, than in the other of the United States? I believe it is not."

You do realize that that's an argument against your case, right? As Mr. Jackson is saying that there is no need to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.