State's Rights

[Contumacious]

You are saying that , for example, Founding Father Patrick Henry objected to the FEDERAL government transgressing upon his rights but had no objection if the State of Virginia tyrannize him, is that right?

You're referring to the famous 'give me liberty or give me death' speech? If so, check the dates.

As for being 'tyrannized by Virginia', Virginia had its own Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously in 1776. Virginia's Declaration of Rights, like the Virginia Constitution, applied to Virginia. The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, applied to the Federal government.

The only caveat is that there were a handful of instances in the US Constitution where restrictions were placed on the States. But every restriction was explicitly enumerated.

And I noticed you avoided the Barron V. Baltimore case, the first draft of the Bill of Rights, and the reading of the Barron ruling on the House floor by Congressman John Bingham.

They're pretty hard to argue against, aren't they?

The Founding Fathers did their very best to create a free Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, from the very beginning the SCOTUS has been populated by government supremacist scumbgags, low life pieces of shit - elitist motherfuckers - who refuse to interpret the Constitution and have engaged instead in amending the document.

."Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121


"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

 

[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

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

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

I agree, but education should be so basic and the same from state to state, there should be no reason to touch it.

 

[Listening]

As with rights that pertain to individuals, states' rights are also not absolute, and are subject to restriction by the Federal Constitution.

States have the right to license occupations, create the boundaries for cities and counties, and write elections laws absent interference from the Federal government.

But the states may not deny occupation licenses to persons because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or likewise seek to disadvantage classes of persons from voting based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, as such acts are repugnant to the Constitution.

It is therefore incumbent upon state lawmakers to enact measures that comport with the Constitution and its case law, and when they fail to do that they should fully expect the Federal courts to invalidate such measures, as authorized by the Constitution.

Please, oh large bullcrapper.....

Provide us an instance to which you refer.

States were denying people rights based on race long after the constitution was formed.

Or did your history book not go that far back ?

 

[Listening]

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?

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

General Welfare...do what needs to be done

Works for me

Only within a limited scope....proven time and time and time again.

But you only hear what you want to hear.

 

[Listening]

Elektra, like EconChick and others, is a Progressive far right wing big government fan for her policies.

Take your smart pills.

You must be behind schedule.

And you, my dear, are a far right progressive as well, arguing for small government until you want big government to protect your beliefs.

Why don't you just admit you are a progressive?

Government does not need to protect my beliefs since my beliefs are my own. Government is not to interfere with the practice of my beliefs as long as they are not harming anyone else. Putting the ten commandments in front of a courthouse is no different than flying the American Flag.

Suck on it.

The Government has to protect others from your beliefs which are impacting what others can do. Civil rights, gay rights

There are no such thing as gay rights and it can argued and has been quite well that there really is no such thing as civil rights.

But you keep after it. I would guess your next alotment of food stamps is pretty secure.

BTW: What government was that...the same one that allowed slaves for 100 years ?

 

[Contumacious]

You are saying that , for example, Founding Father Patrick Henry objected to the FEDERAL government transgressing upon his rights but had no objection if the State of Virginia tyrannize him, is that right?

You're referring to the famous 'give me liberty or give me death' speech? If so, check the dates.

As for being 'tyrannized by Virginia', Virginia had its own Declaration of Rights adopted unanimously in 1776. Virginia's Declaration of Rights, like the Virginia Constitution, applied to Virginia. The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution, applied to the Federal government.

The only caveat is that there were a handful of instances in the US Constitution where restrictions were placed on the States. But every restriction was explicitly enumerated.

And I noticed you avoided the Barron V. Baltimore case, the first draft of the Bill of Rights, and the reading of the Barron ruling on the House floor by Congressman John Bingham.

They're pretty hard to argue against, aren't they?

The Founding Fathers did their very best to create a free Constitutional Republic. Unfortunately, from the very beginning the SCOTUS has been populated by government supremacist scumbgags, low life pieces of shit - elitist motherfuckers - who refuse to interpret the Constitution and have engaged instead in amending the document.

."Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121


"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

 

[rightwinger]

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?

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

General Welfare...do what needs to be done

Works for me

Only within a limited scope....proven time and time and time again.

But you only hear what you want to hear.

Obviously, the courts do not agree with you

Limited scope is as determined by "We the people"

 

[Listening]

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

The only I can think of, is what in the hell are talking about.

Well, if there was a law, demanding 30 cents tax on a gallon of gas for the states, the state could pass a law to make in 5 cents instead of the thirty or outlaw that tax altogether.

Instead of the federal government making laws for the schools to conform to, the states could redefine the mandate, taking control of education. Let it play out int the SCOTUS. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the Federal government the power of mandating educatin of the nation to the Federal government. Spmetime in our future, the 'general welfare " clause might have to be defined. Many think it is too broad.

General Welfare...do what needs to be done

Works for me

Only within a limited scope....proven time and time and time again.

But you only hear what you want to hear.

Obviously, the courts do not agree with you

Limited scope is as determined by "We the people"

There is no obviously...they've been wishy washy on the topic for several decades. Prior to that, your argument would have been meaningless.

Unless you want to argue the courts have never reversed course.

 

[Decus]

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Clear, simple and straightforward.

When you hear some crap about a few words in the Preamble to the Constitution being a clue as to the "intent" of the founders you really have to laugh. A vast central government was never the intent given that the powers given to the Federal government in the Constitution were limited to money, taxes, commerce, defense and treaties in a nutshell.

 

[KingOfCars]

1. The FEDERAL gov't screwed the pooch with the whole Ebola thing. It's not Texas' fault that our assholes in power can't do something as simple as placing a travel ban to and from W. African countries.

2. Yes, our Governor was/is indicted. So fucking what?!? You can indict a ham sandwich.

3. You're a douche-nozzle.

 

[bendog]

Rick Perry = a ham sandwich. You know I kinda like that, but I wouldn't eat Rick Perry.

 

[nodoginnafight]

States have powers, PEOPLE have rights.

 

[Listening]

The 10th Amendment to the US Constitution:

"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."

Clear, simple and straightforward.

When you hear some crap about a few words in the Preamble to the Constitution being a clue as to the "intent" of the founders you really have to laugh. A vast central government was never the intent given that the powers given to the Federal government in the Constitution were limited to money, taxes, commerce, defense and treaties in a nutshell.

A fact that is well known, yet ignored by those who have a different vision for the country.

Regardless...as I said from the start....if you don't own the courts...you don't get your way.

It is a shame that FDR started the tradition of wiping his sorry ass with the U.S. Constitution and Obama has carried it on in grand fashion.

 

[Decus]

PoliticalChic quotes the "Father of the US Constitution" James Madison and provides an invaluable insight into how the US Constitution should be understood. The thread can be found here:

Stealing From The Taxpayer and the Constitution US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

Conversely, perhaps the state's "rights" arguments are entirely flawed. Perhaps we should start talking more about state responsibility to provide effective governance, and eliminating the need for the federal government to be involved in the first place. Though maybe that's just too idealistic.

 

[Listening]

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

Conversely, perhaps the state's "rights" arguments are entirely flawed. Perhaps we should start talking more about state responsibility to provide effective governance, and eliminating the need for the federal government to be involved in the first place. Though maybe that's just too idealistic.

I'll go for that !

While the term effective governance is somewhat vauge...I am sure we could arrive at a compromise (pardon the use of the term).

We could even take it to the county and municiple levels too.

That way people can, as the founders envisioned, take care of their own destinies (as states, counties, and cities) and not have a small group of assholes on the east coast trying to run our lives.

 

[SwimExpert]

I'll go for that !

While the term effective governance is somewhat vauge...I am sure we could arrive at a compromise (pardon the use of the term).

We could even take it to the county and municiple levels too.

That way people can, as the founders envisioned, take care of their own destinies (as states, counties, and cities) and not have a small group of assholes on the east coast trying to run our lives.

Yes, it's a big vague, as many people will perceive "effective" governance to be that which supports their personal positions on issues. But suffice it to say that once upon a time governance was more effective than the masturbatory gridlock of the 21st century. Things got done. Both sides of the isle compromised. If the results didn't turn out well everyone learned and moved forward to improve things.

I think that education should probably be the place everyone starts. Get the federal government out of K-12 education. The states need to start taking responsibility to establish effective schools and education approaches. If they really want idiotic standardized testing then let each state handle it on their own. The state citizens will know if it's working for them or not, and will best be able to chance things if it's not. The states need to start setting their own curricula and structures to reshape the education process to meet the needs of the 21st century, so that a high school education actually has value again. Reshape the entire structure so that juvenile education focuses on actual job skills, and reserve the college prep approach only for those who want or intend to go to college. The only involvement the federal government should have in the education process should be to focus on making higher education more readily accessible, so that we can stop importing foreigners to fill jobs in America.

 

[Listening]

I'll go for that !

While the term effective governance is somewhat vauge...I am sure we could arrive at a compromise (pardon the use of the term).

We could even take it to the county and municiple levels too.

That way people can, as the founders envisioned, take care of their own destinies (as states, counties, and cities) and not have a small group of assholes on the east coast trying to run our lives.

Yes, it's a big vague, as many people will perceive "effective" governance to be that which supports their personal positions on issues. But suffice it to say that once upon a time governance was more effective than the masturbatory gridlock of the 21st century. Things got done. Both sides of the isle compromised. If the results didn't turn out well everyone learned and moved forward to improve things.

I think that education should probably be the place everyone starts. Get the federal government out of K-12 education. The states need to start taking responsibility to establish effective schools and education approaches. If they really want idiotic standardized testing then let each state handle it on their own. The state citizens will know if it's working for them or not, and will best be able to chance things if it's not. The states need to start setting their own curricula and structures to reshape the education process to meet the needs of the 21st century, so that a high school education actually has value again. Reshape the entire structure so that juvenile education focuses on actual job skills, and reserve the college prep approach only for those who want or intend to go to college. The only involvement the federal government should have in the education process should be to focus on making higher education more readily accessible, so that we can stop importing foreigners to fill jobs in America.

No need to compromise on this discussion...I am with you 100%.

Each state should set guidelines and each county and school district should set it's own standards.

In Kansas, we were not allowed to spend money on our own schools past a certain point. After that, you had to put it in the kitty in the name of equality. Pure horses**t.

And of course, there was No Child Gets Ahead. What a freaking disaster.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As with rights that pertain to individuals, states' rights are also not absolute, and are subject to restriction by the Federal Constitution.

The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. Nor did any court ever rule that it did until long after the 14th amendment.

But the states may not deny occupation licenses to persons because of their race, gender, or sexual orientation, or likewise seek to disadvantage classes of persons from voting based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, as such acts are repugnant to the Constitution.

No court ever found this until after the 14th amendment was adopted. The USSC found instead that the BIll of Rights did not nor was ever intended to apply to the States. In fact, Bingham (who was one of the primary authors of the 14th amendment) cited the very abuses based on race that you mentioned as the reason the 14th amendment was needed.

As without it, the Federal government was powerless to do anything to stop it.

Since the 14th, that's all different.

It was always the intent of the Framers that the Federal government, the Federal Constitution, and its case law be supreme. That the states were expected to respect the rights of American citizens was not 'invented' with the ratification of the 14th Amendment:

“[N]ational citizenship has privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement by the force of the Constitution itself[, e]ven before the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment[.]”

U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 1995 .

Indeed, the 14th Amendment was the reaffirmation of this fact, where the states were compelled to respect the rights of American citizens residing within the states, their "privileges and immunities protected from state abridgement" as a consequence of one's National citizenship.

 

[Skylar]

Unfortunately, from the very beginning the SCOTUS has been populated by government supremacist scumbgags, low life pieces of shit - elitist motherfuckers - who refuse to interpret the Constitution and have engaged instead in amending the document.

Says who?

."Contrary to all correct example, [the Federal judiciary] are in the habit of going out of the question before them, to throw an anchor ahead and grapple further hold for future advances of power. They are then in fact the corps of sappers and miners, steadily working to undermine the independent rights of the States and to consolidate all power in the hands of that government in which they have so important a freehold estate." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:121

And Jefferson was part of no delegation to the constitutional congress, wrote none of the federalist or anti-federalist papers, didn't participate in the writing of the constitution and wasn't even the country when the constitution was written and ratified.

Making him about the most useless founding father you could quote on the constitution.

Where Federalist Paper 78 made it ridiculously clear that Judiciary was to determine if a given law was constitutional. And the Federalist model won.

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:486

[/quote]

Says the man that wasn't even in the country when the Constitution was written or ratified. So who cares what Jefferson thought on the intent of a document he had nothing to do with the writing of?

The Federalist Papers give a very clear view of the intent of the power of the Judiciary:

[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents

Federalist Paper 78
Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist 78

And that's exactly what the courts do.

And of course, nothing you just posted has a thing to do with the Patrick Henry, the applicability of the Bill of Rights, or any of your other claims. You've completely abandoned them. And rightly so......they were poorly informed.