The Meaning of "State's Rights"

[PoliticalChic]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Again? The premise here is that 'state's rights' goes back to 'federalism,' and requires an understanding of 'sovereignty.'


4. An actual study of history, beyond the superficial and politically correct intention of government schooling, will show that throughout the war, the states guarded their sovereignty, never giving to Congress authority that they couldn't reclaim.

a. Article II of the Articles of Confederation, 1777: Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Know what that " expressly delegated to the United States" refers to? Article I, Second 8 of the Constitution for the exact meaning....the enumerated powers.




5. Almost immediately, there were individuals who demanded a more power federal center; they were called "Federalists." They pointed to shortcomings of the Articles as revealed by the war, such as providing the men, money and supplies. They blamed the Articles for difficulties in obtaining credit from European monarchies and bankers. The demand was to cede more power to a stronger federal government.
So...they wanted a conference to work out the flaws in the Articles....


a. The Federalists tried a trick, telling the states that a meeting was to be held that would merely propose amendment to the Articles.
Virginian Patrick Henry refused to go, saying he "smelled a rat." Discerning History » Joshua Horn



Why would any be for a stronger central government?
Because in several areas, a strong central government was necessary and efficient.

Why be opposed?
There were those who saw the death of federalism.

Could be?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

"they ceded much of their sovereignty"


Hogwash.


The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.


Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Get ready for The Big Lebowski!

The Full Monty!

The Sting!!




6. This is when it all changed. See....the real aim of the convention in 1787 was to write up a whole new 'Articles'....called a Constitution.

Arriving a few days early, James Madison, Edmund Randolph, George Washington and George Mason, planned a blueprint, the Virginia Plan, based on the following:

a) a new document must provide defense, security of liberty, and the general welfare;
b) treaties among and between the states will not assure these requirements; and
c) a national government must have a supreme judicial, legislative, and executive branch.



It was a big switcherooo!



7. "Most history and legal textbooks say that Jefferson and Madison invented the idea of state sovereignty. But … they only argued for what the founders had already understood to be true about the sovereign states from the beginning, even if some of the founders (the nationalist and monarchist wings) wanted to change that understanding.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R.C. Gutzman, p. 73.



8. What happened to federalism?

Judges.
Chief Justice Marshall's chief sin is not judicial review but his repudiation of the Jeffersonian understanding of the limits of federal power.

In McCulloch v Maryland, Marshall "wrote that while the Articles of Confederation had specified that Congress had only the powers it was 'expressly delegated,' the Constitution included no such language, so no such principle applied to it.

This was an extraordinary argument, given that Marshall himself and other Federalists … had assured their ratification colleagues that this very principle of limited federal power … was implicit in the unamended Constitution even before the Tenth Amendment was adopted."
Ibid, p. 91.



And, to those who believe in an all-powerful central government, 'state's rights' became a pejorative.

 

[jwoodie]

Spot on as usual, PC. Those who claim the Constitution is a "living document" subject to continuous reinterpretation, are nothing more than disingenuous ideologues seeking to impose their beliefs through circumvention of legitimate procedures and safeguards. If they believe additional "rights" should be added to the Constitution, there is an established process for amendment.

 

[regent]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

"they ceded much of their sovereignty"


Hogwash.


The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.


Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.

Article 1 section 8 sets forth the legislative powers; it does does not list all the powers of the national government.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's 2014.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

"they ceded much of their sovereignty"


Hogwash.


The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.


Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.

Article 1 section 8 sets forth the legislative powers; it does does not list all the powers of the national government.

"The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitution. "
Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As I said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's 2014.

Exactly the response one should expect from government school imbecile.


Bet you never heard of George Santayana.

 

[OnePercenter]

It's 2014.

Exactly the response one should expect from government school imbecile.


Bet you never heard of George Santayana.

Columbia university is a private college.

Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it.

Puberty is gonna hit you like a ton of bricks!

 

[Rogue 9]

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

"they ceded much of their sovereignty"


Hogwash.


The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.


Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.

Unfortunately for your argument, Article I enumerates all the necessary attributes of sovereignty to the federal government, and denies key ones to the states. A sovereign nation can enter treaties, maintain a military, mint money, lay import duties, and regulate migration, all things that under Article I the states may not do.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression.

Absolutely right, and PC wishes to drag us back to the bad old days.

Even she can now see that is never going to happen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression.

Absolutely right, and PC wishes to drag us back to the bad old days.

Even she can now see that is never going to happen.

I see the low-testosterone contingent is checking in.


Nothing like a moron rushing to prove what a good-hearted anti-racism individual he is!

Whoopeee!





Reminds of nothing so much as this from Coulter's best-seller, "Mugged"....

See if you recognize yourself:


"Thrilled with their role as ‘white friend-of-the-blacks,’ many found that they could actually make a living at it! The part requires sneering at nonexistent racists, and memorizing one line:
“Goddam it, this may cost me my career but I’m going to speak up for racial equality and let the chips fall where they may!”



She had you in her sights, didn't she, Jakal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's 2014.

Exactly the response one should expect from government school imbecile.


Bet you never heard of George Santayana.

Columbia university is a private college.

Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it.

Puberty is gonna hit you like a ton of bricks!

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Meaning of "State's Rights"

What it does not mean is that the states may ‘ignore,’ ‘disregard,’ or otherwise ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts.

Indeed, it is a clear, accepted, and settled fact of Constitutional law and the original intent of the Framers and the American people of the Founding Generation that the Federal government was to be supreme, and the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to the Federal government:

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition[…]that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere. See id., at 430 (where there is an attempt at "usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give," there can be no question whether the power "has been surrendered" by the people of a single State because "[t]he right never existed"). That the States may not invade the sphere of federal sovereignty is as incontestable[.]

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Article IV codifies the supremacy of the National government, where the American people are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of their respective states secondary to that, as the states lack the authority to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens living in the states, where those civil liberties are protected by the Federal Constitution (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

History demonstrates that state and local governments pose the greatest threat to individual liberty, as the states have sought to deny women their privacy rights, gay Americans their equal protection rights, and minorities their voting rights. These and other citizens so adversely effected by state overreach have no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court and compel the states to recognize their inalienable rights as citizens in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

"they ceded much of their sovereignty"


Hogwash.


The only things that the federal government was allowed is covered in Article I, section 8.


Everything that they do today that is outside of the enumerated powers is the result of theft and corruption.

Unfortunately for your argument, Article I enumerates all the necessary attributes of sovereignty to the federal government, and denies key ones to the states. A sovereign nation can enter treaties, maintain a military, mint money, lay import duties, and regulate migration, all things that under Article I the states may not do.

Unfortunately for the idea that you understand sovereignty, this question is going to skewer same.


Do the nations France, Germany, Italy, etc., .....exhibit sovereignty?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Meaning of "State's Rights"

What it does not mean is that the states may ‘ignore,’ ‘disregard,’ or otherwise ‘nullify’ Federal laws or the rulings of Federal courts.

Indeed, it is a clear, accepted, and settled fact of Constitutional law and the original intent of the Framers and the American people of the Founding Generation that the Federal government was to be supreme, and the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to the Federal government:

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition[…]that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere. See id., at 430 (where there is an attempt at "usurpation of a power which the people of a single State cannot give," there can be no question whether the power "has been surrendered" by the people of a single State because "[t]he right never existed"). That the States may not invade the sphere of federal sovereignty is as incontestable[.]

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Article IV codifies the supremacy of the National government, where the American people are first and foremost citizens of the United States, and residents of their respective states secondary to that, as the states lack the authority to violate the civil liberties of the American citizens living in the states, where those civil liberties are protected by the Federal Constitution (Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

History demonstrates that state and local governments pose the greatest threat to individual liberty, as the states have sought to deny women their privacy rights, gay Americans their equal protection rights, and minorities their voting rights. These and other citizens so adversely effected by state overreach have no other recourse than to seek relief in Federal court and compel the states to recognize their inalienable rights as citizens in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

And there is the problem right in your first line, Chamber_Pot....

"....the rulings of Federal courts."


Such is the root of the illegality.

 

[OnePercenter]

Exactly the response one should expect from government school imbecile.


Bet you never heard of George Santayana.

Columbia university is a private college.

Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it.

Puberty is gonna hit you like a ton of bricks!

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

 

[norwegen]

It's 2014.

Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression.

Absolutely right, and PC wishes to drag us back to the bad old days.

Even she can now see that is never going to happen.

Just wait, Folks. One of these days in our near future, some lefty is going to claim that the United States was founded by leftists.