What Happened To States Rights?

Discussion in 'History' started by PoliticalChic, Dec 17, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    34,087
    Likes Received:
    9,040
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +9,130 / 16 / -0
    1. “Efficiency of state governments is impaired as they relinquish and turn over to the federal government responsibilities which are rightfully theirs.” Calvin Coolidge, PART TWO: Unease in the Golden Age (Page 1 of 3) - "Clearly Vicious as a Matter of Policy": The Fight Against Federal-Aid - Highway History - FHWA

    2. The Founders envisioned a decentralized political arrangement, one which empowers individuals because it dispersed power, rather than amassing it in one place. Read the Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791:

    a. 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.

    b. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred to the state legislatures as "laboratories of democracy" willing to tackle new and innovative approaches in meeting the needs of society.

    3. Referred to as ‘federalism,’ it was a relationship between the central authority and states, discussed in Federalist #39, by Madison. ‘ Citizens of each State had a duty to insure their States retained their constitutional sovereignty, a duty to support legislators who put a check on general power, who interposed on the citizens behalf. It is for this reason James Madison words make sense when writing, in Federalist 39, “Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitutionEven those who disagreed agreed on federalism – Tenth Amendment Center

    a. “FEDERALISM-THE IDEA THAT our central government's powers are delegated to it by the states and are therefore limited is a rare and delicate flower that blooms briefly in election years.” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv7n3/v7n3-7.pdf

    b. Indicia of the intentions of the Founders can be found in the existence of the electoral college rather than a majority-rule system, and the statement in Article VI that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that includes the Tenth Amendment.


    4. Further, the distance of the decision makers from the locale of the problem is inversely proportional to the chance of satisfaction. Professor Lino Graglia, University of Texas, explained that decentralizing power “controls the tyranny:” "It can be shown arithmetically that if an issue is decided by larger units, involving more people,
    the likelihood increases that fewer people will obtain their preference and more will be disappointed... .As the power source is farther removed from the individuals
    affected, what might be called dissonance or interference in transmission-in communication and responsiveness--increases....” http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv7n3/v7n3-7.pdf

    a. Another reason why federalism is the best approach, is that it allows folks to “vote with their feet,” and if they are unhappy with one jurisdiction, move to one more in line with their wishes. This mirrors the free-market system with businesses competing for customers. Where the federal government is a monopoly, federalism is a vehicle for freedom.

    b. But the federalism is a problem for progressives, as states have less of a progressive tax system: property taxes and sales taxes tend to be less graduated, and some states have no income tax, as well. Redistribution is slowed to a trickle.

    5. Careful consideration should be used before assigning jurisdiction to the federal government, rather than local authorities. National security, judiciary, international relations, and patents and copyrights are properly within federal purview. Beyond those areas, hegemony lies with the states and the people.

    a. Before the Civil War, petitions to the federal government for aid of for subsidies were rarely approved. In 1817, Madison vetoed a road and canal construction bill as unconstitutional. In 1832, Andrew Jackson vetoed a bill to improve harbors and rivers as it would have meant “…a principle that concedes to the General Government an unlimited power over the subject of internal improvements,…” Andrew Jackson: Veto Message

    The states should reclaim the power that the progressive century has abbreviated.
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,943
    Likes Received:
    4,783
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,790 / 0 / -0
    What happened to states rights? both party's have whittled them down.
    And the partisan hacks of both sides supported the moves and mostly still do.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    34,087
    Likes Received:
    9,040
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +9,130 / 16 / -0
    Hey, good to see you back!

    Sadly, you are right in the post.
  4. manifold
    Offline

    manifold VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    38,903
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    in your dreams
    Ratings:
    +5,084 / 1 / -0
    Abe Lincoln --> :piss2::deal: <-- State's rights
  5. Big Black Dog
    Offline

    Big Black Dog Everybody's favorite doggie. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    22,266
    Likes Received:
    4,357
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Northwestern Illinois
    Ratings:
    +4,368 / 2 / -0
    What Happened To States Rights?

    It turned into States "Left".
  6. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    33,503
    Likes Received:
    3,560
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,599 / 47 / -0
    What happened to states rights? We became a nation, and the time to cross this nation dropped from months to hours, and the time to communicate from coast to coast, from weeks to instantly. The world became very much smaller through communication and modern technology. States essentially are no more useful as major units than counties were previously. Just a fact of life, a reality the Conservatives would love to ignore.
    • Like Like x 1
  7. RetiredGySgt
    Offline

    RetiredGySgt VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    34,522
    Likes Received:
    4,331
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +4,370 / 7 / -0
    You prove just how fucking stupid you are with every post.
  8. Old Rocks
    Online

    Old Rocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    33,503
    Likes Received:
    3,560
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +3,599 / 47 / -0
    Po' widdle panties all in a knot? Conservatives and reality do not mix.
  9. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,591 / 0 / -0

    They became a burden thanks to the CSA's treason to the union.

    Ever since that time the States rights issue has lost its luster.

    Through in FEDERAL income tax and "revenue:" sharing and the states are appendages to the FED.



  10. zzzz
    Offline

    zzzz Just a regular American

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,068
    Likes Received:
    418
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Yountsville
    Ratings:
    +418 / 0 / -0
    The constitution was a compromise between those states that wanted a strong central government and those that wanted a loose confederation. With only 13 states to deal with and the corresponding officials and legislatures it took a lot of hard bargaining to come up with a concept of a central government that would govern a group of states that everyone would vote for. Therefore certain state rights were given to a central government entity and the rest were retained. Over time as the country has grown and went through growing pains, including the disagreement in the 1860&#8217;s, the states have lost a great deal of their autonomy to the Federal government. The founders designed the constitution so that it would grow with the country providing an amendment process to change it and even allowing a constitution convention to make major changes if necessary. That process is what makes the constitution one of the most wonderful articles of governing in the world.

    The argument about states&#8217; rights is one that will last as long as this country exists under the constitution. The problem for those that call for the return of more power to the states is that it is very hard to get back what you have given away. Once politicos go to Washington they obtain the power of a strong central government and they see that if they give it away they will lose some of their power. They may have said previously that they were for state&#8217;s rights and even when they get there they may voice that opinion but in reality once there, it is just window dressing. Realistically the only way to for the states to regain those rights is through a constitutional convention.

    But what does state&#8217;s right mean? Just how much do you want the state to be able to control? Interstate commerce and national security of course is a federal thing. States could take over environmental issues, labor issues, education and other areas. Is this a good thing? It would certainly reduce the size of the federal government some but would it reduce your federal tax. It would certainly raise your state taxes. When you talk about state rights you need to look at the ramifications of state rights. Sure it sounds nice as a rallying point for politicos but look at what it means in real life terms.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Likes Received:
    1,702
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,702 / 0 / -0
    Texas v. White
  12. iamwhatiseem
    Offline

    iamwhatiseem Silver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,527
    Likes Received:
    1,786
    Trophy Points:
    90
    Location:
    Indiana
    Ratings:
    +1,836 / 10 / -0
    States rights will be at an all time low by year end 2011-12.
    Reason? The fed will bail out several states and will assume some supervisory roles because of it.
    Just wait.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Patriotic American Muslim

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    30,152
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Dar al Harb
    Ratings:
    +3,879 / 233 / -0
    States Rights were buried with Lincoln's victory in the War of Northern Aggression :evil:
  14. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Likes Received:
    5,590
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,591 / 0 / -0
    Perceptive.

    Sadly this trend (of slowly making the states powerless by comparison to the FED, I mean) has been happening our entire lives.

    Both the Dems and the Reps are behind it.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Talismen
    Offline

    Talismen Lady Templar & Kafir

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Central Iowa
    Ratings:
    +69 / 0 / -0
    States rights slowly die away, every time a state takes money from the fed, for some idiotic reason.

    And, as with ANYONE or ANYTHING that takes money from the fed...Remember, now that you've received the money, they get to tell you what you can do, and not do, with it. Then, if you want more, they get to tell you what you can do, and not do, in order to get it.

    The definition of dependence, and even political slavery...Personified.
  16. jillian
    Online

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    53,057
    Likes Received:
    9,915
    Trophy Points:
    210
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +10,040 / 117 / -0
    I'm afraid that started when the Articles of Confederation were replaced by the Constitution.

    The issue was largely put to rest when the south lost the civil war.

    i'm okay with it. i've seen photos of george wallace blocking the doors of the University of Georgia and read the anti-abortion laws drafted in places like north dakota. thanks but no thanks.
  17. Sunni Man
    Offline

    Sunni Man Patriotic American Muslim

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Messages:
    30,152
    Likes Received:
    3,793
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Dar al Harb
    Ratings:
    +3,879 / 233 / -0
    Zionist Jews don't like the idea of States Rights.

    Because many states have a very tiny number of jewish citizens.

    Thus most states wouldn't be forced to support Israel with large amounts of financial aid like the Federal government does.

    Instead, the states would use the money for the benefit of the citizens of their state and not a foreign nation like Israel. :cool:
  18. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,050
    Likes Received:
    4,749
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,749 / 1 / -0
    agreed.
  19. Trajan
    Offline

    Trajan conscientia mille testes Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    29,050
    Likes Received:
    4,749
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    The Bay Area Soviet
    Ratings:
    +4,749 / 1 / -0
    Back in the 1980&#8217;s when the feds wanted to push the drinking age to 21 they threatened to withhold funds for transportation projects etc. In the 30&#8217;s Cardoza noted that federal withholding could become so coercive, it passes a point where in pressure turns into compulsion.

    I also remember reading a reference to a study conducted by a German scholar where in he tracked 20 'federations' and 18 of 20 all experienced significant 'encroachment'.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2010
  20. American Horse
    Offline

    American Horse AKA "Mustang"

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    5,577
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    The Hoosier Heartland
    Ratings:
    +867 / 0 / -0
    On the subject of state's rights, the focus is usually on the defects relative to civil rights and our country's history of segregation, particularly in the south. A misplaced discussion on freedoms which seem mostly freedoms at the espcnse of our fellows such as minorities. Seldomly does the discussion focus on the tax implications.

    Here's another prospect to consider. One has to think about the obvious outcome of a dimunition of states rights through the expansion of a single system; one which would replace all the lower echelons of government.

    That would include an overarching tax system which would provide for all disbursement of revenues for government services and administration, with an aim to create universal benefits throughout the states, with minor differences due to geography and certain demographics, of course.

    The bail-out off a single state like California would drastically expand federal power at the expense of the states, moving us to a single taxing system because of the proven failure of a state or any state to manage its fiscal affairs.

    So with a unitized taxing system, with all the states' rolled into that system, or some scaled down version of that (since it's too ridiculous to contemplate in all its implications), we, the citizens would lose something very vital: There would be nowhere to go within the country to escape the tyranny of the system. We would have nowhere to flee to except to leave the country, and certainly some would flee the country.

    You (we) might be able to escape a certain hated and persecuting bureaucrat by making a move, but to &#8220;vote with your feet&#8221; to get away from an over burdensome tax by leaving a state would now be more or less meaningless, and we would lose the "vital" differences. We would lose the system of testing ideas of governance and regulations, and so there would be no way to measure gradations of success or failure, except as calculated by the same bureaucrats who create the system in the first place.

    If the source of power is removed from Washington to interfere in every facet of our lives, there would be a diminished demand for our money to go there, and the lobbying to take place by overbearing special interests (we are all special interests, and I do not propose that lobbying is entirely evil or without a useful and desireable purpose). The cost of a lot of lobbying dollars is offset by dollars returning from the government to the lobbyists. GE lobbies and in return gets an expanded role in the nation's energy sector.

    On the state level, we can pay much closer attention to taxes, and make changes within a couple of years. No such changes ever occur on the national level; once created a program has a life of its own with a workforce dedicated to its perpetuation by/for the strongest of all lobbies - the federal bureacracy.
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2010

Share This Page