State's Rights

[Skylar]

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:

There's nothing that indicates that the Founders intended the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. Nothing in the Constitution that says so. And the USSC explicitly and repeatedly found that the Bill of Rights did NOT apply to the States.

Ending your entire line of argument. Three times.

“[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 .

A ruling from 1995. The 14th amendment was passed in the late 1860s. Cause precedes effect. It doesn't follow it by 130 years. Back in the pre-14th amendment era, the USSC was ludicrously clear that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States:

These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

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

Barron V Baltimore (1833)

You completely ignore this case, pretending it doesn't exist.....despite the fact that this ruling was binding legal precedent until well after the passage of the 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States before the passage of the 14th amendment. This is a matter of historic fact.

A ruling 160 years later insisting that it did has no more relevance to the pre-14th amendment era than a ruling a 160 years from now that gay marriage has always been legal would have on gay marriage in the 1970s. The fact remains that gay marriage wasn't legal. And anyone same sex couple applying for a marriage license was denied.This is a matter of historical fact.

Likewise, Barron's case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As the courts found that that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of this ruling or the outcome of Barron's case doesn't change history.

 

[Wolfstrike]

Madison wrote an amendment saying the states would have to abide by federal law(judicial review).
the people rejected it.
now we're in a country where the federal government has gone crazy and is dictating daily life.
how did we get here?
propaganda.
Federalist John Marshall told everyone they don't have rights unless the feds are in charge.
Civil War propaganda tried to justify their invasion by saying the bill of rights didn't apply.

i't's bullshit.

people expected judicial review where needed, the early federal government had no police force, they couldn't force anyone to do anything, this is why this issue wasn't resolved.

for their propaganda to be true, they're implying the bill of rights was just a good luck charm, ...and no one back then believed that.

what Americans don't realize is, the power of the branches of government are to strike down laws, not uphold them.
it was never intended for the federal government to uphold laws that the majority of American don't want.

things like Obamacare, gay marriage, and abortion are not possible under our constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

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. p.

No sir.

The US Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land where the power has been specifically enumerated.

Not the case law.

The federal government was NEVER NEVER NEVER authorized to interfere with the people's right to self medicate with marihuana, opium or cocaine.

NEVER.

.

 

[Skylar]

Madison wrote an amendment saying the states would have to abide by federal law(judicial review).

No he didn't. The original draft of Madison's bill of rights had 17 'articles'. And not one of them said what you just did. The Federalist Papers explicitly described Judicial Review, indicating that the law was to be interpreted by the courts, and that issues of constitutionality were to be decided by the courts. The Federalist Paper that included this description was written by Hamilton.

Federalist John Marshall told everyone they don't have rights unless the feds are in charge.

John Marshall ruled in the Barron V. Baltimore ruling that the Bill of Rights was a limit to federal power and didn't apply to the States. Is that what you're trying to say?

Civil War propaganda tried to justify their invasion by saying the bill of rights didn't apply.

Actually, that would be the Barron V. Baltimore Ruling that came in 1833. About a generation before the Civil War. Congressman John Bingham's calls to apply the Bill of Rights to the States began in 1866. After the Civil war was already concluded.

So there's no part of your statement that was accurate.

people expected judicial review where needed, the early federal government had no police force, they couldn't force anyone to do anything, this is why this issue wasn't resolved.

The judiciary still has no police force. So I don't know what you're talking about.

for their propaganda to be true, they're implying the bill of rights was just a good luck charm, ...and no one back then believed that.

'They' aren't 'implying' anything. They straight up said it: The Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. It was a limit of Federal Power.

what Americans don't realize is, the power of the branches of government are to strike down laws, not uphold them.
it was never intended for the federal government to uphold laws that the majority of American don't want.

The legislature writes laws. It doesn't 'strike them down'. The executive upholds laws. It doesn't 'strike them down'. And the judiciary could affirm or overrule a law depending on its compatibility with the constitution.

things like Obamacare, gay marriage, and abortion are not possible under our constitution

All of them would be possible under the constitution. Obamacare's basis is the taxation authority of the Federal Government.....which is quite broad. With the 16th amendment, there's really no restriction on the nature of taxation, with all apportionment requirements lifted.

Gay marriage and abortion would both fall under the 9th amendment's reserve rights. Which are entirely possible under our constitution. And the 14th amendment applies the privileges and immunities of Federal citizens to the States.

 

[Skylar]

The US Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land where the power has been specifically enumerated.

Not the case law.

The judiciary was the body that interpreted the law and assessed constitutionality.....and was intended to.

...the 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

So 'caselaw' would be the court's authoritative interpretations of the law and the constitution. Which is exactly what the courts are supposed to do.

The federal government was NEVER NEVER NEVER authorized to interfere with the people's right to self medicate with marihuana, opium or cocaine.

Kind of far off the topic of State's Rights and gay marriage, don't you think? Maybe you could start another thread on the topic.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, they can. Gay marriage harms the children that will be legally forced to be adopted to them if they get sweeping federal protection to "marry". Also all polygamists and other consenting adults may marry under the "equal protection" clauses used to force gay marriage upon unwilling states' majorities..

Who says that gay marriage harms children? That would be you....citing you. And your source sucks.

Gay marriage hurts the word "marriage" itself.

Nope. Straights still have all the

But if you keep framing it as "how does it hurt any one singular person" it takes the focus away from the passage of time, childrens' issues and the dissolution of society itself. So I get why that's the LGBT repetitive talking point: "keep it narrow...don't talk about harm over time...don't talk about childrens' civil rights..."

The obvious problem with that reasoning being that society isn't collapsing because of gay marriage, chicken little.

The sky isn't falling. Its gonna be okay, Silo.

I get it.

You really don't. Which is why you keep failing.

 

[Skylar]

Now the queers deny deny deny that they molested thousands of little boys in the Catholic Church. Queers are degenerates are pedphiles are pathological liars. It's a simple equation.

Your argument is certainly simple. Alas, life is far more complex.

 

[Contumacious]

The US Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land where the power has been specifically enumerated.

Not the case law.

The judiciary was the body that interpreted the law and assessed constitutionality.....and was intended to.

...the 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

So 'caselaw' would be the court's authoritative interpretations of the law and the constitution. Which is exactly what the courts are supposed to do.

The federal government was NEVER NEVER NEVER authorized to interfere with the people's right to self medicate with marihuana, opium or cocaine.

Kind of far off the topic of State's Rights and gay marriage, don't you think? Maybe you could start another thread on the topic.

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

HOW THE FUCK DID THE MAJORITY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE THE PROVISO THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD DIRECT ME TO BUY OBAMA HELLCARE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

 

[Skylar]

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

Judges are the arbiters of the law. Those delegated the authority and duty to interpret the law. Exactly as they were intended to.

HOW THE FUCK DID THE MAJORITY INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION TO INCLUDE THE PROVISO THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULD DIRECT ME TO BUY OBAMA HELLCARE?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!!?

You don't have to buy healthcare. There's no requirement that you do in Obamacare. If you choose not to, you pay more taxes. If you choose to, you pay less taxes.

And taxation authority is thoroughly constitutional. Since the 16th amendment, even apportionment requirements have been lifted from the Federal authority to tax.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"State's Rights"

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

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

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

None of that changes - or even addresses- the fact that the state were reserved the powers not given to the federal government, or denied to them specifically, by the constitution.

 

[Skylar]

None of that changes - or even addresses- the fact that the state were reserved the powers not given to the federal government, or denied to them specifically, by the constitution.

Alas, in terms of violating the rights of citizens, the 14th amendment does grant the federal government the power to protect the privileges and immunities of federal citizens from State abuse. And to guarantee that federal citizens receive equal protection in the law under State jurisdiction.

Its a whole new class of powers granted the Federal Government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of that changes - or even addresses- the fact that the state were reserved the powers not given to the federal government, or denied to them specifically, by the constitution.

Alas, in terms of violating the rights of citizens, the 14th amendment does grant the federal government the power to protect the privileges and immunities of federal citizens from State abuse. And to guarantee that federal citizens receive equal protection in the law under State jurisdiction.
Its a whole new class of powers granted the Federal Government.

Yes... but this is not inconsistent with the constitutionally-specified supremacy of the federal government over the states.

 

[Skylar]

Yes... but this is not inconsistent with the constitutionally-specified supremacy of the federal government over the states.

Nope. But it does grant the federal government power to apply restrictions to the States that were previously only applicable to the federal government. Before the 14th, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. After the 14th (albeit about a generation after) the Bill of Rights did apply to the States.

Before the 14th, the role of the federal government was largely to take care of interstate issues (post offices, weights and measures, boundary disputes, etc.) and national defense. After the 14th, the Federal government did everything it did before, but it also protected the rights of Federal citizens within the jurisdiction of the States.

This role of Federal Government as protector of rights was new.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes... but this is not inconsistent with the constitutionally-specified supremacy of the federal government over the states.

Nope. But it does grant the federal government power to apply restrictions to the States that were previously only applicable to the federal government. Before the 14th, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the States. After the 14th (albeit about a generation after) the Bill of Rights did apply to the States.

Right. I don't see an issue with that.

 

[Skylar]

Right. I don't see an issue with that.

Well shit. Agreement is fucking boring.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Right. I don't see an issue with that.

Well shit. Agreement is fucking boring.

 

[SwimExpert]

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:

I don't think that anyone doubts that. At the same time, what you have said does not eliminate the framers deferring responsibility to the states to live up to that on their own accord, without federal force. There can be no question that the bill of rights indeed was not inherently applicable to state governments.

 

[SwimExpert]

The judiciary still has no police force. So I don't know what you're talking about.

You were doing so well, but you stumbled here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You were doing so well, but you stumbled here.

USMS is part of the DoJ, under the executive branch,

 

[SwimExpert]

How do you prevent judges - who are nothing more than robed bureaucrats - from amending the Constitution under the guise of interpreting it?

You're applying what I call the perfect system fallacy. The belief that the constitution, and the government established by it, is or was ever meant to be perfect. Quite the opposite. The aim of the framers was not to create a system that would create a perfect form of government. Only to create a more perfect (that is, less flawed) system of government.

In the case of the judiciary, there was never a belief that the system prevented judges from abusing their governmental powers. The goal was to establish limitations to minimize their occurrence and their reach, while also preserving avenues for remedy. The most important avenue for remedy is the appellate process, which was already a time honored judicial practice far predating the constitution. By preserving the power of a person to appeal a judicial ruling, the constitution gives us a remedy for a rogue judge who abuses their power to our harm. Another part of the protective scheme is reliance on a multiple person panel. This way, the power of an individual judge is substantially curtailed.

Finally, there is the inherent checks-and-balances of the constitution which offers yet more protection. The legislature has to create a law, and the executive has to enforce a law, before a malicious judge will ever have the opportunity to abuse their power against you. And if ever were to happen, the people have the redress of petitioning the legislature for a change in the laws or an amendment to the constitution.

Nobody ever believed that this system would eliminate or prevent all abuse. It's not perfect. But it provides a wide range of safeguards to minimize abuse and to redress it in case it does happen.