State's Rights

[Listening]

"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)).

You are correct.

They have powers.....

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.

The concept is still the same.

The fed is screwing us by exercising powers THEY DON"T HAVE.

 

[Listening]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Eat crapp and die.

You practice throwing the baby out with the bathwater only when it suites your purposes.

They are a great thing.

They are what allow Michigan to chose to spend money on schools instead of roads (or vice versa) and not have ted (I'm soooooo glad he's dead) kennedy get in the way.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people

No, you support the federal government using ANY PRETEXT to cover up a felonious offense so long as they financially support you, so long as they provide you health insurance, so long as they are willing to quench your thirst, so long as they clothe and shelter you.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people

No, you support the federal government using ANY PRETEXT to cover up a felonious offense so long as they financially support you, so long as they provide you health insurance, so long as they are willing to quench your thirst, so long as they clothe and shelter you.

I support our government arresting a pedophile cop killer

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The McCoulloch case had nothing to do with rights of State citizens.”


Um, no.

McCulloch is much more than just the issue it addressed.

In McCulloch a unanimous Court reaffirmed the intent of the Framers and Founding Generation to create a National government supreme to that of the states and local jurisdictions, a comprehensive National government, including the Federal judiciary, where the 'States could [not] 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.' (US Term Limits citing McCulloch.) Just as the states have no authority to interfere with the Federal government's desire to create a national bank, so too may the states not interfere with the Federal courts, ignore their rulings, or defy their orders.

Consequently, McCulloch completely renders invalid the conservative 'argument' that the states have the 'authority' to deny citizens their civil liberties, or to otherwise violate citizens' civil rights.

With regard to same-sex couples accessing marriage law, for example, 14th Amendment jurisprudence is binding on the states, they may not ignore or seek to 'nullify' the decisions of Federal courts pursuant to 14th Amendment case law, where same-sex couples in fact have the right to access a state's marriage law in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause.

In essence, therefore, there is no such thing as 'state citizens,' there are only American citizens who reside in the many states, their civil liberties protected by the Federal Constitution:

"To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people; each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. . . . [“]

(US Term Limits citing The Federalist No. 2, pp. 38-39 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961))

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

And to the disadvantage of gay Americans, in violation of the 14th Amendment.

“We have to remember that the federal government is only permitted to take on the task of handling certain things and the "general welfare" clause has stretched the meaning and scope its purpose of the constitution.”

Case law in support?

You have to remember that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, as authorized by Articles III and VI of the Federal Constitution.

Consequently, nothing has been 'stretched,' the Constitution functions today as intended by the Founding Generation.

“Perhaps it should be challenged. If need be, a n amendment to the constitution is in order to limit its use to be a token unmbrella for covering every aspects of a citizen's life.”

You're going to 'amend' the Constitution to 'limit' the authority of the Constitution so the Federal courts can't use the Constitution to make rulings you don't like. Obviously you didn't think this all the way through – or at all.

 

[Skylar]

You are correct.

He's not. The founders had no intention of the Bill of RIghts ever applying to the States. And until about 1900, it didn't.

They have powers.....

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.

The concept is still the same.

The fed is screwing us by exercising powers THEY DON"T HAVE.

In the case of overruling unconstitutional laws by the States, that's a power the feds do have. See the 14th amendment, specifically section 1 and section 5.

 

[Listening]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people

No, you support the federal government using ANY PRETEXT to cover up a felonious offense so long as they financially support you, so long as they provide you health insurance, so long as they are willing to quench your thirst, so long as they clothe and shelter you.

I support our government arresting a pedophile cop killer

We have different governments...which do you support ? Oh, you didn't know that...I see.

 

[Listening]

You are correct.

He's not. The founders had no intention of the Bill of RIghts ever applying to the States. And until about 1900, it didn't.

They have powers.....

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.

The concept is still the same.

The fed is screwing us by exercising powers THEY DON"T HAVE.

In the case of overruling unconstitutional laws by the States, that's a power the feds do have. See the 14th amendment, specifically section 1 and section 5.

My apologies...I should have specified what I mean.

I agree that

You are correct.

He's not. The founders had no intention of the Bill of RIghts ever applying to the States. And until about 1900, it didn't.

They have powers.....

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.

The concept is still the same.

The fed is screwing us by exercising powers THEY DON"T HAVE.

In the case of overruling unconstitutional laws by the States, that's a power the feds do have. See the 14th amendment, specifically section 1 and section 5.

Selective Incorporation is a major screw up and not at all supported in anything but the Wet Dreams of the Roosevelt SCOTUS.

 

[AtticusF]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Government gave rapist David Koresh 51 days to surrender peacefully,. But they chose to continue raping women and killed 4 agents too. But, they are martyrs to right wing yahoos.

 

[Skylar]

In McCulloch a unanimous Court reaffirmed the intent of the Framers and Founding Generation to create a National government supreme to that of the states and local jurisdictions, a comprehensive National government, including the Federal judiciary, where the 'States could [not] 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.' (US Term Limits citing McCulloch.)

But the Bill of Rights isn't a 'federal power'. Its a list of restrictions to federal power. The exact opposite of what is being described by McCulloch. And the Bill of Rights that you're claiming McCulloch applies to the States.....is never mentioned once in the entire ruling. Nor is there any finding that the Bill of Rights could apply to the States.

You've quite literally imagined it.

Just as the states have no authority to interfere with the Federal government's desire to create a national bank, so too may the states not interfere with the Federal courts, ignore their rulings, or defy their orders.

Several small problems with your reasoning.

There was no order to apply the Bill of Rights to the States by the Federal courts. There was no finding that that the Bill of Rights applied to the States by the Federal Courts. As the Bill of Rights is a restriction to Federal Power. The Bill of rights has no mention of restricting the States actions in regards to the rights of the people.

Which is EXACTLY what the court found in Barron V. Baltimore. And they couldn't be clearer.

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. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)

"Is not applicable" about sums it up. The Barron court even explains *how* you're wrong.

These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.

Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833)

There's no ambiguity. Barron's case was dismissed by the SCOTUS, as the Federal courts lacked jurisdiction. The amendments didn't apply to the States. You are simply wrong. The case you're using as your example never mentions the Bill of Rights in any capacity. And never ruled that it applied to the States. While the case you're ignoring explicitly contradicts you, saying unambiguously that the Bill of rights does NOT apply to the States.

Your imagination vs. an explicit contradiction by the United States Supreme Court has the same winner every time. And its not you.

Worse, there's zero mention in any Federalist Paper or any Constitutional Convention by anyone that the Bill of Rights applied to the State. So you can't even argue 'original intent'. As not one of the founders backed your play.

For crying out load, Congressman John Bingham, one of the writers of the 14th amendment, read the Barron V. Baltimore decision on House floor in explaining why the 14th amendment was necessary. Because the Bill of Rights *didn't* apply to the States.

You can ignore Barron V. Baltimore. But you can't make us ignore it.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Government gave rapist David Koresh 51 days to surrender peacefully,. But they chose to continue raping women and killed 4 agents too. But, they are martyrs to right wing yahoos.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER AND THE DAVIDIANS COMPOUND. N O N E. So the 51 DAYS CLAIM IS BULLSHIT.

 

[Skylar]

Selective Incorporation is a major screw up and not at all supported in anything but the Wet Dreams of the Roosevelt SCOTUS.

How was selective incorporation a major screw up? Depending on your meaning, I don't necessarily disagree with you. But the rulings affirming the applicability of the Bill of Rights on the state preceded the Roosevelt Court. And applying the Bill of Rights to the States was clearly the intent of the writers of the 14th amendment. As they straight up said as much.

 

[Skylar]

They claim that a red neck juke joint does not have a right to refuse to serve blacks. But they forget that the US Government does not have the authority to compel the juke joint to accept blacks or other minorities.

.

Oh I agree with the government in what they were trying to do. But the 'red neck juke joint' is clearly intrastate commerce, commerce within a state. And the federal government doesn't have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. Its regulatory authority was limited to interstate commerce, commerce between states.

If the term 'interstate' has no meaning, then why did the founders use it?

 

[Contumacious]

“The McCoulloch case had nothing to do with rights of State citizens.”


Um, no.

McCulloch is much more than just the issue it addressed.

In McCulloch a unanimous Court reaffirmed the intent of the Framers and Founding Generation to create a National government supreme to that of the states and local jurisdictions, ....

SUPREME IN THOSE AREAS SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED ....................SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED AREAS ONLY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rightwinger]

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people

No, you support the federal government using ANY PRETEXT to cover up a felonious offense so long as they financially support you, so long as they provide you health insurance, so long as they are willing to quench your thirst, so long as they clothe and shelter you.

I support our government arresting a pedophile cop killer

We have different governments...which do you support ? Oh, you didn't know that...I see.

I support the one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all

As opposed to your call for anarchy

 

[rightwinger]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Government gave rapist David Koresh 51 days to surrender peacefully,. But they chose to continue raping women and killed 4 agents too. But, they are martyrs to right wing yahoos.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER AND THE DAVIDIANS COMPOUND. N O N E. So the 51 DAYS CLAIM IS BULLSHIT.

Davidians murdered FOUR federal agents. They had every business being there

 

[Contumacious]

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Oh.....oh....me first

I support the federal government putting down that child molesting pedophile who set fire to his own people

No, you support the federal government using ANY PRETEXT to cover up a felonious offense so long as they financially support you, so long as they provide you health insurance, so long as they are willing to quench your thirst, so long as they clothe and shelter you.

I support our government arresting a pedophile cop killer

We have different governments...which do you support ? Oh, you didn't know that...I see.

I support the one nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and justice for all

As opposed to your call for anarchy

To you any government that doesn't feed , shelter or clothe you is an anarchy.

.

 

[AtticusF]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Government gave rapist David Koresh 51 days to surrender peacefully,. But they chose to continue raping women and killed 4 agents too. But, they are martyrs to right wing yahoos.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER AND THE DAVIDIANS COMPOUND. N O N E. So the 51 DAYS CLAIM IS BULLSHIT.

Yeah a bunch of well armed, rapists and terrorists are just fine with you guys. They should have walked out peacefully, the government gave them plenty of time.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supported so-called phrase "states rights," meant exactly what that photo portrays -- the right to treat minorities like crud. Screw those right/white wingers.

Every asshole I've seen in my life who supports federal government supremacy also supports slaughtering religious minorities a la Waco, economic tyranny, a corrupt federal judiciary which only supports those rights deemed politically correct and an interventionist foreign policy.

Government gave rapist David Koresh 51 days to surrender peacefully,. But they chose to continue raping women and killed 4 agents too. But, they are martyrs to right wing yahoos.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER AND THE DAVIDIANS COMPOUND. N O N E. So the 51 DAYS CLAIM IS BULLSHIT.

Yeah a bunch of well armed, rapists and terrorists are just fine with you guys. They should have walked out peacefully, the government gave them plenty of time.

They have the ABSOLUTE RIGHT to be well armed; there is NO EVIDENCE that they raped anyone ; and prior to the federal invasion of their compound they lived peacefully in Waco.