The Meaning of "State's Rights"

[JFK_USA]

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.

The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By classical liberals yes, which encompasses neither our social conservatives or libertarians today.

Seems redundant to note the following, as it applies to so very many of your posts....

...but, one more time:

WRONG!

The founders were of a variety of political persuasions, but the ideas put into the Constitution were definitely liberal, at the time. Since that period Americans and America have become even more liberal. The problem we usually see is that some want to move into liberalism faster, some slower, and some not at all. The not-at-all group is usually the one's most content with their life and status or most afraid of change.

"...definitely liberal, at the time."


Seems you are unaware that Communist/socialist John Dewey had the socialist party steal the name 'Liberal."



I have so much to teach you....if only you were a more apt student.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By classical liberals yes, which encompasses neither our social conservatives or libertarians today.

Seems redundant to note the following, as it applies to so very many of your posts....

...but, one more time:

WRONG!

The founders were of a variety of political persuasions, but the ideas put into the Constitution were definitely liberal, at least for that time. Since then, the liberalism has continued and one need only to look at our history for verification.
The problem we and many nations have is that is that some people want to move into liberalism faster, some slower, and some not at all. The not-at-all group is usually the one's most content with their life and status or most afraid of change.
Is there a limit to liberalism?

"....liberalism has continued and one need only to look at our history for verification."


Such effluvium could only be spouted by a mind-numbed Progressive simpleton.

1. Here is a simple test to reveal how deeply you've plunged into the abyss of ignorance: Which group, A, or B, subscribes to a view based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government?

A. Communists, socialists, Progressives, Modern Liberals


or


B. Classical Liberals, the Founders, modern conservatives



No part credit. No erasing, No crossing out.

 

[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.

The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.

I believe in the concept of '50 laboratories of democracy.'


"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as “laboratories,” where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all “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.” This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept,..."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The American people know right from wrong....e.g., Southerners threw out racist Democrats in the mid 20th century.

You seem to believe in judicial oppression.



"you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people."

The voting citizens decide what is oppression, and what is a difference of opinion.

Otherwise, you don't believe in democracy.

 

[JFK_USA]

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.

The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.

I believe in the concept of '50 laboratories of democracy.'


"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as “laboratories,” where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all “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.” This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept,..."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The American people know right from wrong....e.g., Southerners threw out racist Democrats in the mid 20th century.

You seem to believe in judicial oppression.



"you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people."

The voting citizens decide what is oppression, and what is a difference of opinion.

Otherwise, you don't believe in democracy.

No. 100% wrong. The constitution specifically enumerates individual rights so that the will of the majority couldnt take them away.

Otherwise, you don't believe in freedom.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The insults are unnecessary. However, you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people. State's rights don't supersede the individual's rights enumerated in the US constitution. And people have a right to equal protection under the constitution.

I believe in the concept of '50 laboratories of democracy.'


"Laboratories of democracy is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis ...to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of filtration where state and local governments act as “laboratories,” where law is created and enacted from the lowest level of the democratic system, up to the top level.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution makes all “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.” This is a basis for the laboratories of democracy concept,..."
Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The American people know right from wrong....e.g., Southerners threw out racist Democrats in the mid 20th century.

You seem to believe in judicial oppression.



"you can't deny that SOME people on the right have used the state's rights argument to continue their oppression on a group of people."

The voting citizens decide what is oppression, and what is a difference of opinion.

Otherwise, you don't believe in democracy.

No. 100% wrong. The constitution specifically enumerates individual rights so that the will of the majority couldnt take them away.

Otherwise, you don't believe in freedom.

You must be a government school grad....

True?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,

shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

 

[PoliticalChic]

A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,

shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A sovereign state should be able to regulate, restrict, or even ban firearms in any manner its citizens choose,

shouldn't it? I mean, if the sovereignty of the various states is as the author of this thread implies.

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?

Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,

as part of their sovereignty?

Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?

 

[gipper]

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?

Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,

as part of their sovereignty?

Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?

I just read this thread and the following are my thoughts.

First, the constitution clearly states what a State is prohibited from doing in Article 1 Section 10. Nowhere does it prohibit secession. Seems strange, if the Founders believed secession unconstitutional, than why not prohibit it.

It is also historically correct that no state would have joined the Union, if it could not later leave it. However the States recognized by joining, that they had to abide by the Constitution as the supreme law of the land...as is clearly laid out in the Supremacy Clause, which does not prevent secession.

Secondly, the Constitution superseded the Articles of Confederation, which contained wording about the 'permanence' of the Union. Funny...the Constitution contains no such wording (though the tyrant Lincoln claimed the Union was forever and indissoluble). It is not likely the Founders FORGOT to use this provision in the Constitution.

Even the progressive and supreme statist college professor Woodrow Wilson wrote that secession was constitutional and available to any State, that no longer wished to be part of the Union...

In Division and Reunion, 1829-1889 (1893), which described the differences between the North and South, he agreed that the slavery system was bad in some respects, but he also insisted that as a labor and social system it had worked well. He called President Abraham Lincoln “one of the most singular and admirable figures in the history of modern times” and attempted to distinguish between what he called the “lawyer's facts” and the “historian's facts.” Thus, Wilson concluded, the South had seceded legally, but history had determined secession to be wrong.
Woodrow Wilson

Some tend to think the War of Northern Aggression ended the secession argument, but many disagree for good reason. No amendment was ever ratified revoking secession and no Confederate leader was EVER charged with treason...a possible indication the federal government knew Lincoln's murderous suppression of the South was UNCONSTITUTIONAL....because had it been constitutional, why no treason charges.

It gets worse for the statists, with this:

"A Union of the States containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."

.....by James Madison...the father of the Constitution. He said these words at the Constitutional Convention May 31, 1787, when a proposal was tabled granting states the right to suppress a seceding state. See more here from the Great Walter Williams Parting Company by Walter E. Williams on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

It is quite clear that Lincoln abused his power when he waged an aggressive war against fellow Americans in an effort to prevent secession. He was our first statist POTUS...sadly there were many more to follow him, and they too abused their power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?

Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,

as part of their sovereignty?

Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?

Because most on the partisan right are inconsistent and hypocritical.

They advocate for the myth of 'states' rights' when it suits their political agenda, such as denying women their right to privacy or denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Yet when the states act in a manner that they perceive in conflict with their political agenda, they abandon the 'states' rights' myth and seek relief in Federal court.

If conservatives believe that the states lack the authority to deny a citizen a particular firearm, then to be constitutionally consistent they must also respect a woman's right to privacy, and oppose state measures seeking to compel a woman to have a child against her will.

 

[gipper]

I think we can safely interpret the stunned silence in response to the above post as a concession by the cheerleaders for states' rights, including the author of this thread that even they do not trust the individual states to protect their rights,

but are happy to delegate that power to the big central federal government,

including its sometimes derisively referred to 'unelected' judiciary.

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?

Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,

as part of their sovereignty?

Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?

I got off on a tangent on my previous post...proving secession is a state's right even today.

Regarding State sovereignty, they were entirely sovereign prior to joining the union. Upon joining, they did give up some sovereignty by agreeing to the supremacy of the Constitution. However, they still possess the sovereign right to secede...a wonderful check on the power of the federal government.

Regarding your last question, that one is very easy to answer. The Constitution does NOT give the federal government the right to enact baby murder (you call it abortion) laws. It does however limit the federal government's ability to take gun rights from the people...as is clearly laid out in the Second Amendment.

 

[gipper]

It means exactly the same as the silence of adults when greeted by the squealings of a child too young or uneducated to engage in a discussion clearly beyond his depth.

Why is the Bill of Rights a set of protections over which the federal government has the power over the states to protect and enforce?

Why isn't the protection of those rights, or the choice not to defend them left to the states' to decide,

as part of their sovereignty?

Why do you want the states to have the right to decide abortion rights, but you don't want the states to have the right to decide gun rights?

Because most on the partisan right are inconsistent and hypocritical.

They advocate for the myth of 'states' rights' when it suits their political agenda, such as denying women their right to privacy or denying same-sex couples their right to equal protection of the law.

Yet when the states act in a manner that they perceive in conflict with their political agenda, they abandon the 'states' rights' myth and seek relief in Federal court.

If conservatives believe that the states lack the authority to deny a citizen a particular firearm, then to be constitutionally consistent they must also respect a woman's right to privacy, and oppose state measures seeking to compel a woman to have a child against her will.

Strange...at a time when we have a leftist POTUS ignoring the Constitution, separation of powers, and all sorts of scandals...and keeping the border open for illegals to gain easy access...you harp on the right, who has little power to do anything.

I can only conclude that those on the Left are fine with BO's dictatorial actions. Seems to indicate that the Left could care less about the Constitution and rule of law...as long as a left wing POTUS is in office...and you claim the right is hypocritical....

 

[Toro]

States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.

Communists also believe that collectives have rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.

Communists also believe that collectives have rights.

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.

 

[Toro]

States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.

Communists also believe that collectives have rights.

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.

Powers are not rights.

 

[PoliticalChic]

States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

States are collectives. Those arguing for states rights argue that collectives have rights.

Communists also believe that collectives have rights.

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.

Powers are not rights.

A distinction without a difference.

 

[Toro]

Not at all.

Rights supersede powers, legally anyways. The law is the exercise of power by the state but individuals have rights that override the power of the state.

 

[Rogue 9]

"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?

Of course. They entered free trade and free migration treaties (you know, that entering treaties thing that states can't do under the Constitution) and a monetary union, which is not the same as national union. Note that membership in the EU doesn't require these things, as Britain amply demonstrates. But none of the United States may ever do any of these things (bar raising the militia in immediate need) and have no choice in the matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

Of course. They entered free trade and free migration treaties (you know, that entering treaties thing that states can't do under the Constitution) and a monetary union, which is not the same as national union. Note that membership in the EU doesn't require these things, as Britain amply demonstrates. But none of the United States may ever do any of these things (bar raising the militia in immediate need) and have no choice in the matter.

Wrong.


The European Union:
It began in 1957 when six countries signed a treaty agreeing that they would cooperate on certain economic matters. They established the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to interpret disputes about the treaty.

a. In the 1960’s the Court decreed that if acts of national parliament’s acts came into conflict with the treaty, the treaty would take precedence!

b. In the 1970’s the Court stated that it had precedence over national constitutions!

c. Today, whatever regulations are cranked out by the bureaucrats at the European Commission supersede both parliamentary statutes and national constitutions. This includes any questions about basic rights.

d. Neither does the EU have a constitution, nor does the EU have an army or police force for common control of its borders. Thus it has political superiority over member states, but declines to be responsible for its defense. Inherent in this idea of transcending nation-states is the idea that defense is unimportant.
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C.



Perhaps you should study the meaning of "federalism" as it pertains to the formation of the United States.

The Constitution assured it.

The Judiciary destroyed it.