US Constitution

[LOki]

I think that's doing a bit of contortion. Article IV, Section 4 states "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence".

Point taken. I would rather consider "The States" to be considered more consistently as an expression of the political collective of certain peoples--however, I think the point of the Constitution was to not dictate to the form of that expression within the geographical jurisdiction of each state, but to make guarantees to The People which comprised each state.

It seems to me that "state" is viewed as a separate entity, separate from its "people" or "government". I think that's what they're saying. Of course, there may be caselaw construing it differently. I don't know offhand.

I'm saying I think that's what they're saying.

I think that might be reading too much into it, unless I'm missing what you're referring to.

<blockquote><i>"[A state] describes sometimes a people or community of individuals united more or less closely in political relations, inhabiting temporarily or permanently the same country; often it denotes only the country or territorial region, inhabited by such a community; not unfrequently it is applied to the government under which the people live; at other times, it represents the combined idea of people, territory, and government.

It is not difficult to see that, in all these senses, the primary conception is that of a people or community. The people, in whatever territory dwelling, either temporarily or permanently, and whether organized under a regular government, or united by looser and less definite relations, constitute the state."</i></blockquote>

I think it just views the States as a separate entity in the same manner that a corporation is a separate entity under the law. But yes, there is a distinction between "the States" and "the people".

I think they are saying that the primary conception of a state is that of a people or community.

Yes. But they also implied that any breaking away would be construed as being tantamount to treason.

Except through consent of the States.

Yes... but all? Or some? I would think it would have to be unanimous.

How often is unanimous consent required? Why not 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the States, like the much more weighty Amendment process?

I think the States have rights as discussed above.

Sure, if we are referring to them sub-sets of the People, otherwise not.

I disagree... except with agreement of all the other states.

That's all the exception I require.

 

[BrianH]

Read it again, fucktard. There are no rights reserved to the States in the 10th.

Exercising power is a right smartass....but I guess you knew that. You make the shittiest argument for your opinion. You take 1 week to explain your simplistic point, and then you go too far as to say that state's don't have rights....just like your over-the-top opinion to let civilians have nukes...

 

[LOki]

Exercising power is a right smartass....but I guess you knew that.

It's not...and I don't.

But you go right on ahead and demonstrate that excerizing a power is a right...it ought to be a hoot.

You make the shittiest argument for your opinion.

What? That delegated powers are not the same thing as retained rights? That reserved powers are not neccessarily granted powers, which are also not rights? That the 10th Amendment is about Powers rather than Rights?

You take 1 week to explain your simplistic point, and then you go too far as to say that state's don't have rights.

My point was fully made with my first post, and fully explained by the 4th post in this thread; it's been a week and you still have no clue about what you're talking about.

Go back and reread The 10th, and point out precisely where I'm wrong. Demonstrate one, just one fucking right that a State has--just don't call a right retained by the People to be a State right, and don't call a power granted to the State by the people a right.

...just like your over-the-top opinion to let civilians have nukes...

Your profound capacity for deliberately persistent misunderstaning is a monument to mendacious stupidity.

 

[BrianH]

It's not...and I don't.

But you go right on ahead and demonstrate that excerizing a power is a right...it ought to be a hoot.



What? That delegated powers are not the same thing as retained rights? That reserved powers are not neccessarily granted powers, which are also not rights? That the 10th Amendment is about Powers rather than Rights?



My point was fully made with my first post, and fully explained by the 4th post in this thread; it's been a week and you still have no clue about what you're talking about.

Go back and reread The 10th, and point out precisely where I'm wrong. Demonstrate one, just one fucking right that a State has--just don't call a right retained by the People to be a State right, and don't call a power granted to the State by the people a right.



Your profound capacity for deliberately persistent misunderstaning is a monument to mendacious stupidity.

The 10th Amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. THAT MEANS: RIGHTS given to the people, and in the case of the 10th Amendment, the state.

Therefore, exercisable powers are a right reserved to the states OR the people. It doesn't say, "rights are reserved to the people and not the state respectively."

Would that not explain why the 10th Amendment (reserving powers to the
state or people) is in the Bill of RIGHTS.

You can call me stupid all you like, you're the one taking outrageous implications from the Constitution. You're trying to make an implication stretch further than a direct statement. Keep trying though.

 

[LOki]

The 10th Amendment is in the BILL OF RIGHTS. THAT MEANS: RIGHTS given to the people, and in the case of the 10th Amendment, the state.

Therefore, exercisable powers are a right reserved to the states OR the people. It doesn't say, "rights are reserved to the people and not the state respectively."

Rights are not given to The People, and the Tenth doesn't say,<i> "...rights are reserved to the people and the state respectively"</i> either.

Would that not explain why the 10th Amendment (reserving powers to the state or people) is in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Guaranteeing the right of the people to delegate powers to the state not prohibited by the Constitution DOES NOT confer a Right to the State to excercise powers reserved, but not delegated--no matter how badly you wish it to be so.

You can call me stupid all you like, you're the one taking outrageous implications from the Constitution. You're trying to make an implication stretch further than a direct statement. Keep trying though.

No, that's actually you, with your State's have the Right to excersize Powers because excersizing Powers is a Right, nonsense.

Depite the 1st ten amendments to the Constitution being commonly referred to as the U.S. Bill Of Rights, that does not change the fact that the terms Powers and Rights are still not interchangeable, that the Constitution cannot and does not grant rights OR powers, that State Powers are not Rights, and the 10th Amendment does not say, <i>"The Rights 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"</i> no matter how badly you wish it to--you can keep trying to demand it's otherwise.

 

[AllieBaba]

Here's what was in the East Oregonian paper yesterday. Thought it was sort of interesting in light of this discussion:

4/24/2008 1200 PM

Group eyes Eastern Oregon as 51st state
Proposed border would divide state east of Cascades

By Phil Wright
The East Oregonian

The state of Eastern Oregon?

That's what a small group from Hood River wants to see happen by 2010 if enough Eastern Oregonians show interest in creating the 51st state that would stretch from east of the Cascade Mountains to the Idaho border.

Consultant Paul Koch, his partner Ernie DeRocher and DeRocher's wife, Rita Swyers, are the three people pushing this effort. Koch said people in Eastern Oregon are fed up with how Salem has treated them, and that's prompted this movement.

"Thirty years of using Eastern Oregon ... and denying it the opportunity to develop with the western part of the state," Koch said.

Koch has done consulting and strategic planning work for Milton-Freewater, Baker City, the Umatilla County Special Library District and Blue Mountain Community College. He said in his travels in Eastern Oregon in recent years he and his partner heard a steady theme of how the western part of the state gets all the benefits.

"We started asking people, 'Gee, why don't we start our own state?'" Koch said.

Some people dismissed the notion, Koch said, but others were all for it.

Koch has developed idea papers and an action plan on creating the new state, and he DeRocher and Swyers created a list of about 140 people to contact about the idea. Koch said some people would just laugh at first, but their tunes changed when they heard these three were serious enough to hold public meetings about adding a new star to the U.S. flag.

Then, Koch said, people wanted to attend.

The first meeting is at noon Friday at The Lodge in Boardman. Koch will give an overview of the reasons why Eastern Oregon should be a separate state, discuss how it might operate and consider what the risks could be. Koch also wants to create an organization to take the lead in this effort and to create committees and assignments.

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution allows for the creation of a new state from an exiting state with the approval of the state Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Although Koch has done quite a lot of work on this idea, he doesn't have all of the answers, particularly when it comes to an economy and funding for a new state.

"I honestly don't have a clue," he said. "However, in talking to people about this, we're thinking about using some new techniques new approaches ... and having a very small, centralized state government and relying on cities and counties to deliver most of the services."

However, Koch said this is a "very opened-ended, bottoms up approach" and the public will decide many answers about the new state.

Koch also said Oregon Republican Sen. Gordon Smith would have to decide if he wanted to serve Eastern Oregon.

Smith wasn't available for a comment, but Lindsay Gilbrand, Smith's press secretary, addressed the issues this way:

"As the first senator from east of the Cascades in 70 years, Sen. Smith considers himself a champion for those who make their living off the land - as long as he is Oregon's senator, rural Oregon is going to have a strong and clear voice."

There's a bit of history in Oregon when it comes to parts of the state breaking away to form a new state. In 1941, Gilbert Gable, the mayor of the southern Oregon coastal town Port Orford in Curry County, went to Sacramento, Calif., to lobby Gov. Culbert Olson with the idea of the county joining California for economic development. That was the first step in a movement to create the state of Jefferson, which seems to still be underway in some fashion.

The map on the state of Jefferson Web site shows Jefferson would include several southwestern Oregon counties from the coast to the eastern border of Lake County and several northern California counties.

4/24/2008 1200 PM Email this article • Print this article
Comment on this article


Group eyes Eastern Oregon as 51st state
Proposed border would divide state east of Cascades

By Phil Wright
The East Oregonian

The state of Eastern Oregon?

That's what a small group from Hood River wants to see happen by 2010 if enough Eastern Oregonians show interest in creating the 51st state that would stretch from east of the Cascade Mountains to the Idaho border.

Consultant Paul Koch, his partner Ernie DeRocher and DeRocher's wife, Rita Swyers, are the three people pushing this effort. Koch said people in Eastern Oregon are fed up with how Salem has treated them, and that's prompted this movement.

"Thirty years of using Eastern Oregon ... and denying it the opportunity to develop with the western part of the state," Koch said.

Koch has done consulting and strategic planning work for Milton-Freewater, Baker City, the Umatilla County Special Library District and Blue Mountain Community College. He said in his travels in Eastern Oregon in recent years he and his partner heard a steady theme of how the western part of the state gets all the benefits.

"We started asking people, 'Gee, why don't we start our own state?'" Koch said.

Some people dismissed the notion, Koch said, but others were all for it.

Koch has developed idea papers and an action plan on creating the new state, and he DeRocher and Swyers created a list of about 140 people to contact about the idea. Koch said some people would just laugh at first, but their tunes changed when they heard these three were serious enough to hold public meetings about adding a new star to the U.S. flag.

Then, Koch said, people wanted to attend.

The first meeting is at noon Friday at The Lodge in Boardman. Koch will give an overview of the reasons why Eastern Oregon should be a separate state, discuss how it might operate and consider what the risks could be. Koch also wants to create an organization to take the lead in this effort and to create committees and assignments.

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution allows for the creation of a new state from an exiting state with the approval of the state Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Although Koch has done quite a lot of work on this idea, he doesn't have all of the answers, particularly when it comes to an economy and funding for a new state.

"I honestly don't have a clue," he said. "However, in talking to people about this, we're thinking about using some new techniques new approaches ... and having a very small, centralized state government and relying on cities and counties to deliver most of the services."

However, Koch said this is a "very opened-ended, bottoms up approach" and the public will decide many answers about the new state.

Koch also said Oregon Republican Sen. Gordon Smith would have to decide if he wanted to serve Eastern Oregon.

Smith wasn't available for a comment, but Lindsay Gilbrand, Smith's press secretary, addressed the issues this way:

"As the first senator from east of the Cascades in 70 years, Sen. Smith considers himself a champion for those who make their living off the land - as long as he is Oregon's senator, rural Oregon is going to have a strong and clear voice."

There's a bit of history in Oregon when it comes to parts of the state breaking away to form a new state. In 1941, Gilbert Gable, the mayor of the southern Oregon coastal town Port Orford in Curry County, went to Sacramento, Calif., to lobby Gov. Culbert Olson with the idea of the county joining California for economic development. That was the first step in a movement to create the state of Jefferson, which seems to still be underway in some fashion.

The map on the state of Jefferson Web site shows Jefferson would include several southwestern Oregon counties from the coast to the eastern border of Lake County and several northern California counties.


4/24/2008 1200 PM Email this article • Print this article
Comment on this article


Group eyes Eastern Oregon as 51st state
Proposed border would divide state east of Cascades

By Phil Wright
The East Oregonian

The state of Eastern Oregon?

That's what a small group from Hood River wants to see happen by 2010 if enough Eastern Oregonians show interest in creating the 51st state that would stretch from east of the Cascade Mountains to the Idaho border.

Consultant Paul Koch, his partner Ernie DeRocher and DeRocher's wife, Rita Swyers, are the three people pushing this effort. Koch said people in Eastern Oregon are fed up with how Salem has treated them, and that's prompted this movement.

"Thirty years of using Eastern Oregon ... and denying it the opportunity to develop with the western part of the state," Koch said.

Koch has done consulting and strategic planning work for Milton-Freewater, Baker City, the Umatilla County Special Library District and Blue Mountain Community College. He said in his travels in Eastern Oregon in recent years he and his partner heard a steady theme of how the western part of the state gets all the benefits.

"We started asking people, 'Gee, why don't we start our own state?'" Koch said.

Some people dismissed the notion, Koch said, but others were all for it.

Koch has developed idea papers and an action plan on creating the new state, and he DeRocher and Swyers created a list of about 140 people to contact about the idea. Koch said some people would just laugh at first, but their tunes changed when they heard these three were serious enough to hold public meetings about adding a new star to the U.S. flag.

Then, Koch said, people wanted to attend.

The first meeting is at noon Friday at The Lodge in Boardman. Koch will give an overview of the reasons why Eastern Oregon should be a separate state, discuss how it might operate and consider what the risks could be. Koch also wants to create an organization to take the lead in this effort and to create committees and assignments.

Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution allows for the creation of a new state from an exiting state with the approval of the state Legislature and the U.S. Congress.

Although Koch has done quite a lot of work on this idea, he doesn't have all of the answers, particularly when it comes to an economy and funding for a new state.

"I honestly don't have a clue," he said. "However, in talking to people about this, we're thinking about using some new techniques new approaches ... and having a very small, centralized state government and relying on cities and counties to deliver most of the services."

However, Koch said this is a "very opened-ended, bottoms up approach" and the public will decide many answers about the new state.

Koch also said Oregon Republican Sen. Gordon Smith would have to decide if he wanted to serve Eastern Oregon.

Smith wasn't available for a comment, but Lindsay Gilbrand, Smith's press secretary, addressed the issues this way:

"As the first senator from east of the Cascades in 70 years, Sen. Smith considers himself a champion for those who make their living off the land - as long as he is Oregon's senator, rural Oregon is going to have a strong and clear voice."

There's a bit of history in Oregon when it comes to parts of the state breaking away to form a new state. In 1941, Gilbert Gable, the mayor of the southern Oregon coastal town Port Orford in Curry County, went to Sacramento, Calif., to lobby Gov. Culbert Olson with the idea of the county joining California for economic development. That was the first step in a movement to create the state of Jefferson, which seems to still be underway in some fashion.

The map on the state of Jefferson Web site shows Jefferson would include several southwestern Oregon counties from the coast to the eastern border of Lake County and several northern California counties.

www.eastoregonian.com

 

[BrianH]

Rights are not given to The People, and the Tenth doesn't say,<i> "...rights are reserved to the people and the state respectively"</i> either.



Guaranteeing the right of the people to delegate powers to the state not prohibited by the Constitution DOES NOT confer a Right to the State to excercise powers reserved, but not delegated--no matter how badly you wish it to be so.



No, that's actually you, with your State's have the Right to excersize Powers because excersizing Powers is a Right, nonsense.

Depite the 1st ten amendments to the Constitution being commonly referred to as the U.S. Bill Of Rights, that does not change the fact that the terms Powers and Rights are still not interchangeable, that the Constitution cannot and does not grant rights OR powers, that State Powers are not Rights, and the 10th Amendment does not say, <i>"The Rights 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"</i> no matter how badly you wish it to--you can keep trying to demand it's otherwise.

The definition of powers is indeed different from the definintion of rights. BUT EXERCISING POWERS IS A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE 10TH AMENDMENT. Just like the state has the right to exercise powers of funding education, or elections, or the death penalty. The state is given the RIGHT in the BILL OF RIGHTS to exercise powers not prohibited in the Constitution or delegated to the federal government. If a POWER was not considered a right, then the
10th amendment (which speaks of powers) would not be in the Bill of RIGHTS. THE state has the right to exercise powers. And they do every day....they have the right to exercise power over many aspects of state function.

You have no concrete basis behind your assumption that a states do not have rights to exercise powers.

 

[LOki]

The definition of powers is indeed different from the definintion of rights. BUT EXERCISING POWERS IS A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE 10TH AMENDMENT.

No, it's not. The States have no right to excerise powers.

Just like the state has the right to exercise powers of funding education, or elections, or the death penalty.

The States do not have the right to excersise these powers--excersize of these powers is not a right.

The state is given the RIGHT in the BILL OF RIGHTS to exercise powers not prohibited in the Constitution or delegated to the federal government.

The State has no rights; the excersize of powers is not a right.

If a POWER was not considered a right, then the
10th amendment (which speaks of powers) would not be in the Bill of RIGHTS.

Just because the 1st 10 amendments is call ed the Bill of Rights, the mention of Powers DOES NOT make Powers Rights.

Guaranteeing the right of the people to delegate powers to the state not prohibited by the Constitution DOES NOT confer a Right to the State to excercise powers reserved, but not delegated--no matter how badly you wish it to be so.

THE state has the right to exercise powers.

The State has NO RIGHT to excersize Powers. The excersize of Powers is NOT a Right, it's an empowerment by the consent of the People.

And they do every day....they have the right to exercise power over many aspects of state function.

No, they don't--they are empowered to act on our behalf; they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO--they do so provided the People empower them to do so.

You have no concrete basis behind your assumption that a states do not have rights to exercise powers.

I do, it's the concrete difference between Rights and Powers.

 

[BrianH]

No, it's not. The States have no right to excerise powers.



The States do not have the right to excersise these powers--excersize of these powers is not a right.



The State has no rights; the excersize of powers is not a right.



Just because the 1st 10 amendments is call ed the Bill of Rights, the mention of Powers DOES NOT make Powers Rights.

Guaranteeing the right of the people to delegate powers to the state not prohibited by the Constitution DOES NOT confer a Right to the State to excercise powers reserved, but not delegated--no matter how badly you wish it to be so.



The State has NO RIGHT to excersize Powers. The excersize of Powers is NOT a Right, it's an empowerment by the consent of the People.



No, they don't--they are empowered to act on our behalf; they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO--they do so provided the People empower them to do so.



I do, it's the concrete difference between Rights and Powers.

The state's act on the power of the people of the state. Texas does not act on the wishes of Montana, and vice verca. THe people of the STATES during the civil war supported secession, so if we go by your claim that the people have power and not the states themselves, then the people of each state gave the power to secede to the states. You are simply stating your opinion and not proving it. The rest is your speculation. On top of completely disregarding the fact that the 10th Amendment give powers to the state or people.

 

[LOki]

The state's act on the power of the people of the state. Texas does not act on the wishes of Montana, and vice verca.

Ok.

THe people of the STATES during the civil war supported secession, so if we go by your claim that the people have power and not the states themselves, then the people of each state gave the power to secede to the states.

While true for the People of the seceding States, "The People" of the United States of America, represented in Congress by their respective elected Representatives and Senators (including Southern Representatives and Senators from the Southern States), and represented by their elected President (elected in part, by the way, by the Southern People), did not sanction any dissolution of the Union, or any secession of any of the States.

You are simply stating your opinion and not proving it.

This is not an opinion: Not prohibiting a power to the states, and placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

The Southern States were not empowered by The People to alter, or otherwise dictate the compostion of the Union on their own.

The rest is your speculation.

What speculation? That if secession were sanctioned by the Peole od the United States it would have been legal? <i>THAT</i> specluation? It's certainly less speculation than asserting that <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserving</a> a power is <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granting</a> a right.

On top of completely disregarding the fact that the 10th Amendment give powers to the state or people.

I am not disregarding the 10th amendment, you are.

The 10th Amendment does not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">grant</a> powers to the States--Check it out for yourself:<blockquote><i>"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a> (Not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">granted</a>, just <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">reserved</a>)</b> to the States respectively, or to the people."</i></blockquote>As I keep saying, there is no 10th Amendment argument, because failing to prohibit a power to the states; placing a power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in reserve to the States, IS NOT GRANTING THAT POWER TO THE STATES.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loki, the States most definately have the right and ability to exersize power. They are granted that right in the same manner that the Federal Government is, through the people, in this case the people of that State. Just as the US Constitution delegates the power the Federal Government has, the State Constitutions delegate the powers ( further limited by the Federal Constitution) that the State has.

The 10th Grants to the people and the States ( which gain power through the people) the RIGHT to exersize powers not restricted to the federal Government.Any power not granted to the federal Government can be granted to a State through its Legislature and Constitution, which derive the authority from the people.

A Government, be it City, County, Board, State or Federal all have POWERS granted to them by the people. They have the right and duty to exersize those POWERS. The limitation is that the US Constitution can not be overruled , ignored or legislated away. It is the Supreme Law of the land. The Powers granted in it can not be taken away except through amendment to the Document.

 

[LOki]

Loki, the States most definately have the right and ability to exersize power. They are granted that right in the same manner that the Federal Government is, through the people, in this case the people of that State.

Rights are NOT granted. This is one reason why such grantings (as you expressed them), are not, cannot be, grantings of rights; what is granted are Powers--the People grant Powers to the State, and retain their Rights.

Just as the US Constitution delegates the power the Federal Government has, the State Constitutions delegate the powers ( further limited by the Federal Constitution) that the State has.

Again, Powers--not Rights.

The 10th Grants to the people and the States ( which gain power through the people) the RIGHT to exersize powers not restricted to the federal Government.

No. The 10th <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">RESERVES</a> to the people and the States the POWERS not expressly delegated to the federal Government through the Constitution.

Not prohibiting a Power to the States, and placing a Power (by virtue of not being prohibited) in <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">RESERVE</a> to the States, IS NOT <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">GRANTING</a> that Power to the States.

Any power not granted to the federal Government can be granted to a State through its Legislature and Constitution, which derive the authority from the people.

Thus, <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reserve">RESERVED</a> Powers, NOT <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">GRANTED</a> Powers, and certainly not <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">GRANTED</a> Rights.

A Government, be it City, County, Board, State or Federal all have POWERS granted to them by the people.

Correct, NOT rights. Rights and Powers are NOT interchangeable terms.

They have the right and duty to exersize those POWERS.

Where the Rights of the People are presumed, the Powers of the State ARE NOT. The States have no right to excersize powers; they are simply empowered by the People to take actions on behalf of the People, and those actions are limited to those Powers not expressly granted to the Federal Government, to those Powers granted by the People of the respective States, and by the Rights retained by the People.

The limitation is that the US Constitution can not be overruled , ignored or legislated away. It is the Supreme Law of the land.

Not if they are Rights--Rights overrule the Powers--The point of delegating Powers is to uphold Rights--Rights are Supreme; and Laws, even "the Supreme Law of the land" is subject to being overruled by Rights.

The Powers granted in it can not be taken away except through amendment to the Document.

And the Powers NOT <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/grant">GRANTED</a> cannot be excersized by the State by Right--only through the consent of the People is the State emPOWERed to take actions.