State's Rights

[Contumacious]

"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)).

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, States rights are wonderful things

The power of the states AND of the federal government must be under our control.

 

[Jackson]

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

We could be making laws in our states that affect out tax base, our schools, many everyday things that affect all of us.

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.

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 haven't factored in the 14th amendment. Which extended most of the bill of rights to the States. So among all the tasks you indicated that the federal government is able to take on, you forgot 'protect the rights of federal citizens from abuse by the States'. Which is where decisions like Romer V. Evans, Loving V. Virginia and McDonald v. Chicago come in.

The Feds absolutely have the authority to step in and protect rights of individuals by declaring a given state statute is unconstitutional.

Certainly they have to meet standards in doing so.

Amendment X

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.

 

[jillian]

the United States of America was set up so individual states would pass separate laws.
this was done on purpose.
the idea was, states would compare and improve society through trial and error.
this all changed during the Civil War era(ror) when the Federals said they need to take power to "enforce the Bill of Rights in the states"
ever since then we've had all kinds of Federal action that was never intended.
so according to their own words, it's they're job to enforce the Second Amendment in the states, but they're not interested in that, they say that's "state's rights" and wash their hands of the responsibility , ...which is proof the whole idea was corrupt.
so, in state's rights, we would say...
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned all drugs, we have no crime and no homelessness"
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized weed, so we make money off of taxes , and jobs were created in food production, because everyone is at the Kwiky Mart looking for munchies.
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we banned gay marriage, so there's real estate boom as conservative families are moving here from all over the country."
OK
"Why is YOUR state doing so well?"
"Well , in OUR state we legalized gay marriage, so every homo from around the country is coming here and we have awesome theater."
OK
forget about what your opinion is on gay marriage and weed.
the fact that every state is falling like a domino , legalizing these things, is un-American.
this is not government from the bottom up, this is government from the top down .

so the commerce clause, the supremacy clause and the general welfare clause and all of the amendments were just kidding?

if what you were saying was half true, we'd have remained under the articles of confederation.

un-American? lol

as for every state falling like dominos, that would be false. there are some very successful states... they just either have oil or something else to commend them. red states generally don't do too well.... (see Mississippi and Alabama, etc). or we could say how well Wisconsin has done with it's use of it's state's "rights".

 

[Rotagilla]

"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)).

oh...suddenly you're big on "original intent"..funny how that works ....when you want it to..LMAO...

 

[Skylar]

haven't you been whining about the government not taking care of you over this Ebola Virus crapola?

For many conservatives, the conceptualization of 'freedom from government' is multifaceted. They don't want to government intervention into state or private matters, unless they do. Which is why they're blaming the CDC for not controlling Texas public policy on Ebola, and not controlling a private hospital's treatment of Ebola.

Where by any rational measure the control they are demanding is actually in reverse. With it greatest at the private hospital. Then at the Texas government level. And least at the federal level. So their 'control/responsibility' matrix is inverted. Those with the most control are held the least responsible. Those with the least control are being held the most responsible.

Its a little silly.

 

[Skylar]

so the commerce clause, the supremacy clause and the general welfare clause and all of the amendments were just kidding?

The commerce clause has been stretched to what I would argue is a ridiculous degree. When combating racial discrimination the Feds made an argument that I would argue is pretty fucking ridiculous, though I respect what they were trying to do with it.

They argued that any business in the State was within the regulation of the Federal Government directly because something in that business had to cross state lines. Even if all clients, employees, products and services originated and remained in the same state.......a nail in the building would have had to have crossed state lines. And thus, the federal government has direct regulatory authority of the entire business.

Which I argue, is completely horse shit. That was not what the founders intended by 'interstate commerce'.

 

[nodoginnafight]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

 

[Skylar]

oh...suddenly you're big on "original intent"..funny how that works ....when you want it to..LMAO...

There's no mention in any Federalist paper or constitutional convention of the Federal government applying the Bill of Rights to the States, or protecting rights from State governments. The lone mention of anything even remotely close was that it was the Federal Government's duty to protect the States. And the State's to protect the rights of citizens.

So even an 'original intent' argument doesn't work.

 

[jillian]

haven't you been whining about the government not taking care of you over this Ebola Virus crapola?

For many conservatives, the conceptualization of 'freedom from government' is multifaceted. They don't want to government intervention into state or private matters, unless they do. Which is why they're blaming the CDC for not controlling Texas public policy on Ebola, and not controlling a private hospital's treatment of Ebola.

Where by any rational measure the control they are demanding is actually in reverse. With it greatest at the private hospital. Then at the Texas government level. And least at the federal level. So their 'control/responsibility' matrix is inverted. Those with the most control are held the least responsible. Those with the least control are being held the most responsible.

Its a little silly.

but it serves the purpose of allowing them to blame the president.... hence the tortured "logic".

 

[Skylar]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

 

[jillian]

so the commerce clause, the supremacy clause and the general welfare clause and all of the amendments were just kidding?

The commerce clause has been stretched to what I would argue is a ridiculous degree. When combating racial discrimination the Feds made an argument that I would argue is pretty fucking ridiculous, though I respect what they were trying to do with it.

They argued that any business in the State was within the regulation of the Federal Government directly because something in that business had to cross state lines. Even if all clients, employees, products and services originated and remained in the same state.......a nail in the building would have had to have crossed state lines. And thus, the federal government has direct regulatory authority of the entire business.

Which I argue, is completely horse shit. That was not what the founders intended by 'interstate commerce'.

i'm not big on original intent. my own matrix for when the commerce clause should be implemented is whether the regulation, if not implemented, would leave the states having diverse regulations which would create confusion and impact commerce negatively. (think mud flaps). I suspect it's been taken a bit far afield... but where it should have been applied recently was the one case where it wasn't. (the ACA.... being the only case I can think of in recent memory to limit the commerce power).

 

[Jackson]

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

We could be making laws in our states that affect out tax base, our schools, many everyday things that affect all of us.

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.

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 haven't factored in the 14th amendment. Which extended most of the bill of rights to the States. So among all the tasks you indicated that the federal government is able to take on, you forgot 'protect the rights of federal citizens from abuse by the States'. Which is where decisions like Romer V. Evans, Loving V. Virginia and McDonald v. Chicago come in.

The Feds absolutely have the authority to step in and protect rights of individuals by declaring a given state statute is unconstitutional.

The 14th amendment ? talks about rebellion and slavery. It was written in1868.

 

[jillian]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue.... they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

 

[Skylar]

Certainly they have to meet standards in doing so.

Amendment X

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.

They need to meet the standards of amendment 14. Specifically, section 1. Which grants the Federal government new powers.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...."

 

[Skylar]

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue..

But federal jurisdiction over citizen v. citizen discrimination issues in a State is the question. We have anti-discrimination laws in California. But that doesn't mean they apply in Alabama. The logic that the feds used in applying federal law directly to the regulation of private businesses in Alabama was the 'one nail crossed the border' reasoning under the commerce clause.

Which bends the concept of 'interstate commerce' to the point of ridiculousness in my opinion.

.. they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

It wouldn't be. Which I'm not too thrilled about. Yet the legal reasoning of the feds is still hapless bullshit. The feds can certainly regulate the nail as it crosses the border. That doesn't mean they have direct authority over anyone who ever uses the nail in the history of its existence afterward. As it grants the feds unlimited INTRAstate commerce control.

Which the founders would have granted the feds if that's what they'd wanted them to have. And they clearly never did.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The far right thinks supporting "the Constitution" means supporting the idea that states can trump elections, federal law, and the Constitution.

Go figure.

 

[Skylar]

"... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws...."

And don't forget section 5 of the same amendment:

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

14th amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 5.

Even the 'limits to the federal government's power' crew must acknowledge the fed's authority on powers that they've been expressly granted by the constitution.

 

[Contumacious]

A state does not have the option to deny its citizens the rights they are entitled to by virtue of being American.

Sorry.

In the case of the governments contortionist bending of the commerce clause, their application wasn't State v. Citizen. It was Citizen v. Citizen. A bar owner in say, Alabama...that didn't want to serve black folks.

The State has no direct role in that interaction unless they decide they do. And the feds no jurisdiction without the bizarro 'a nail crosses the state border' nonsense.

a bar owner not wanting to serve black folks is a discrimination issue.... they used public accommodation and licensing as a means to exert control, rightfully. how else would you have done it and not used the commerce clause?

Americans are FREE People. Businesses right to refuse to serve whomever should be respected. I would choose to boycott such enterprises and let them go bankrupt. But I would never support using the federal or state power to infring upon their right to freely associate or pursue whatever they think is happiness.

.