The Meaning of "State's Rights"

[PoliticalChic]

Columbia university is a private college.

Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it.

Puberty is gonna hit you like a ton of bricks!

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

What a brilliant come back!


Did you first consider 'I am not...you are!'


It is pretty clear why you don't write.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's 2014.

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.

Just wait, Folks. One of these days in our near future, some lefty is going to claim that the United States was founded by leftists.

Wedgie....already done.

Over and over they try to claim that the Founders were Liberals.

 

[OnePercenter]

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

What a brilliant come back!


Did you first consider 'I am not...you are!'


It is pretty clear why you don't write.

This isn't any fun when you continue to prove my point.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The sovereign states had the right to choose not to ratify the Constitution, under which they ceded much of their sovereignty to the federal government.

They chose otherwise.

In essence, correct – but it was the American people of the Founding Generation who created the Constitution, not the states:

A distinctive character of the National Government, the mark of its legitimacy, is that it owes its existence to the act of the whole people who created it.

It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

The supremacy of the Federal government, therefore, was at the behest of the people, who sought to create a single Nation, to interact with a single National government as citizens of the United States absent interference by the states, and to safeguard their civil liberties with the Federal Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Columbia university is a private college.

Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it.

Puberty is gonna hit you like a ton of bricks!

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

Now that I consider it, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a creativity-challenged Liberal, otherwise known as 'dunce.'


So....before you scrape the bottom of the witty come-back barrel....


...this might be a step up:

"I'm polymerized tree sap, you're an inorganic adhesive. Any verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off me, returns to it's original trajectory and adheres to you."


Yes, you have my permission.

 

[OnePercenter]

"Those that can become successful business people Those that can't write about it."

Those that can't become whining Liberals.

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

Now that I consider it, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a creativity-challenged Liberal, otherwise known as 'dunce.'


So....before you scrape the bottom of the witty come-back barrel....


...this might be a step up:

"I'm polymerized tree sap, you're an inorganic adhesive. Any verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off me, returns to it's original trajectory and adheres to you."


Yes, you have my permission.

A true conservative is a very rich, usually white, usually guy, who will sell anything including family (Sarah Palin) to make a bigger buck. A middle class conservative is an ignorant, miserly cheap, usually male, who lives a bitter life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, if you can't it's because you're a ignorant middle-class conservative.

Now that I consider it, a conservative is never so tall as when she stoops to help a creativity-challenged Liberal, otherwise known as 'dunce.'


So....before you scrape the bottom of the witty come-back barrel....


...this might be a step up:

"I'm polymerized tree sap, you're an inorganic adhesive. Any verbal projectile you launch in my direction is reflected off me, returns to it's original trajectory and adheres to you."


Yes, you have my permission.

A true conservative is a very rich, usually white, usually guy, who will sell anything including family (Sarah Palin) to make a bigger buck. A middle class conservative is an ignorant, miserly cheap, usually male, who lives a bitter life.

What better proof could there be that you don't have a clue.


My advice: continue to do what you do best,...lie, and make others despise you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

History shows that most state's rights vs. constitutional rights conflicts have been over states trying to retain the right to restrict someone's rights or deny them equality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

History shows that most state's rights vs. constitutional rights conflicts have been over states trying to retain the right to restrict someone's rights or deny them equality.

Education teaches that federal judges have stolen the nation that was promised to the American people in the memorializing documents.


Education.


You should try some.

 

[jillian]

When we changed from the articles of confederation to the constitution, we established a more powerful and centralized federal government.

the constitution provides that the laws of the federal government are superior to the laws of the individual states if those laws conflict (supremacy clause)

the constitution provides that the federal government may levy taxes and act for the general welfare of the populace (see taxing clause and preamble to the constitution).

the states may not pass any law that is in violation of rights provided by the federal constitution. (see, again, supremacy clause).

i hope that helps.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"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.

Article 1 section 8 sets forth the legislative powers; it does does not list all the powers of the national government.

"The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections in the Constitution. "
Enumerated powers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


As I said.

You act as though the Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution don't exist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. When one tries to understand the ascendancy of the Left, of socialism/communism/collectivism....it certainly isn't the correctness of their views.

Time and again command-and-control economies have failed, and "The Soviet Union attempted to create the New Soviet Man with gulags, psychiatric hospitals, and firing squads for seventy years and succeeded only in producing a more corrupt culture.”
Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 198


Here is my analysis: control of the schools and the media, and the co-opting of the language is behind acceptance of Leftism.
It is the use of an illusion: training folks to accept catch-phrases and bumper-stickers as though they represented real thinking, that's how they've done it.

"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope




2. Recently a post used the phrase 'state's rights' as though it was synonymous with racism and oppression. This belief is a prime example of catch-phrase training, and what Pope meant by 'a little learning.'


If real learning was in effect, the populace would associate the term 'state's rights' with what it really means: Federalism.

"Federalism is a political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to describe a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces)." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The less insightful, or should I say, less educated, have come to believe that American people are evil racists.....and that some, in particular states, have to be controlled by a benevolent government ready and able to control/change them....sometimes called 'hope and change.'

Of course, most Leftists don't comprehend 'sovereignty' any more than 'federalism.'





3. Here's why they should:
The 18th century meaning of "state" put same on a par with any sovereign nation. On June 7, 1776, following instructions from the Virginia Convention, Richard Henry Lee, said "Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,..."

By that, Lee was saying that Virginia was the equal of Britain, or France. Congress understood that, and promptly appointed a committee to draft a declaration of independence.
And the point of the Declaration? That the colonies were independent states,...that's where an understanding of 'sovereignty' comes in.

a. In the Declaration's fourth and final section, Congress declared the colonies to be "free and independent states," with the right to do everything that free nations could do.


"...the right..." as in State's Rights.

History shows that most state's rights vs. constitutional rights conflicts have been over states trying to retain the right to restrict someone's rights or deny them equality.

Education teaches that federal judges have stolen the nation that was promised to the American people in the memorializing documents.


Education.


You should try some.

Federal judges are a legitimate product OF the Constitution. All you're arguing is that the because you don't like the outcomes of our constitutional government,

then some sort of criminal acts must be occurring to prevent the outcomes you'd prefer.

FYI - the Constitution was not designed to please you, and only you.

 

[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.

 

[eagle1462010]

Davey Crockett's hard-learned lesson about limited government.

"So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: 'Don't be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.' He replied:

"'I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.'

"I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and --'

"'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

"This was a sockdolager .... I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

"'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest .... But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

"'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.'

"'No, Colonel, there's no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

"'Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.'

"'Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?'

"Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

"'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

"'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.'"

"I have given you," continued Crockett, "an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

"'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

"I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.'

 

[eagle1462010]

James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.
Letter to w:Edmund Pendleton (1792-01-21) [2]

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (1794-01-10) [5]

James Madison - Wikiquote

 

[PoliticalChic]

When we changed from the articles of confederation to the constitution, we established a more powerful and centralized federal government.

the constitution provides that the laws of the federal government are superior to the laws of the individual states if those laws conflict (supremacy clause)

the constitution provides that the federal government may levy taxes and act for the general welfare of the populace (see taxing clause and preamble to the constitution).

the states may not pass any law that is in violation of rights provided by the federal constitution. (see, again, supremacy clause).

i hope that helps.

What made you think I needed your help?

Ego?

When you spell Constitution without a capital letter, it lets one know that you are no more than a Big Government collectivist.




For your edification you should go back and study the 10th and 11th amendments.


That might help you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It's 2014.

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.

Just wait, Folks. One of these days in our near future, some lefty is going to claim that the United States was founded by leftists.

Wedgie....already done.

Over and over they try to claim that the Founders were Liberals.

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just wait, Folks. One of these days in our near future, some lefty is going to claim that the United States was founded by leftists.

Wedgie....already done.

Over and over they try to claim that the Founders were Liberals.

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!

 

[regent]

Wedgie....already done.

Over and over they try to claim that the Founders were Liberals.

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.

 

[regent]

Wedgie....already done.

Over and over they try to claim that the Founders were Liberals.

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?