The Meaning of "State's Rights"

[PoliticalChic]

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.

The effect is identical.

 

[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.

The effect is identical.

No they are different. Rights limit powers.

 

[Toro]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

 

[eagle1462010]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

Local as possible. People have a better chance of knowing the truth from locals than someone on the other side of the country, of who could be corrupted as well.

It's a lot easier to stop corruption locally than nationally, but those on the other side of the nation don't have a clue whats going on.

 

[guno]

A little history on states rights that our little miss Saigon doesn't seem to know and she wouldn't have faired too well in

Jim Crow was a system of segregation and discrimination practiced in Southern ... was endangered by the loss of states' rights to control the blacks of the South.

"How terms like States Rights are used as racist code words to garner the racist southern vote When a politician says the term 'States Rights' to an all white crowd in the deep south it is thinly veiled code word for racism. It basically says 'hey all you racists out there, I'm a racist too, and if you elect me, I'll be sure to do what I can to perpetuate the institution of racist policies as long I as I can.'

That's exactly what Ronald Reagan did when he kicked off his presidential campaign in 1980. Reagan even kicked it up a notch, by holding his presidential campaign kick-off in Philadelphia, Mississippi (which was Trent Lott's idea btw, if that tells you anything). What, you may ask, is the significance of that city? It was where the famous murders of three civil rights workers occurred in 1964. Did Regan denounce those murders or mention them in any way in that speech? Absolutely not. He instead told a nearly all white crowd that he believes in 'states' rights'. It was a chilling message to send to black Americans everywhere (indeed to all non-racist Americans who may have been paying attention). It was an incredibly racist move on his part, but it was also political genius. It was a way to woo the southern democratic vote (dixie-crats) over to the Republican party. That transformation was what allowed the Republican party to grow into what it is today from its virtual irrelevancy at that time. It's not so easy to come right out and call Reagan a racist, but his policy speaks for itself. He voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and he refused to denounce the racist apartheid policies of South Africa when virually the entire rest of the world did. And the choice of location for his presidential kick-off speech, Wow. That takes the cake. Not since the fifties could you come right out and publicly state your racism while running for political office; you had to switch to using phrases like 'states' rights' to say it. Ronald Reagan may not have stated it overtly; that would have been political suicide in 1980, but he did state it nonetheless."

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow | PBS

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

The original conception for our government was federalism, "... 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 is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

States have rights to the extent they don't conflict with Federal laws or the Federal courts, where both are supreme to state laws. And states have rights to the extent state laws don't violate the civil liberties of the American citizens who reside within the states, where one does not forfeit his inalienable rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence. Moreover, when states seek to deny American citizens their civil liberties, Federal courts have the authority to invalidate state measures repugnant to the Federal Constitution.

States have the right, for example, where state officials cannot be compelled to enforce Federal laws or regulations, states have the right to a republican form of government, and states have “certain powers over the times, places, and manner of federal elections,” US Term Limits, supra.

It is settled and accepted Constitutional law, however, that states' rights cannot 'trump' Federal law or the Federal Constitution:

Article VI of The United States Constitution states that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land."See*The Supremacy Clause: U.S. Constitution,*art. VI, § 2. Furthermore, all federal, state, and local officials must take an oath to support the Constitution. This means that state governments and officials cannot take actions or pass laws that interfere with the Constitution, laws passed by Congress, or treaties. The Constitution was interpreted, in 1819, as giving the Supreme Court the power to invalidate any state actions that interfere with the Constitution and the laws and treaties passed pursuant to it. That power is not itself explicitly set out in the Constitution but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in the decision of*McCulloch v. Maryland.

Constitutional law | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

In essence the Supremacy Clause acknowledges and codifies the fact that no government – state or local – may violate the inalienable rights of citizens of the United States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

The notion of 'states' rights' is a myth as contrived and perceived by conservatives, predicated on errant rightist dogma that the states are somehow 'sovereign,' when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

But in essence, yes – rights pertain solely to individuals, not states or other non-human entities, 'collective' or otherwise, as our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, rights that can be neither taken or bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And these are the right that are immune from state incursion, where the 'will of the people,' regardless the jurisdiction, lacks the authority to violate citizens' civil liberties.

 

[Toro]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

Local as possible. People have a better chance of knowing the truth from locals than someone on the other side of the country, of who could be corrupted as well.

It's a lot easier to stop corruption locally than nationally, but those on the other side of the nation don't have a clue whats going on.

Then "country rights," "city rights" or "neighborhood rights" would trump "states rights."

 

[Dad2three]

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.

(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.




Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


THE FOUNDERS GOT RID OF THAT STRONG STATES RIGHTS THING, THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION FOR THE STRONG FEDERAL GOV'T!!!!


The Federalist Founders did not view government as a necessary evil. They referred to the “imbecility” of a weak federal government (in the form of the Articles of Confederation) compared to a relatively strong central government, which is what the Constitution actually created. Though they feared the concentration of too much power in one branch of government, they believed that good government was essential to promote what they called the “public good.”

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Threats or aspirations to secede from the United States or arguments justifying secession have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White, the United States Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.



There is no protocol in the Constitution for states to leave the union, because if any state could leave at any time, it would be impossible to maintain a functioning nation.


The idea here is that if all the states were individual, not bound in a federal union, each would just have its state government, and we would not be subject to the horrors of big federal government. How “strict constitutionalists” could hold this position,which is clearly not part of the U.S. constitution, is unclear. But the idea that state governments are all good and pure, and would never trample the rights of state citizens like the federal government, and that the states are locked in an eternal battle with the evil empire in Washington, is not only an old one but one that is patently false.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Yes, our founding fathers believed in limited government until they saw that it didn't work.


The Constitution's purpose was to increase the power of government and limit the power of the states.


Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.


James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

 

[Dad2three]

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.

THE FOUNDERS WERE MANY THINGS, BUT THEY WEREN'T LIBERTARIANS.... As part of the right's newfound interest in all things constitutional, there's been a related push of late to recast the framers of the Constitution. Today's far-right activists, we're told, are the ideological descendents of the Founding Fathers.


The problem, of course, is that the framers weren't libertarians. John Vecchione had a good piece on this the other day.

George Washington belonged to the Established Church (Episcopalian) of the State of Virginia; he also was the chief vindicator of national power in the new republic. Thomas Jefferson determined to wage war by simply denying foreigners the right to trade with the U.S. So did Madison. What libertarian has ever thought the government could cut off trade between free individuals?

Further, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine supported the French Revolution. That revolution denied there was anything the state could not do in the name of the people. Jefferson never repudiated his support for that tyranny and Thomas Paine was only slightly more dismissive even after it nearly killed him. [...]

The Founders believed in carefully delineated federal powers either broad (Hamilton) or limited (Jefferson, sometimes) but all believed in a more powerful state than libertarians purport to believe in. If ever there was a libertarian document it was the Articles of Confederation. There was no national power. The federal government could not tax. Its laws were not supreme over state laws. It was in fact, the hot mess that critics of libertarians believe their dream state would be ... and it was recognized as such by the majority of the country and was why the Constitution was ratified. The Articles of Confederation is the true libertarian founding document and this explains the failure of libertarianism.

Jon Chait noted a recent piece from historian Gordon Wood that touches on this, emphasizing the similarities between the debates of the framers and those of today.


"The great irony, of course, is that the Anti-Federalist ancestors of the Tea Partiers opposed the Constitution rather than revered it," Wood explained.



The Washington Monthly

 

[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

Yes, our founding fathers believed in limited government until they saw that it didn't work.


The Constitution's purpose was to increase the power of government and limit the power of the states.


Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.


James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

I disagree.....Many of the checks and balances were specifically done to limit the powers of Gov't.

Enumerated powers were to limit it as well. Thus, they used as local as possible in government all the time.

Our entitlement culture over the last century has gotten us to where we are today. Dead broke, and borrowing our butts off to pay for things that the founders warned us about. We ditched their warnings and created programs without any clue on how the future generations could pay for it.

That is Stupidity and not the intent of the Founders.

 

[Dad2three]

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

Yes, our founding fathers believed in limited government until they saw that it didn't work.


The Constitution's purpose was to increase the power of government and limit the power of the states.


Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.


James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

I disagree.....Many of the checks and balances were specifically done to limit the powers of Gov't.

Enumerated powers were to limit it as well. Thus, they used as local as possible in government all the time.

Our entitlement culture over the last century has gotten us to where we are today. Dead broke, and borrowing our butts off to pay for things that the founders warned us about. We ditched their warnings and created programs without any clue on how the future generations could pay for it.

That is Stupidity and not the intent of the Founders.

Right wing CRAP. 90%+ of the debt can be traced to 3 guys, Reagan, Bush and Bush (Starve the beast)

The US isn't broke....

 

[eagle1462010]

Yes, our founding fathers believed in limited government until they saw that it didn't work.


The Constitution's purpose was to increase the power of government and limit the power of the states.


Madison was thwarted on a wide range of minor and not-so-minor points, including two issues — a federal "negative" (veto) over the states and proportional representation in both houses of Congress — that he considered crucial to his dream of a government that would safeguard private rights and still promote the public good.


James Madison "Godfather of the Constitution" - The Early America Review, Summer 1997

I disagree.....Many of the checks and balances were specifically done to limit the powers of Gov't.

Enumerated powers were to limit it as well. Thus, they used as local as possible in government all the time.

Our entitlement culture over the last century has gotten us to where we are today. Dead broke, and borrowing our butts off to pay for things that the founders warned us about. We ditched their warnings and created programs without any clue on how the future generations could pay for it.

That is Stupidity and not the intent of the Founders.

Right wing CRAP. 90%+ of the debt can be traced to 3 guys, Reagan, Bush and Bush (Starve the beast)

The US isn't broke....

That's a Lie.

We are borrowing, aka printing money at record levels...............Part of that borrowing is on for programs through the century that now have unfunded liabilities in excess of 125 TRILLION dollars.

And what is the solution..........Create more Gov't and more programs we can't pay for.

Charity was never part of the original Constitution. Charity was to be an individual choice. We have abused the the Better Good to the point of the destruction of our economy.

I'm not a fan of Free Trade while we are at it. I don't believe in complete Isolationism, but some Isolationism is necessary in this world.

 

[eagle1462010]

I've never understood conservatives worshipping at the alter of "state's right." A state is a collective that can abrogate individual rights just as easily as the federal government, and often has. Liberty comes not from granting collectives rights but from granting individuals rights. Collective rights is the ideological framework for socialism and communism, not American liberty.

Local as possible. People have a better chance of knowing the truth from locals than someone on the other side of the country, of who could be corrupted as well.

It's a lot easier to stop corruption locally than nationally, but those on the other side of the nation don't have a clue whats going on.

Then "country rights," "city rights" or "neighborhood rights" would trump "states rights."

That is a bit far fetched, considering the States are made up of county, cities and neighborhoods.

Which is better, being rules in a local area or from someone a 1000 miles away who has never even been in your State or county.

 

[Dad2three]

I disagree.....Many of the checks and balances were specifically done to limit the powers of Gov't.

Enumerated powers were to limit it as well. Thus, they used as local as possible in government all the time.

Our entitlement culture over the last century has gotten us to where we are today. Dead broke, and borrowing our butts off to pay for things that the founders warned us about. We ditched their warnings and created programs without any clue on how the future generations could pay for it.

That is Stupidity and not the intent of the Founders.

Right wing CRAP. 90%+ of the debt can be traced to 3 guys, Reagan, Bush and Bush (Starve the beast)

The US isn't broke....

That's a Lie.

We are borrowing, aka printing money at record levels...............Part of that borrowing is on for programs through the century that now have unfunded liabilities in excess of 125 TRILLION dollars.

And what is the solution..........Create more Gov't and more programs we can't pay for.

Charity was never part of the original Constitution. Charity was to be an individual choice. We have abused the the Better Good to the point of the destruction of our economy.

I'm not a fan of Free Trade while we are at it. I don't believe in complete Isolationism, but some Isolationism is necessary in this world.

Got it, YOU get to make up numbers and argue from that premise, lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Local as possible. People have a better chance of knowing the truth from locals than someone on the other side of the country, of who could be corrupted as well.

It's a lot easier to stop corruption locally than nationally, but those on the other side of the nation don't have a clue whats going on.

Then "country rights," "city rights" or "neighborhood rights" would trump "states rights."

That is a bit far fetched, considering the States are made up of county, cities and neighborhoods.

Which is better, being rules in a local area or from someone a 1000 miles away who has never even been in your State or county.

That's not the issue.

State and local governments are at liberty to enact any measures they see fit, provided those laws comport with the Constitution and its case law; and when they don't the Constitution authorizes the Federal courts to invalidate those laws.

And there are circumstances where Federal laws are appropriately applied to all the states, such as workplace safety and wage laws, where as citizens of the United States those residing in the many states are entitled to necessary and proper Federal regulatory measures as authorized by the Constitution.

Remember that American Citizens are residing in the many states, not 'citizens' of a state, where their inalienable rights as citizens are paramount, superior to that of state authority, and the states must take care to not violate citizens' rights, respect individual liberty, and allow citizens of the United States access to all of a state's laws.

 

[Toro]

It's the 50th anniversary of Freedom Summer, when 700 mostly white northern college students went to Mississippi to register black voters.

If you want an example of how "state's rights" brutally subjected individual rights, this is it. For 100 years after the Civil War, "state's rights" were the rationale which denied individual rights to black Americans.

The right-wing apologists try to white-wash this, but it is a shameful and disgusting example of our statist and collectivist proclivity to destroy individual rights that is prevalent on the American right.