Posted on 07/06/2012 2:40:23 PM PDT by Sark
Once someone uses the term “states’ rights” these days, the following conversation is seemingly inevitable:
Person 1: “State’s rights!? Like the Confederates believed in? What, are you a racist!?”
Person 2: “No, I’m not a racist! I just think that the federal government is too strong, that’s all! States have rights too, we’re supposed to have a FEDERAL system!”
Person 1: “Oh, sure! You just think that the states need the RIGHT to discriminate against minorities!”
Obviously, that was an overly simplified (and poorly scripted) conversation. My point is that most people automatically associate the term “states’ rights” with some form of overt or subtle racism. Personally, I believe that extremely few users of the term are racists, or advocate for states’ rights due to race-related reasons. So, that puts me on the side of Person 2.
I also agree with Person 2 that the federal government has grown too powerful at the expense of state governments, and that this has damaged the American system of federalism. So, do I agree with Person 2 on the issue of states’ rights?
(Excerpt) Read more at principlesandpolicy.wordpress.com ...
Actually the more correct term would be states powers.
That said, the states have a long history of pimping those powers out. For example, we the feds won’t give you federal highway dollars if you don’t enact a standard seat belt law or blood alcohol content...
Call it state sovereignty, I don’t care.
When the Founders bound the former colonies together into one nation by writing the Constitution, they made an important choice. They decided to focus on powers with regard to this new government. Therefore, they granted the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In the 10th amendment to the Constitution, they granted all remaining powers to the states and citizenry. They didn’t grant the states any rights, just powers. States don’t have rights, only the powers allowed to them by their citizens.
The powers not granted to the national government by the States are retained by the States. They were not "granted" to the States by the Founders. While the Founders were the authors of the Constitution, and the architects of the Republic, they did not themselves bind the States to the national government. The States did that themselves, by the process of ratification.
The States themselves brought all the powers to the table, and agreed to a transfer of a very few and specific powers to the national government. The Tenth Amendment grants nothing, it merely clarifies for the conveniently confused what should be intuitive - that any powers not enumerated were not granted, but retained.
The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are woefully misunderstood and under-taught.
The Constitution is the template for how our government is supposed to work and clearly lines out what each branch is responsible for.
The Bill of Rights is the handbook of limitations on the power that is granted to the Federal government.
The Federal Government is designed to be subservient to the States and not the other way around.
If one were to make an honest assessment of the actions of President Lincoln and his Administration, one could only come away holding him in complete and utter contempt.
You should be angriest at Booth because he singlehandedly handed power to those who sought to punish the south.
Partially.
Lincoln pretty much shot a huge hole through the Constitution by that time, though.
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.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article [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.
Are you in favor of abolishing the United States Senate? The Senate was designed as the most significant constitutional expression of “state’s rights”.
Southern states were seceding before Lincoln ever set foot in the white house. The fist shots were fired by the south before he had a chance to issue an order.
The south went to war with a man who wasn’t even in office yet.
As for the butcher, Sic Semper Tyrannis.
I updated the post, thank you for highlighting that unclear wording.
No, please read the post if you haven’t already. The Senate is meant to be a deliberative body and a check on the momentary passions of the people, as expressed by the House of Representatives. The Senate was also a means by which the states could preserve the American system of federalism, by allowing them to defend against overreaches of the federal government. By doing so, they weren’t defending their “rights” as states, they were defending the rights of their individual citizens.
This really makes my point. When the Constitution speaks of rights, it talks about rights held by the people, by individual citizens. When the Constitution speaks of powers, it then includes states in the discussion. States don’t have rights, only powers granted to them by their citizens. Only individuals have rights.
As to representing states interests, the 17th Amendment pretty much drove a stake in that. So to answer your question, yes, I’d go for it, abolish the senate and just take the 100 of them and throw them in amongst the other peoples representatives in the congress as an extra 2 “wild card” congress critters...
I mean hell, as long as we’re going nationally full tilt at destroying the Republic we might as well get all experimenty with it...
I like states rights. I don’t care what someone wants to call me for asserting such, either.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
That is ten guaranteed rights and reserving for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States.
The English Bill of Rights, The Age of Enlightenment(natural rights), Magna Carta, Virginia declaration of Rights. It is all about rights.
There is no power without God and our rights.
The people should have the rights, not the state or federal government.
10th amendment powers is preferable. It captures the constitutional meaning sans the emotional baggage.
No level of government is automatically more righteous than any other. Any level and any department of government can abuse its power. This is the purpose of dividing power between the various branches and between the various levels.
If the feds abuse their power, at least in theory you resort to the state as a bulwark against them. If the state abuses its power you turn to the feds. If the executive abuses its power you look to the judges or to congress. And so on.
The purpose of all this is to preserve the power of the individual citizen.
When all of the above are determined to abuse their power, and they all are complicit in protecting one anothers’ abuses, or compete for the upper hand in abusing their power, then the individual citizen is crushed underhoof.
And, we have sprouted a fourth branch of government at both the federal and state levels, which is the regulatory branch which is not checked or balanced by anyone, and against whom there is no bill of rights. You can vote out your congressman but the regulator is a monarch with a lifetime appointment.
We’re all aware that it is the natural inclination of rulers to demand more power. We forget sometimes that it is the natural inclination of men to demand a king. The desire for freedom has its root in a certain kind of moral character and in its absence freedom is an intolerable burden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.