Now that they were formally included, all of a sudden they became negotiable (those that were included), the federal government found a way to deny or alter some of the people's rights, giving the states the power to legislate some of those rights away. The second amendment comes to mind.
How convenient. State and federal governments working hand in hand to subvert the will of we the people. I don't think anyone will argue that the federal government will impose its will on the states (by virtue of contracts between the state and the fedguv), and at the same time, will withdraw its power and allow the state to frame its own laws against the rights of the people. Gun rights are not uniform, due to the doctrine of incorporation which allows states to write laws before the fedguv becomes involved.
But two things show both the state and the fedguv as inconsistent in practice. One is Roe v Wade, which is really a state problem, and the other is the second amendment, which the fedguv is supposed to enforce in favor of the people of all states. The 14th was supposed to be the teeth of the first Civil Rights act, but the fedguv deferred and allowed the states their Jim Crow practices. It wasn't until 100 years later that the fedguv created another Civil Rights Act and began enforcing them for the first time. (Thanks to Martin Luther King.)
It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote.
In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.
I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved.
All states must adhere to the Federal Constitution and the principles of the Declaration.
It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
I think the people just got tired of Reconstruction and were not too concerned about what happened to the Blacks.
The South just waited the North out.
Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote. In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.
Agreed.
A State tryanny is no better then a Federal one.
Well put.
You sum up in a few paragraphs undeniable Constitutional truths.
Yet day in, day out, self described conservatives on this site claim they cannot understand these basic principles about our liberties.
I fear for the republic.
--- "The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."
-Arthur Koestler-
Thus, we are driven to the conclusion that the trouble with our species is an excess capacity for fanatical devotion to "the cause".
bump for later, thanks for the invite.
The Federalist did point out that the BOR ought to be superfluous, but the anti's seem to have stronger arguments after a couple hundred years...
hmmm, "powers reserved" seems to bump up on the idea of state's rights, after a fashion. After all, the people delagated certain of their powers to the states, who delegated certain of their powers to the con con and therefor to the federal gov't. The issue is what powers did the people retain absolutely for themselves, perhaps.
more time for thought later.
What are you talking about? You'd better explain.
Prior to Incorporation, the states were only bound by their state constitution. For example, prior to the incorporation of the 4th amendment in 1949, the states were free to admit evidence into state court that was obtained without a search warrant.
Incorporation restricted the states' ability to infringe on rights protected by the BOR.
The second amendment, to which you refer, has never been incorporated. States are bound only by their state constitution when it comes to the RKBA.