Replies

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.)

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.

"I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved."

Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?

I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved.

Lots of things have life involved. Are all of them Federal Government Issues?

How about murder?
Capital punishment?
Adequate medical care?
Adequate nourishment?
Adequate product safety?
Safety from Natural Disasters?