Then the state has failed in it's constitutional obligations and the federal government has the constitutional power and duty to protect the rights of the individuals.
If a state included abortion in its murder statutes, but failed to investigate or prosecute abortionists as a matter of policy, do you believe this would represent an unConstitutional violation of the right to life?
Of course.
Do you think states can simply choose to make murder legal? Where do they get this power from? What the hell is wrong with libertarians who accept the notion that the constitution allows states to legalize murder?
BTW, the constitution is silent on the age of consent which is why it is a state matter, the constitution is not silent on the right to life or the duty of the state to protect individual rights.
That's interesting. I bring up the question of states not prosecuting murders because it's already happening now.
States are often not able to obtain murder convictions either because of procedural or practical obstacles. Sometimes, an investigation does not even lead to an arrest. Or, where an arrest is obtained, the charge is reduced to some lesser offense in an effort to get cooperation or information from the defendant in some other matter. Many states have more generous allowances for raising the defenses of insanity or self-defense.
Do you believe any of these situations raise Constitutional issues?
Do you think states can simply choose to make murder legal? Where do they get this power from? What the hell is wrong with libertarians who accept the notion that the constitution allows states to legalize murder?
I am a libertarian, but I am not really sure where I stand on this issue. One the one hand, I can understand the point of those who support a "state's right" position on the issue. The Constitution is designed to protect our rights from infringement by the government, not necessarily from each other. The state is clearly prohibited from executing me without due process of law. I am no so certain that the state has a positive obligation to prevent me from being killed by someone else. Similarly, the state can not discriminate against me without some rational basis, but that does not imply that the state has a constitutional obligation to prevent me from ever being discriminated against by anyone.
On the other hand, I am not very comfortable with the idea of a state being able to completely withdraw protection of their citizens on a wholesale basis. I think an argument could be advanced that by failing to make any effort to criminalize a broad class of murders or other crimes, they are actually complicit in those crimes. For example, I don't believe that antebellum Southern states could legitimately excuse the existence of slavery by declining to prohibit it by law.
The downside to this reasoning is that no state will ever be able to completely protect their citizens and that each state is going to want to define and punish crimes in different ways...if there is a Constitutional requirement that they protect our life, liberty, and property, it would seem to imply that a uniform Federal standard would have to be imposed on all the states. If not, the minority of states which take a more lenient approach would be found to be failing in their obligation to protect the rights of their citizens.
My sympathies lie with the idea that a state can not permit the violation of rights by simply closing their eyes. But some part of me worries about what the application of this view would mean to federalism.