Explain “oxymoronic ‘states’ rights’”. I’m not sure I understand. I guess states don’t have “rights” as people do, but I think that’s just terminology.
On the subject of the 16th Amendment, do you think income tax was already permitted by the Constitution or that it required the 16th Amendment (I’ve heard once or twice that the income tax allowed under the original Constitution).
As for the federal government’s power, I agree that it spends too much on random little things and even some fairly big ones like SS and Medicare, both of which I oppose. But wouldn’t that mean the Feds are too “powerful”? Do you think there is Constitutionality in SS and M and if so do you just oppose them because you think they are wasteful (not because the government doesn’t have the legal ability to do it)?
So in your opinion states and local governments are more wasteful and corrupt (?). My reaction would be that the feds are far more wasteful than the state and local governments.
States have powers, not rights. Citizens have rights.
And it isn't just terminology - it betrays a lack of coherent thinking and some very flawed assumptions.
"States' rights" became a buzzword in the late 1820s/early 1830s among supporters of nullification.
The champion of nullification, John C. Calhoun, preferred the term "state interpretation."
And his term lays bare the central assumption of the "states' rights" ideology: that individual states have the prerogative to interpret the Constitution as they see fit, and therefore stand above and outside the Constitution - despite the fact that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
On the subject of the 16th Amendment, do you think income tax was already permitted by the Constitution or that it required the 16th Amendment (I’ve heard once or twice that the income tax allowed under the original Constitution).
Income tax was allowed under the Constitution, but only as apportioned. The 16th Amendment was necessary to enact taxation of income without apportionment.
The federal government's power is just as much as the people choose to give it. The people send a Congressional delegation that imposes the taxes it does. Without the power of the purse exercised by the people's directly elected representatives, no government programs would be possible.
Do you think there is Constitutionality in SS and M
Insofar as they do not promote the general welfare and actually subtract from it, no.
So in your opinion states and local governments are more wasteful and corrupt (?). My reaction would be that the feds are far more wasteful than the state and local governments.
You have apparently never lived in New Jersey.