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.
I agree, it isn’t just terminology. My mistake. I get very annoyed when people refer to us as a democracy rather than a republic.
Well I disagree with the philosophy that states can interpret the Constitution however they please, but I do think that much of their power has been usurped by the Federal government via ignoring the 10th Amendment.
In reality, what you say about the government’s power (or any authorities’ power) is true. People give it as much power as they want. However that doesn’t it make it Constitutional or legal. Obviously if people elected representatives to kill person “x” (assuming he’s completely innocent just not well liked) and the representatives had him executed, it would be illegal and a violation of his rights. So I guess what I’m saying is that the government’s power (in theory or law) is not what Congress says it is, but rather what it is limited to by the Constitution.
So do you believe “promoting general welfare” is a power, or part of a preamble to the list of things Congress is allowed to do (i.e. something like ‘...in order to promote the general welfare Congress may [insert Congressional powers here])?
I live in California. I still think the feds are more wasteful. SOME state and local governments just seem to be filled with idiots (Most of California’s legislature, the cities of Oakland, San Fransisco, and LA, etc.). There are some pretty stupid people here, but I think that stems from the fact that many citizens themselves of this state are pretty stupid and apathetic.