Posted on 07/23/2002 7:14:59 AM PDT by Doug Loss
Under the scenario that "States" can regulate all activity not forbidden to it by the Constitution, I would assume the people living in such a state could come up with a law to prevent this from happening.
Can you murder me, claim the retained right to do so (it's not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution does not grant your State the right to legislate in this area)
That can't be right?
1) Please cite any reference that the Constitution or its authors considered blacks to be "less than human". One will do.
2) States unquestionably had the power to deny women the vote until XIX. If XIX were repealed tomorrow, they would have the power again.
They couldn't prevent people from moving into their state. That would like be ruled as interference with interstate commerce.
More likely the state would attempt to prevent newcomers from voting. Possibly by delaying new state residents from voting until they have many years of residency. Or states could make constitutional changes that would require super-majorities to change laws already on the books.
Some conservatives are enamored of the 9'th Amendment because they see it as a way of restricting government, but truthfully it can be just as easily used the other way, to impose values that conservatives might find objectionable. Ponder this one - suppose SCOTUS were to declare tomorrow that gay marriage was a 9'th Amendment right, that applied to the states via the 14'th. How do you object to that? How do you show that it's somehow not a right?
No, the 9'th Amendment is best left dead - it's just too dangerous to actually use. It's no accident that there's approximately one Supreme Court case in all of American history that cites the 9'th Amendment, and that was in concurrence, and is not binding precedent.
States can establish a religion. They cannot set up a theocracy:
Article IV, section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
All the States could establish the same religion, but Congress could not mandate its acceptance nationwide.
Your kidding, right? Three fifths a white man.
2) States unquestionably had the power to deny women the vote until XIX. If XIX were repealed tomorrow, they would have the power again.
Sure, by that interpretation of the 9th. However, under such a scenario, we are not a "free" country. We are ruled on the whim of man with a few "guidelines" that are easily ignored.
As long as the fedgov is in an activist, usurping mode, that is a highly probable outcome.
No, the 9'th Amendment is best left dead - it's just too dangerous to actually use.
If the 10th were to be fully rescousitated, we could possible consider using the 9th. For now, I tend to agree that the 9th is best left for rhetorical argument against the expansion of federal power.
That's what I was getting at. If we allow the "State" to reguate all activity not denied to it by the Constitution, then "those in charge" will find some way to stop their laws from changing. We both know that the "people" retained the rights, and gave certain powers to the "State" via the state constitution. But I interject that takes a direct democracy and allows for the "State" to usurp rights based upon a majority or super-majority of votes. Either we, as humans, have certian righths that can not be taken or "given" to a group, or we are governed by the whim of man. We can not have both, really.
Not so. The "privileges and immunities" clause is present in the original Constitution (Article IV, section 2, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.)
I do not share the widespread view that XIV "incorporates" I-X against the States, in fact, I think that view makes no sense.
Ok, "theocracy" may be a general term. What I mean, is if all states made laws solely based upon a certain religion. If all states made some type of "intercourse" laws based upon some warped translation of a religious text, then where do you go to excercise your rights?
There are just certain powers, under the concept of a free people, that no level of government may possess.
For the purposes of apportioning the House of Representatives. This has nothing to do with the humanity, or lack thereof, of the blacks.
In fact, it was a way to punish slave states by reducing their representation in the House. The slave owners wanted to count the slaves at 100% to increase their House delegations.
But you're kidding, right? You already knew that.
Actually, it's the 14th amendment that's best left dead - or at least the self-serving federal interpretation of it. We'll keep the 9th, thank you very much.
Would a strict reading of that not imply uniform laws throughout the States would exist de facto? If I can "legally" possess marijuana in one State(and considering this can not be regulated by the feds, but the power was given to each of the states to determine this), then I would be entitled to that "priveledge or immunity" in all states. I do not see any room to argue about this. If I am "immune" from prosecution in California, then Florida can not prosecute me either, because I would be being denied that immunity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.