[tpaine]

The concept of an 'all powerful state', one that can ignore our constitutions restrictions, has always been a product of the states rights movement in america.
-tpaine-


What constitutional restrictions have the states righters ignored?
-rb-


Lots, - but their support for the CA prohibitions on 'assault weapons' gets me the most.
There are dozens of self described conservatives on FR who ~insist~ that CA has a 'right' to so 'regulate' guns. -- IE, -- that our BOR's do not apply to a state.

Incredible. - In effect they are constitutional scofflaws, and are proud of it...

[rustbucket]

Thanks. Hadn't thought about the asault weapon situation.

To me, the claim that states have a right to ban assault weapons sounds somewhat like Northern states claiming before the war that under states rights they had a right to not return fugitive slaves. In my opinion, both claims are misapplications of states rights.

A claim that states can ban assault weapons is in conflict with the Second Amendment. The claim that states had a right to not return fugitive slaves is in direct violation of the fugitive slave clause in the Constitution.

Since these two claims are in conflict with the Constitution, it would seem to me that they are not legitimate applications of states rights. The concept of states rights, as I understand it, is that powers not expressly delegated to the federal government under the Constitution are retained by the states or the people, i.e., the Tenth Amendment.