OR extreme freedoms, if you will. My heavens, just how did we survive as a country for 150 years prior to the establishment of a federal government?
Our republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers, created a federal government with very few powers. It was the Founding Fathers who trusted their state to protect their liberties.
The precursor to the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, demonstrated how the states guarded their independence -- it gave Congress the power over military and monetary affairs, for example, but no authority over the states to force them to comply with requests for troops or revenue.
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty. Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away. It's not the U.S. Supreme Court. They've been busy limiting your religious freedom, freedom of speech, property rights and finding emanations in penumbras. Bad enough that these whacky interpretations apply to the federal government -- thanks to the 14th amendment, they also apply to the states.)
"I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?"
Yes, primarily the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution and forces that interpretation, via the 14th amendment, upon the states. That was not the intent of the Founders. If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example. Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
paulsen goes on to claim:
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.
Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.
Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.
If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.
No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.
Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?
It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
paulsen goes on to claim:
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.
Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.
Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.
If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.
No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.
Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?