John Valentine wrote:
like your choice of words. We don’t have a dictator in the United States who “allows” or does not “allow” states to enact laws. What we have are voters in each state. If they don’t like the las enacted by the legislators they chose, they need to change them at the next election. And, frankly I don’t even want to dignify your absurd examples with a response. Federalism is a means, not an end, as you say. You have that much right. It’s just that I do not see the need, or the value, or even the possibility of federalizing this particular issue. It doesn’t mean that I (or even Fred Thompson would advocate legalization of abortion at the state level. It is merely an acknowledgement that we are a federal democracy and voters in states don’t need to check with mee, you, Fred Thompson, or anyone else to clear the laws they enact. All they need to do is make sure that they pass Constitutional muster.
. x . x . x .
Absurb example?
We passed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the basic liberties of people by outlawing slavery, no matter what a given sovereign state, its legislature or its voters want.
THE THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The above amendment trampled all over state sovereignty. This is one of those very rare instances where state sovereignty SHOULD have been trampled on.
A human life amendment would do the same sort of thing, except that instead of protecting people from slavery, it would protect unborn persons from being murdered, carved up like chopped liver, vacuumed out and tossed into the garbage like yesterday’s leftovers.
Along with separation of powers, federalism is our most important constitutional safeguard against government tyranny. Federalism must be protected. But it also must not be abused.
Again, federalism and other aspects of our governmental structure are not intrinsically important. If human nature weren’t so corruptible by power and wealth, we wouldn’t even need federalism.
Or to take it a step further, we wouldn’t need GOVERNMENT at all.
As James Madison, chief architect of the Constitition said in Federalist 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” And he added: “IF angels were to govern men neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”
But men are not angels and we desperately need federalism, separation of powers, and the other checks and balances installed by the Founders into our Constitution.
But federalism is not our goal. Our goals are life, liberty, secure property, and pursuit of happiness. Federalism is the means.
As for your comment about “allowing” the states to enact laws . . . let me clarify my points:
1. Per the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution.
2. Per the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “No loss of life, liberty, or property without due process.”
3. Per the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Whether you like it or not, the U.S. Constitution protects the lives of citizens from having a State take it from them without due process.
Our nation denied slaves of African ancestry their basic human rights on a state-by-state basis. It clearly was a grossly evil institution. It nearly destroyed the nation to resolve the legal problem — and now, 150 years later, we’re still suffering from the consequences of that moral rot.
I’m a Southerner, a conservative, and a very strong proponent of federalism. But a State can be wrong. In fact, a State can be so wrong that it can pass a law that runs afoul of the Creator-endowed, inalienable rights secured by our federal constitution.
If and when that happens, federalism is no longer securing our inalienable rights, but instead is securing a State law that is violating those rights.
At that point, an internal conflict is generated within the U.S. Constitution and the higher principle must prevail over the lower. I.e., our inalienable rights trump the principle of federalism.
You know, you are something.
Of course, the Constitution can be amended, and then it will be different than it is now. You just spent a whole lot of time and effort explaining the obvious.
But we’re talking about the Consittution as it exists NOW.
Your Constitutional amendment is for now, and probably for the rst of your life, nothing but a fanciful dream.
Remember it took a long, bloody, wrenching, REAL war, not a metphorical one, to get the 13th into the Constitution.
I’m done with bait and switch practitioners like you. No more posts for me, at leqst not on this thread.