[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I think in relation to the Federal Government, States do indeed have rights. If we were talking about a Government and it's relation to it's constituency, I would be much more agreeable to your position, but in terms of our Federal form of Government, States do indeed have rights ceded to it by the Constitution to make laws governing the people in their States without interference from the Federal Government except in the cases of enumerated rights in the Constitution and those areas of governance that the 14th amendment clearly refers to.

What I mean is that Hawaii has the right to recognize Gay Marriages. Likewise Texas has the right to forbid sodomy. I do not agree with either of those positions, but the States have the right to pass laws in that manner.

Hawaii, though, could not say it recognized Gay Marriages but not Gay Marriages between 2 black men. That would be in violation of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, a county in Hawaii could not outlaw Gay Marriages since the State of Hawaii legalized them.

This idea that a law must be coupled with a right of individuals that it is defending has intrigued me. Whose idea was this originally? Paine? Jefferson? Locke? This surely doesn't seem like any of their writings. This sounds more like a populace philosophy, like something Bryan would espouse.

Please let me know so I can look further into this idea, I've seen it fairly often recently and would like to understand where and who this is coming from.

This concept seems easy to defend and hard to impliment with many exceptions and quandries waiting the the wings.

[laredo44]

I think in relation to the Federal Government, States do indeed have rights. If we were talking about a Government and it's relation to it's constituency, I would be much more agreeable to your position, but in terms of our Federal form of Government, States do indeed have rights ceded to it by the Constitution to make laws governing the people in their States without interference from the Federal Government except in the cases of enumerated rights in the Constitution and those areas of governance that the 14th amendment clearly refers to.

Again, governments have no rights, they have powers. The Constitution allows the States powers not reserved to the Federal government, e.g., the power to coin money.

This idea that a law must be coupled with a right of individuals that it is defending has intrigued me. Whose idea was this originally? Paine? Jefferson? Locke? This surely doesn't seem like any of their writings. This sounds more like a populace philosophy, like something Bryan would espouse.

I refer to the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson wrote that individuals have rights and governments are created to secure those rights. No other purpose for government -- secure individual rights, that's all. Jefferson, at the time, obviously wasn't making any distinction between some yet to be invented Federal/State relationship, therefore it applies to both.

Since the Declaration was our stated argument for breaking from England and forming our own country, abandoning the notion of government using power to secure rights would delegitimize the Constitution.