State's Rights

H

Heist

Moderator
It seems to me that a lot of the problems we face in the US today could be solved by returning the federal government to it's proper role and allowing the states to have greater control. The states are over a barrel when it comes to how much taxes come back to them and what they get apportioned, and no one in the federal bloat is going to want to give up their power, control, or job, and the state representatives typically aren't much help, mostly focusing on how much money they can get for their citizens so they keep being voted into office.

What is it going to take to solve this?
 
Repealing the 14th amendment (well, the only part most people care about, the second half of section 1), and amending the commerce and general welfare clauses to be more explicit?
 
Are you refering to going back to appointing senators reter than haveing them elected. The appointment I believe were by the governer. This would make them responsible for their work and results instead of being blindly elected by the people over and over again. Think ted kennedy and how he will propably never leave the senate. Where as if he didn't peform he would be kicked out for someone who would do what is best for the state.
 
The 14th Amendment is the one that gave the federal government almost limitless power over the states. For one thing, it made legal virtually any tax the government could think up. Another function was to prohibit anyone "involved" in the "Rebellion" from holding politcal office. This wiped out most Southern politicians.

A funny thing happened to the 14th Amendment on its way into law of the land. Every Southern state except Tennessee that had been admitted back into the Union voted against the Amendment. Congress got really annoyed about this and passed the "Reconstruction act of 1867", which required passage of the 14th Amendment as a pre-requisite before the 10 remaining states not yet restored to the Union would be allowed out from under military rule and allowing them congressional representation.

As a result, the Southern states eventually voted to ratify the Amendment. Unfortunately, by the time that happen, New Jersey and Ohio had voted to revoke their previous ratification. This meant that at no time did the required 3/4 majority of the states vote to ratify the Amendment. Congress then issued a "joint resolution" declaring the Amendment valid anyway. This means that the 14th Amendment has never been ratified as required by the Constitution.
 
We want states rights and equal treatment when dealing with other states. The original purpose of the federal government was to handle the interactions between states. As such, we want national reciprocity in carry laws, not a "national CCW." If states are required to accept other state's driver's licenses, marriage licenses and other licenses/certificates, the federal government should ensure the inclusion of CCW licenses.
 
States don't have rights-- they have Powers. PEOPLE have rights. This is important if you look at the 10th and 11th Amendments versus the 2nd Amendment. How can the RKBA be only for the states, when they only hold powers?


I disagree with regard to the 14th being a degrading Amendment. Consider that it wasn't even applied on a State level throughout the 19th Century.
 
James Madison, Federalist #45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment does indeed have a checkered history.

Here is a discussion of the recent Raich decision which, if you read it long enough, becomes a discussion involving the 14th. If you read it long enough, you should probably get out more...
 
If states are required to accept other state's driver's licenses, marriage licenses and other licenses/certificates, the federal government should ensure the inclusion of CCW licenses.
Click to expand...
History.

The driver's license issue was established by federal money, not by federal law.

The federal government has no such club to use with CCW licenses.

There is no parallel.
 
Yeah, it's horrible, how that mean ol' 14th Amendment provides guarrentee of Equal Protection:
SEC. 1. 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....
Click to expand...
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's a great amendment. It's just been something of a justification for some expansions.
 
It is not a great amendment. 130+ years of caselaw on point and still people disagree wildly on what "privileges and immunities" means.

And due process and equal protection challenges to state laws have become a tool letting citizens pit the federal government against the state whenever a citizen doesn't like a State law.

In a lot of cases, I think State laws are bad and should be repealed, or they're outright unconstitutional. That doesn't change the fact that both portions of the section you quoted severely constrain States rights.
 
What I don't understand is why we have to fight gun control at a federal level? I mean, if you take the 2nd as written, the fights should only be at a state level (it mentions states and The People, nothing about federal).

As for the 14th, it's a shame that we even had to create that amendment. Just because the rest of the world was doing it, didn't mean that our forefathers couldn't have declared all men as freeman (and women).

The clause most abused by the feds to give them power over the states and the People is the clause that allows the regulation of what goes over state lines (I just can't spell it, starts with a C :( ). The SCOTUS just did this and thus has given the feds complete control over anything/laws that the People of a state vote for, not once but twice.

As they said, "State law does not trump Federal law"

Wayne
 
USP, and if you look at the history of the 14th Amendment, we shouldn't even have to fight in the states as the 14th Amendment extended the BoR to the states.

It's not the 14 Amendment that we are mad at. It's the big hammer of unlimited government--the Commerce Clause and the withering 10th Amendment. Look at all the controversies that drive the Errornet: medical dope, highway pork, even "gun control", all trace their base of federal authority from the Commerce Clause.

The solution: the current anti-Constitution came from the federal judiciary, it must be killed there. The solution is the appointment of federal judes who understand that the Constitution is a contract for limited government not license to achieve socialism in one nation. As well, revenue (government's power) to feed the monster via the income tax must stop or be curtailed (many ways, e.g. elimination of withholding, etc.). Of course, this requires citizen involvement. :D
 
KSFreeman,

I agree. The only sad part is throughout history of any governments, once they have gained power, through whatever means, they do not let go of it so whether the People wish for change or not, it will never happen (unless a Miracle happens) because the government, once obtained, will never give up that power.

And the People get it from all levels (the loss of Rights and Power) starting at local level, to state level, to federal level. You could even take it down to your personal level (work).

The only time a man (or women) is totally free is when they are thinking about what they wish to do because the governments can't read your thoughts, yet.

And as for the states, they aren't any better then the feds when it comes to wanting absolute power over the People.

Wayne
 
USP, all the more reason to support politicians who will appoint judges that view the Constitution with original intent, not socialistic intent.

MikeTx, exactly! States do not have "rights" to violate our civil rights. States or municipalities may not restrict my RKBA any more than the federal government. That's why the Framers of the 14th extended the BoR to the states.

The purpose of government is to guarantee my rights. If government fails to do so, it must be altered or abolish.
 
I am a States Righter

I believe that the 14th is a disgrace and the US shamed itself by forcing an amendment upon us when if failed every step of the amendment process.

And I believe in States' rights. I believe that Virginians have a God given inalienable collective right to govern Virgina. And that means we have a right to pass laws that the other States don't like: it is our States' right, and our State Legislature has a right to exercise power not delegated to the US. (The Federalist Papers refer to the rights of the State Legislatures.)

... the Tenth Amendment does not say that undelegated powers are reserved to the States/people, but no State may do anything that the other states don't like.

Sometimes I think that people fear the freedom and independence that the States declared on that 4th of July, and instead they feel that we must have a higher power, a monarch, to control the States ... but that is antithetical to our founding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top