Who understands states right's issues?

S

Steel

New member
Could someone clarify for me what is probably a basic question: How were/are state's rights' intended to interplay with federal/Constitutional issues?

The reason I ask is because there seems to be found in the assault on 2nd Amendment freedoms by various state and local governments a potential for folks (i.e. you and me) to turn around and sue on the basis that it violates federal/Constitutional foundations (such as the Peoples Republic of California, etc....no offense to those normal California freedoms lovers!)

Your feedback is appreciated.
 
The Constitution does NOT give us any rights at ALL!!!
What the Constitution does is tell the Federal Government, and the various States what rights, given by God Himself, cannot be infrindged upon, or taken away. RKBA is one of those God given rights.;)
 
In today's world individual states are merely administrative districts of the federal govt. As the constitution was written primacy was vested in the states. The United States is a confederation of independent state who agree to surrender certain rights to a federal government. Primary documentation of the period showed deep, deep suspicion of a federal government. The founding fathers were paranoid over the historical pattern of a federal goernment becoming the agent of tyranny over the ruled. Therefore, the constitution and bill of rights made considerable effort in explaining what the federal govt was permitted to do, not what the states were permitted to do.

Democrats and spinelessrepublicans both are guilty of simply ignoring the C and BoR. Federales routinely claim the authority to do things the founding fathers never intended. For example, democrats created the "crisis" of health care drug costs and demanded the voter pay for drugs for anyone reaching retirement. There is not one single, solitary shred of evidence the constitution allows this. The spinelessrepublicans respond to the challenge by proposing a lite program; again without a shred of constitutional support.

Back to my point, the Tenth Amendment in the Bill or Rights says, "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 the founding fathers wanted this potential monster kept in a cage. If it wasn't delegated to the federales, it did not exist. In today's world, the federales take any power they want. What is really dangerous is the logical extension which is the President taking whatever powers he wants through the use of Executive Orders. . . . .and congress and courts have said nothing.

This fiasco of an election is got to be the best thing to come along in a long time because the constitution was front and center in the discussion either because it was the reason for conflict or because both sides tip toed arond it. We now know the dangers of an activist court. We now know clearly the constitution requires courts to interpret law not make law. We now know the primacy of state legislatures in electing presidents. We now clearly understand why the electoral college is a barrier to mob rule. We also see why spinelessrepublicans are strangely quiet when it comes to citing the C or BofR, because they have actively participated in soiling it. They simply could not thump the tub about the constitutional requirements of the electoral college because 30+ days earlier they advocated a position which clearly violates the same constitution they want to cite in defense of Bush's candidacy.

I love the ironic turn in logic we've seen in the last month. Will we as a society learn our lessons. I doubt it, but the good news is Dubya will not be in any hurry to appoint activist judges.
 
Most of the Bill of Rights was intended to apply only to the federal government. The people who wrote the Constitution were not that concerned about states taking away rights, because they were all big honchos in their home states. After the Civil War the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, which is generally interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights, or similar rights, are guaranteed against state action.
 
If it helps any, consider that many of the "unconstitutional" actions of Congress have been found by SCOTUS to be Constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause of the main body of the Constitution. Article I, Section 9. (Essentially, Congress claims the right to control anything used in interstate commerce.)

It was a rare example of denial of the use of the Commerce Clause when SCOTUS struck down the first "no guns near schools" law. (Congress in essence said, "Guns are traded in interstate commerce, therefore we can control where they are carried." SCOTUS said no, not by that reasoning.)

"States' Rights", as an issue, has been pretty much ignored by both Congress and the States, ever since the War of Yankee Aggression. (States' Rights, not Slavery, was the true issue for that "fuss".) The notable exception was Texas' win in SCOTUS over the US Gummint over our territorial limits into the Gulf of Mexico. USG wanted us limited to three miles, as with all other coastal states; we won our right to three leagues, which is 10.4 miles. Lots of oil and gas royalties, out there in the Gulf.

FWIW, Art
 
First of all, never use the term "States' rights" again. States, as political, governmental bodies, in the language of the Constitution don't have "rights" they have "powers." Confirm this by looking at the 9th and 10th amendments.

As others here have previously mentioned the federalist question that was addressed (debated) at the founding of the country was the role that the federal government was to play. The basic idea was the federal government should only engage in things which were difficult for single states to do alone. Therefore, the federalists, such as Hamilton argued that the enumerated powers in Art1, sec8 were enough and there shouldn't be a "bill of rights." Hamilton's argument was that by listing rights politicians would tend to believe that anything that wasn't explicitly protected the Federal government could meddle in. The response to this arguments was the 9th amendment and the 10th. Hamilton claimed that since the powers of the federal government were limited to a few enumerated things, such as naval defense, anything else would be ignored or contested by the states.

Sorry for the long winded response, but the basic point is that the bill of rights was conceived as a limit on the federal government not a limit on state governments. The idea that the federal government should be the policeman over the states on issues, even issues such as gun control, was a result of the 14th amendments and the so called 'civil war.' Constitutional scholars try to use the 14th amendment to extend rights onto the states. For instance, almost anytime you hear a 1st amendment case that involves the actions of state or local govt., it is really a 14th amendment case in that the court argues that the 1st amendment serves as a model of the sorts of "rights and privileges" guaranteed to citizens under the 14th. A subtle distinction, perhaps, but 1st amendment cases only directly apply to the Feds restricting speech.

Thankfully many states recognize the right to keep and bear arms in their Constitutions, California being an exception I believe.
 
"Gun Free Schools"

Though the Court did overturn the Gun Free Schools act on acount of the Tenth Ammendment, it is my understanding that the act is still in full force. The federals re-passed it, inserting the language that "the gun or ammo must pass in interstate commerece." What horse pucky...
 
BTR, You are correct. Still I don't know of anyone convicted on the repassed version of the "law." I wouldn't want to be the test case, though I think eventually it would be overturned. A friend, who is knowledgeable about this issue, did tell me that someone has plea bargained on this issue as one of the charges brought against him, though he didn't provide more detail.

Isn't it interesting that Congress isn't really bound by the Supreme Court when they don't like what it says? By the way, the majority opinion made it clear that carrying a gun in school was neither interstate nor commerce. Having the gun move in commerce at some prior point in time, obviously, still doesn't make it interstate or commerce. Obviously guns in school are a State issue.
 
This is an example of the importance of appointing justices that will defend the constitution, and not use their office as a means to legislate.

State's powers vs. federal powers was the reason for the constitution to begin with. Too much power in the states and the union would fall apart, as it nearly did under the original Articles of Confederation. The constitutional system enacted in 1787 has served us well, for the most part, ever since.

Unfortunately, members of congress are not familiar with the document, nor it would often appear, is the Supreme Court.

The bill of rights was added after the constitution was enacted, and basically provided for the protection of the rights of the citizens against infringment by the feds. The 14th ammendment applied most, but not all, of those same restrictions on the states.

The part of the constitution that seems to be causing the most difficulty these days are the "powers" (commonly mistaken as rights) the feds are using to the detriment of the states and of the people. Most of these derive from the federal government's "implied powers."

An "implied power" would be the establishment of a federal bank to aid in the collection of taxes and the disbursment of those funds by the federal treasury. The treasury is perfectly legit, and the court ruled that a government bank was legit as well, because it was necessary to carry out the actions required of the treasury.

These "implied powers" combined with "interstate commerce" bring the federal government into just about anything we, as citizens, do on a daily basis. An example, when the constitution was ratified, it was generally recognized that policing and crime control was the responsibility of the states. Sure there were federal felonies, such as treason, but they were very limited in number and generally carried the death penalty. Today you have numerous federal police agencies and they regulate many of the same things as the states.

An example: Federal law allows the FBI to investigate bank robberies. Show me one state that does not have a law against this. Shouldn't the states prosecute bank robbers?

I can understand some federal agencies under implied powers. After all, if there were no enforcement how many of us would pay the egregious taxes congress levies? But some of them seem to be on rather shaky ground.

How far can we stretch interstate commerce and implied powers? I think we have reached the limit as the court has begun to strike down some of the laws congress has been passing using their interstate commerce powers. The Brady Bill requiring sheriff's to perform certain acts and the gun free school zones come to mind.

BTW: Don't take this as a blanket tirade against federal law enforcement. Many of these agencies perform jobs that state and local agencies could never accomplish, such as the FAA guys who act as counter-terrorist agents on US flag air carriers.

The constitution and it's continuous evolution is a fascinating subject. It's a darn shame that more of our lawmakers haven't a basic understanding of the document. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top