What if every state did have all the same laws. How would you feel about it if all the states had the same laws as say, California, Massachusetts, New York, etc? Nothing to say in your utopian world that the powers would pass the laws that you want. What if they passed all the laws someone else wanted? Is that a place you still want to live?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why cant every state be the same with laws?
- Thread starter dmxx99
- Start date
Marko Kloos
Inactive
I think it is a fundamental fact that the USBOR wasn't intended to bind the States. When the Framers intended to bind the States, they said so, as in "no State shall". Actually, the very idea of a USBOR which binds the States is antithetical to the Framers' Constitution.
If that were true, then what's the point of a Bill of Rights when Washington must abide by it, but the States can ignore it as they please?
Then you ought to be just fine with the right of states like NJ, MA, or CA to ban any and all guns they please, because by your reasoning nothing a state does can violate the Bill of Rights. How about jury trials, freedom of speech and religion, or double jeopardy?
Except for a few people living in D.C. (which didn't exist when they wrote the Bill of Rights), everyone is a resident of a state, you know.
Let it Bleed
New member
Hence, the effect of the 14th Amendment. Also the doctrine of incorporation.
Setting aside Constitutional arguments for a moment, I'm of the opinion that government should be as decentralized as reasonably possible so that people can basically choose which laws they want to live under by choosing where to live (not always practical, I know).
On the other hand, certain rights that are instinctive to us should be protected universally. The rights enumerated in the Constitution definitely fit the bill, though I wish those rights had been enumerated more precisely and specifically in order to preempt attempts by "legal experts" and politicians to interpret them out of existence. They should apply everywhere in the country (and in all areas controlled by the country). These rights should also not be subject to democratic vote, since far too many people can be easily duped into voting their rights away (just look at how the "terror threat" gets people to beg for their chains to protect them).
I think it's important to keep in mind that even if we forget that the Second Amendment exists at all, we STILL have the right to bear whatever weapons are needed to ensure the balance of power lies with the people rather than government. This right comes from the simple observation that no one has a right to rule over anyone else. Ruling is a privilege, not a right.
On the other hand, certain rights that are instinctive to us should be protected universally. The rights enumerated in the Constitution definitely fit the bill, though I wish those rights had been enumerated more precisely and specifically in order to preempt attempts by "legal experts" and politicians to interpret them out of existence. They should apply everywhere in the country (and in all areas controlled by the country). These rights should also not be subject to democratic vote, since far too many people can be easily duped into voting their rights away (just look at how the "terror threat" gets people to beg for their chains to protect them).
I think it's important to keep in mind that even if we forget that the Second Amendment exists at all, we STILL have the right to bear whatever weapons are needed to ensure the balance of power lies with the people rather than government. This right comes from the simple observation that no one has a right to rule over anyone else. Ruling is a privilege, not a right.
Hugh Damright
New member
I think the answer is found in the principles of constitutionalism and federalism.If that were true, then what's the point of a Bill of Rights when Washington must abide by it, but the States can ignore it as they please?
I understand it to be a principle of constitutionalism that a constitution frames a government and a BOR limits that government. A BOR of one government does not limit other governments with their own constitutions and their own BOR. In this view, the USBOR doesn't limit Virginia for the same reason that the North Carolina BOR doesn't limit Virginia. And of course, we should not take the fact that the NCBOR was not intended to limit Virginia, and conclude that the NCBOR is useless, or that Virginia is not bound by a BOR. Each government, VA, NC, and US, is framed by its own Constitution and limited by its own BOR. The point of the USBOR is to limit the US government framed by the US Constitution.
Of course, if the US were a wholly national government such that the States had no sovereignty, then the USBOR would naturally be binding throughout the US just as the Virginia BOR is binding throughout Virginia. But our constituted frame of government preserves the States' sovereignty, such that Virginia and the US are both considered sovereign, and the USBOR wasn't intended to limit Virginia just as the Virginia BOR wasn't intended to limit the US.
"The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes." - Barron v Baltimore
Let it Bleed
New member
The flip side is that it allows "rights" to be interpreted into existence. The right of privacy, which is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, is probably the most important precept in protecting individual liberties.. . . though I wish those rights had been enumerated more precisely and specifically in order to preempt attempts by "legal experts" and politicians to interpret them out of existence.
Interpretation of the law is a double edged sword. Those who claim to abhor judicial activism and support a strict constructionist view of the Constitution may be surprised when long cherished freedoms are legislated out of existence.
Depending on one's personal opinion on any particular issue, the Court is either restraining governmental overreaching or engaging in judicial activism and frustrating the will of the people.