Should states have more power than feds?

[The Genoese Cromanatum]

The central government should only have power in a totalitarian nation, whereas state government should only have power in a democracy. (Of course, in this democracy, the people must be their own representatives instead of people who were paid to do so.)

[The Nuclear Fist]

A state's right to what, might I ask?

To govern themselves and make laws taxes themselves for their state

No, it was pretty much just slavery.

you do know that the civil war was mainly about states rights not slavery. On the union side there was Missouri Kentucky Maryland and Delaware all having slaves. Also only about 8% of southerners actually owned slaves. Learn actual history

Yes, the state right to. . . continue expanding the practice of slavery, as our dearly departed (from NS) friend Cat-Tribes points out here and here.

In other words, so sorry, but you're so profoundly wrong as to actually be a bit ridiculous.

[Distruzio]

To govern themselves and make laws taxes themselves for their state

No, it was pretty much just slavery.

Yes, the state right to. . . continue expanding the practice of slavery, as our dearly departed (from NS) friend Cat-Tribes points out here and here.

In other words, so sorry, but you're so profoundly wrong as to actually be a bit ridiculous.

Nonsense. You follow in his footsteps of misdirection and intentional misrepresentation. He was just as misled then as he remains now. And you should be ashamed for admiring that quality.

If what you, and he, argue is true, then, according to the Confederate Constitution, then the states therein would have retained the right of expansion of the institution. As it stands however, in reality, they did not. What the Confederate Constitution admits is that any new states accepted into the Confederacy would be slave. There would be no "expansion" of slavery and certainly not via states rights.

Prior to the conflagration that was the War for Southern Independence, it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian southern dominated Union government - and justly so.

During the conflagration it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian Republican dominated Union government - and justly so. Likewise, the southern states argued the self-same position against the Confederate government.

After the conflagration the southern states again argued on behalf of states rights against an authoritarian Union government that denied their existence as legitimate republican governments yet demanded they ratify constitutional amendments while denying them representation before Congress.

[Distruzio]

you do know that the civil war was mainly about states rights not slavery.

No, it was not. The War for Southern Secession was all about secession. Secession was primarily over economic determinism (which was inseparable from slavery in the south) and fearmongering on the part of southern hotheads.

[Aurora Novus]

Glad to know that if I come to attack and do harm to you, possibly even kill you, and your only option of escape is to kill me in defense of your own immediate wellbeing, you believe you have no right to do so.

Right to life can overrule right to life, when you threaten my right to live you forfeit your own, willingly.

And what is the right to life hinging upon?

Oh right. The right to bodily autonomy. Hence, killing to preserve one's bodily autonomy is an act of self-defense, and therefore, justifiable.

Congrats, you just justified abortion.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

No, it was pretty much just slavery.

Nonsense. You follow in his footsteps of misdirection and intentional misrepresentation. He was just as misled then as he remains now. And you should be ashamed for admiring that quality.

If what you, and he, argue is true, then, according to the Confederate Constitution, then the states therein would have retained the right of expansion of the institution. As it stands however, in reality, they did not. What the Confederate Constitution admits is that any new states accepted into the Confederacy would be slave. There would be no "expansion" of slavery and certainly not via states rights.

Prior to the conflagration that was the War for Southern Independence, it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian southern dominated Union government - and justly so.

During the conflagration it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian Republican dominated Union government - and justly so. Likewise, the southern states argued the self-same position against the Confederate government.

After the conflagration the southern states again argued on behalf of states rights against an authoritarian Union government that denied their existence as legitimate republican governments yet demanded they ratify constitutional amendments while denying them representation before Congress.

No. Shame on you.

I will deal with your absurd assertions in a separate post, but how dare you claim my earlier posts (link, link) were merely "misdirection and intentional misrepresentation[s]"? You have never, ever, in years of trying been able to disprove my assertions -- let alone show how direct quotations from officials and official documents from seceding states or the Confederacy are "intentional misrepresentation(s)."

Shame on you for posting in this thread without answering this earlier post from this thread:

Ah but a state government is much more responsive to the will of their citizens and residents than the federal government is.

(not necessarily responding to you but speaking in general...)

Like it or not, the United States is a federation utilizing a particular variant of federalism emphasizing concomitant jurisdictions. This is the American tradition of government. The states exist. As does the Federal government. It would literally take a violent revolution to swing the scales of authority towards greater degrees of Federal authority.

If what Distruzio said were true then North Carolina wouldn't be passing anti-abortion laws.

Distruzio's specific comment here is not only wrong on multiple level. It is also flatly contrary to Distruzio's own views on government and is therefore deliberately misleading. Finally, Distruzio's prior post on issues of American government, particular "state rights," demonstrate that his opinion simply should be ignored. I'll explain:

1. Distruzio likes to assert without support that a state government is "much more responsive to the will of their citizens and residents" than the federal government. This is not historically been true -- particularly where certain powers within a state decide that the will of some individual residents simply do not count.

Further, Distruzio's assertion assumes that giving each state further over to the "will of its citizens and residents" without federal limitations on state power is necessarily good. This is actually contrary to Distruzio's own hatred of democracy. It is also contrary to the ideas behind the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment that there is great value in both buffering against and refining public will through representatives and other facets of a Republic and in imposing checks like the Bill of Rights, protection of habeas corpus, etc., on the power of states. The history of American government has some examples to the contrary, but overwhelmingly demonstrates the wisdom of these ideas.

2. Distruzio's appeal to the "will of the [people]" is inherently dishonest as he does not believe in government based on the "will of the people." Distruzio's rhetoric on the subject of U.S. government changes like a weathervane, but he has previously and repeatedly posted:

• He hates democracy, despises democracy, and "democracy is literally evil."
• Democracy is wrong precisely because it responds too much to the "will of [] citizens and [] residents."
  
  • "Well, I'm opposed to democracy. Vehemently. Fools don't see the error of their ways until it comes apart at the edges. Give the unenlightened masses what they want and watch them squirm."
  • The masses are asses.
  • The more a republic "repudiates the will of the many in favor of the rights of the few," the better it is.
  • Following the "manifested will of the people" leads to authoritarianism.

3. Last but not least, Distruzio's assertions on such matters are inherently suspect. There is little value in the posts on the subject of U.S. government by a poster who in past discussions on a similar topic alleged he was unable to answer a question as to whether or not HE had posted a specific statement in an earlier post in a short thread! In other words, he claimed he could neither admit or deny whether HE had posted a statement that he had just previously posted and had continued to defend! This was true even the post in question was being quoted and clearly said what was alleged that he said. See this link. See also this link (FYI, the clear reason for Distruzio avoiding admitting what he posted was that his assertion had been thoroughly rebutted his only alternative to honorably admitting error was to lie and feign ignorance.)⁽¹⁾

-----------
(1) Distruzio has never denied the did this dishonest backflip and obfuscation. To the contrary, he has said he "stands by" these (and other absurd posts). He has countered only with personal insults and claims that pointing out his past post history is a fallacy (such as ad hominem). This point about his past absurd assertions is not fallacious, however. It is a legitimate questioning of his argument because his past actions have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim(s) he is making. Further, not all personal criticism or attack is an ad hominem fallacy and not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. I am questioning the credibility of his claims -- which is particularly appropriate because he offers no support for them other than his own opinion/knowledge/authority. Further, I have addressed directly his argument on its merits as well as noted the weaknesses of its source.

Shame on you for continuing to pontificate on the "Lost Cause" of the Confederacy after failing to respond to this post illustrating the absurdities and lies you routinely tell on this subject (other than saying you "stand by" your offensive obfuscations and deceptions):

They'd be better, as far as I'm concerned. Although I will admit that I fear Dixie's integrity would have been irrevocably contorted by her involvement in the first World War, tied as she would have become to the United Kingdom. I do wish the Confederacy had survived but, out of fear for what she would have become, I do not lament her death. She will forever remain the last gasp of liberty for the American peoples (assuming that survival would have meant the UK and France pressuring her to abandon slavery).

I know these statements may be characterized as a fallacy, but your statements have zero credibility on this topic. In the past, your bizarre, twisted, and inconsistent statements on the topics of secession and slavery have included:

1. Alleging you were unable to answer a question as to whether or not you posted a specific statement (despite the post in question being quoted and clearly saying what was alleged you said). See also link (The clear reason for this being your post in question had been thoroughly rebutted so you feigned ignorance to avoid admitting error)
   
   
2. Claiming you would have been willing to be a Southern slave (because they were well treated).
   
   
3. Saying America, the South, and African-American slaves would have been better off if the Confederacy had either (1) been allowed to secede or (2) won the Civil War
   
   
4. Asserting that the "pragmatic" concerns of a relatively few white slavers override the best interest of (1) 4 million African-American slaves, (2) other white Southerners who suffered as a result of the war, and (3) the nation as a whole
   
   
5. Denying slaves in the South were ever subject to the murders, rapes, beatings, or the basic violation of people being owned and treated as property. Why? Because Southern slavers were "nothing short of a class of established businessmen" who, because they were businessmen, would not have treated their "prized stock [of human slaves] as mere animals."
   
   
6. Claiming slaves in the South were better off than free African-Americans in the North.
   
   
7. Arguing the South bears no responsibility for the Atlantic Slave Trade or the killing of 15 to 20 million blacks therein.
   
   
8. Claiming the "outright economic chaos caused by immediate (as opposed to gradual) emancipation [Southern slaves] and reconstruction" resulted in "the deaths of millions" -- far exceeding the suffering of those who would have been oppressed and/or killed by slavery if the Confederacy had succeeded in perpetuating and expanding slavery.
   
   
9. Saying Southern slavery was merely a pragmatic institution and was not evil.
   
   
10. Admitting at least once that the Confederate Constitution required "all states to be slave [states]and forbade the national gov't from interfering with the institution" but elsewhere denying this was true (saying "the Confederate Constitution outlawed the African slave trade but declared slavery to be legal. But unlike the U.S. Constitution, it permitted individual states to abolish slavery") and claiming the assertion that the Confederate Constitution gave the Confederate states less power to abolish slavery (than the U.S. Constitution did) was "Bullshit. Shear utter unadulterated bullshit." (emphasis added).
    
    
11. Comparing a poster who criticized secession and the Confederacy to Hitler (based on an erroneous and misattributed quote from Mein Kampf that was actually a third-hand paraphrase).
    
    
12. Repeatedly posting an out of context and inapposite quote from one Confederate leader (Robert Toombs) ostensibly to refute a long defense of slavery as the "cornerstone" of the Confederacy by the Vice-President of the Confederacy when you knew this was deceptive.
    
    
13. Asserting with approval that "The Southern States were NOT democracies. They were republics. Aristocratic republics. Remember, the Confederacy delegitimized democracy."

In light of these many past statements, your assertions regarding secession, the Confederacy, and the Civil War are suspect (at best).

Your assertions long ago lost whatever emaciated, evanescent claim they may have initially tried to grasp to intellectual or ethical credibility -- let alone "high ground" -- on these topics. In the face of overwhelming barrages of criticism and evidence, your arguments have "evolved" (after copious attempts to simply disguise or reformulate the same points failed) somewhat closer to the truth -- for example, you now essentially admit the connection between secession, the Civil War, and slavery -- but your points still deny or ignore basic, critical facts.

Shame on you.

[Electroconvulsive Glee]

No, it was pretty much just slavery.

Nonsense. You follow in his footsteps of misdirection and intentional misrepresentation. He was just as misled then as he remains now. And you should be ashamed for admiring that quality.

If what you, and he, argue is true, then, according to the Confederate Constitution, then the states therein would have retained the right of expansion of the institution. As it stands however, in reality, they did not. What the Confederate Constitution admits is that any new states accepted into the Confederacy would be slave. There would be no "expansion" of slavery and certainly not via states rights.

Prior to the conflagration that was the War for Southern Independence, it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian southern dominated Union government - and justly so.

During the conflagration it was the northern states who argued on behalf of states rights against the authoritarian Republican dominated Union government - and justly so. Likewise, the southern states argued the self-same position against the Confederate government.

After the conflagration the southern states again argued on behalf of states rights against an authoritarian Union government that denied their existence as legitimate republican governments yet demanded they ratify constitutional amendments while denying them representation before Congress.

you do know that the civil war was mainly about states rights not slavery.

No, it was not. The War for Southern Secession was all about secession. Secession was primarily over economic determinism (which was inseparable from slavery in the south) and fearmongering on the part of southern hotheads.

Before specifically addressing these so-called "arguments" in yet another post (which RL demands wait until later), let me point out the staggering plethora of prior posts and sources exhaustively dissecting and shattering these (and similar) falsehoods:

• End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery
  
  
• On the whole cause/slavery/white supremacy issue
  
  
• more re Confederate constitution and slavery
  
  
• ASB's exhaustive explanation of true history and devastation of "Southron" apologism/lies:
  
  • Everything You Know Is Wrong - Part I
  • Part II
  • Part III
  • Part III (continued)
  • Part III (Continued [Again])
  • Part III (Continued [Further])
  • Part III (Continued [Yet Once More])
  • Part III (Continued [For the Last Time - Honest!])
• more re Confederacy and Civil War about slavery
  
  
• more ASB: re 150th anniversary of civil war
  
  
• Tsar: the CSA was a fundamentally racist institution that not only constitutionally mandated slavery but also began, waged, and lost a war to keep slavery
  
  
• Tsar linked (in the post above) to some well-articulated points by professional wordsmith John Scalzi (a distant descendant, ironically, of John Wilkes Booth) on this topic which I include and add to:
  
  • The Confederacy is Evil
  • Flags and the Confederacy (Again)
  • States’ Rights Stupidity
  • More Confederate Stupidity
  • Another Confederate Smackdown
• Confederates were not Anti-Federalists 1, 2

[Greed and Death]

The states already have more power than the feds, the states have general police power and jurisdiction. The feds have limited power, Inter-state commerce, Taxing and Spending, and a few specifically listed powers like the post office.

Now federal power preempts state power but honestly that is the only way it make sense, if the federal government passed regulation subject to state preemption then it would be pointless to have federal regulation.

[Libertarian California]

I think the Feds should have more authority, but don't strip the powers of the states entirely. Find a balance where the Feds have more power, but the states can still decide some things for themselves.

[Libertarian California]

The central government should only have power in a totalitarian nation, whereas state government should only have power in a democracy. (Of course, in this democracy, the people must be their own representatives instead of people who were paid to do so.)

We aren't a democracy.

[Libertarian California]

I'm British but would assume you would need the Federal Government to e superior to state government so it can enforce the constitution. Plus if the states had more power it would make the US more of an EU-like entity then a federal Union.

But like I said, I'm not a yank.

That's kind of what we have already. States have power, but Feds are ultimate authority.

[Divair]

The central government should only have power in a totalitarian nation, whereas state government should only have power in a democracy. (Of course, in this democracy, the people must be their own representatives instead of people who were paid to do so.)

We aren't a democracy.

Yes you are. A representative democracy is still a democracy.

[Libertarian California]

I have yet to see the "states' rights" argument used to defend anything other than slavery, so no.

It also comes up regarding abortion or same sex marriage bans.

It also lead to the legalization of weed and gay marriage in some states.

States rights cuts both ways.

[Libertarian California]

We aren't a democracy.

Yes you are. A representative democracy is still a democracy.

We're a republic with democratic tendencies.

[Divair]

Yes you are. A representative democracy is still a democracy.

We're a republic with democratic tendencies.

A republic is a form of representative democracy, which is still a democracy.

[Caninope]

Yes you are. A representative democracy is still a democracy.

We're a republic with democratic tendencies.

Because democracy has only one definition and it only means direct democracy, amirite?

[New Chalcedon]

Some states may not treat their people fairly, this problem can be solved by emigration from those states or federal lawsuits (even though these things can become complicated).

Why do you want to create an internal refugee problem?

Because otherwise it's tyranny, of course! All States should have the freedom to oppress $minority at will, without interference from that damn over-reaching Federal Government!

[Orham]

The central government should only have power in a totalitarian nation, whereas state government should only have power in a democracy. (Of course, in this democracy, the people must be their own representatives instead of people who were paid to do so.)

...

Every single blue country is a unitary state. You're telling me that places like Iceland, Finland, the United Kingdom, Greenland, France, and Spain are antidemocratic totalitarian societies? Pull the other one.

[New Chalcedon]

That's the extent of what the federal government is allowed to do for the states and to the states. They've far exceeded their power.

Because the Constitution was never amended, right?

<pause>

Oh, wait...

Amendment XIII (Abolition of Slavery - ASB)

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV (Civil Rights - ASB)

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV (Voting Rights - ASB)

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI (Income Tax - ASB

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Amendment XIX (Women's Suffrage - ASB)

[...] Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIII (D.C. Participation in Presidential Elections - ASB)

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIII (Poll Taxes Banned in Federal Elections - ASB)

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXIII (Minimum Voting Age Limited to 18 - ASB)

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This is a common mistake among libertarians: To pretend that the Constitution was never amended more than ten times (i.e., to include the Bill of Rights), and that the 14th and 15th Amendments (in particular) were never enacted.

Consequently, there's a Federal role you've neglected: That of ensuring civil and voting rights, as specified in the Federal Constitution (including not only the Bill of Rights, but the "Due Process Rights" specified in the 14th Amendment).

Libertarians also like to pretend that the more expansive parts of the Enumerated Powers (the Taxing and Spending, General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses in particular) are meaningless fluff. I seem to recall getting into a bit of a verbal fistfight with one not that long ago on that very topic....

[New Chalcedon]

The central government should only have power in a totalitarian nation, whereas state government should only have power in a democracy. (Of course, in this democracy, the people must be their own representatives instead of people who were paid to do so.)

...

Every single blue country is a unitary state. You're telling me that places like Iceland, Finland, the United Kingdom, Greenland, France, and Spain are antidemocratic totalitarian societies? Pull the other one.

You might as well add Australia: we're technically a Commonwealth, but the States are barely an inconvenience when Canberra decides it really wants something.

[Orham]

You might as well add Australia: we're technically a Commonwealth, but the States are barely an inconvenience when Canberra decides it really wants something.

I hear they're erecting a statue of Kevin Rudd out of the bones of political dissenters even as we speak.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

[Paketo]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

[The Nuclear Fist]

Why do some states have the Confederate flag as a part of their state flag? Surely a nation whose existence was solely an act of treason should not have its treasonous symbols and images adapted to state representation? Shouldn't that be generally frowned upon?

you do know that succession was a legal act back then

Not according to the Supreme Court or the very fact that a civil war as fought at all. Though on that second point, perhaps the fact that the Treasonous Slavers attacked first mitigates it somewhat.

[Llamalandia]

Fuck the states.

why? don't just say things like that with out explaining genius. Personally I'm no fan of govt at any level but the closer to the people the better. :)