States Rights: What do you think?

[The Cobalt Sky]

Aren't you both agreeing?

Nope.
Gay marriage was unrecognized and actively contrary to the law on the federal level until last year (Defense of Marriage Act), and numerous examples exist of states granting and/or guaranteeing the right to vote for blacks, women, Asians, Indians, and others before the Federal government did so or while the Federal government actively barred them from participation in national elections.

I don't doubt that completely, but do you have a source?

[Otrenia]

The Bill of Rights more often than not has to be enforced by the federal government when the states violate it. That's kind of what the 14th amendment is about.

"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."

That doesn't answer his question.

His question doesn't make sense. Federal laws that aren't declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court are not in violation of the Bill of Rights.

[Jamzmania]

Exactly. The Supremacy Clause describes the political relationships between the two, not a charter to the Federal government to do as they please.

It sort of is exactly that. The federal government can overrule anything the states do which is not an enumerated right of the states.

It's the other way around. The FEFERAL GOVERNMENT has specific, enumerated rights that it has final authority over. All other rights not specifically listed are left to the states.

[Ifreann]

Neither the federal nor the state governments have any rights.

Duties, prerogatives, what have you.

I understand what you meant, but I think it's important to note that the framing of the issue as one of states' rights is fundamentally a lie. An act of propaganda to make the cause seem more palatable. It's about states' powers. The South wanted the power to enforce and preserve the practice of slavery. Ron Paul-esque libertarians want the states to have the power to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or to generally violate the US Constitution in various ways without interference from the feds.

---

The Supremacy Clause does not give the Federal government unfettered power to overrule State law.

Exactly. The Supremacy Clause describes the political relationships between the two, not a charter to the Federal government to do as they please.

And the relationship is that federal law is supreme. You may as well ask if six can sometimes be a bigger number than seven, and object that 7>6 just describes the relationship between the numbers.

[Olerand]

Duties, prerogatives, what have you.

I understand what you meant, but I think it's important to note that the framing of the issue as one of states' rights is fundamentally a lie. An act of propaganda to make the cause seem more palatable. It's about states' powers. The South wanted the power to enforce and preserve the practice of slavery. Ron Paul-esque libertarians want the states to have the power to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or to generally violate the US Constitution in various ways without interference from the feds.

You're right, powers.

[Ifreann]

It sort of is exactly that. The federal government can overrule anything the states do which is not an enumerated right of the states.

It's the other way around. The FEFERAL GOVERNMENT has specific, enumerated rights that it has final authority over. All other rights not specifically listed are left to the states.

Where does the US Constitution give any rights to either the federal or the state governments?

[Laerod]

Aren't you both agreeing?

That's what I was thinking :eyebrow:

Obviously not. OD cited one example that supported his argument and one that smashed it to claim I was not citing enough examples to consider States' "rights" wrong. He came to an opposed conclusion on primarily the same evidence.

[Morganutopia]

If I own my self then it logically follows that I own the fruits of my labor.
Why should the government be allowed to steal it?

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

[Jamzmania]

Duties, prerogatives, what have you.

I understand what you meant, but I think it's important to note that the framing of the issue as one of states' rights is fundamentally a lie. An act of propaganda to make the cause seem more palatable. It's about states' powers. The South wanted the power to enforce and preserve the practice of slavery. Ron Paul-esque libertarians want the states to have the power to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or to generally violate the US Constitution in various ways without interference from the feds.

---

Exactly. The Supremacy Clause describes the political relationships between the two, not a charter to the Federal government to do as they please.

And the relationship is that federal law is supreme. You may as well ask if six can sometimes be a bigger number than seven, and object that 7>6 just describes the relationship between the numbers.

The federal government is supreme on certain, specifically listed areas.

[Otrenia]

The federal government is supreme on certain, specifically listed areas.

And anywhere it is necessary and proper to legislate in order to fulfill those "areas."

[Arkolon]

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The federal government is supreme on certain, specifically listed areas.

Law enforcement is one of them.

Federal Law supersedes State Law.

The States can make laws which the Federal Government hasn't done yet for the interest of their residents, however Federal Law can pass a law and render the State Law null and void.

[Dalharil]

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

Implying all Americans are innocent, how is he supporting the initiation of force?

[Olerand]

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

Is the American government quartering troops in American homes? That's the first I've heard of this.

I thought it was banned.

[The Cobalt Sky]

That's what I was thinking

Obviously not. OD cited one example that supported his argument and one that smashed it to claim I was not citing enough examples to consider States' "rights" wrong. He came to an opposed conclusion on primarily the same evidence.

You don't have to say obviously... I just thought it was a little unclear what his point was.

[Toronina]

This was already tried, they called it: The Confederate States of America. If states can overrule the government, you are going to see a lot more extremist candidates come in. The CSoA was doomed from the start, and it did not last. States should never ever have the right to overrule the government unless it is for a really good reason.

[Toronina]

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

wut? I thought they got rid of troops being allowed to sleep in your house forcefully.

[Morganutopia]

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

I guess I never knew armed robbery wasn't the initiation of force.

I am going to stop now as I feel we are derailing this thread

[Risottia]

For the past three-hundred years, the United States has been quarreling about the same old issue: States Rights.

States don't have rights, they only have prerogatives and duties. People have rights - and sometimes they choose to entrust some of them to States.

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

I guess I never knew armed robbery wasn't the initiation of force.

Taxation isn't robbery.
Not paying taxes is theft.

[Ifreann]

If you don't like it feel free to leave the United States, which is owned by the tax-paying people of the United States.

No this is my home!

Then stay. Fortunately for you, if you don't like how your government operates you are afforded many ways to change it. You can freely express yourself, assemble peacefully, seek redress from the government, bring cases to court, vote, stand for election, and possibly other things that don't come to mind immediately.

---

I understand what you meant, but I think it's important to note that the framing of the issue as one of states' rights is fundamentally a lie. An act of propaganda to make the cause seem more palatable. It's about states' powers. The South wanted the power to enforce and preserve the practice of slavery. Ron Paul-esque libertarians want the states to have the power to ban abortion, or gay marriage, or to generally violate the US Constitution in various ways without interference from the feds.

---

And the relationship is that federal law is supreme. You may as well ask if six can sometimes be a bigger number than seven, and object that 7>6 just describes the relationship between the numbers.

The federal government is supreme on certain, specifically listed areas.

Laws made in pursuance of the Constitution.

[Arkolon]

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

I guess I never knew armed robbery wasn't the initiation of force.

I am going to stop now as I feel we are derailing this thread

Not paying your taxes can be considered the initiation of force.

Head on over to the Lockean synthesis thread, then. It's made specifically for this purpose.

[Olerand]

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

I guess I never knew armed robbery wasn't the initiation of force.

I am going to stop now as I feel we are derailing this thread

You were mugged?

[Morganutopia]

No this is my home!
How about you quit supporting the initiation of force on innocent Americans who are just trying to live their lives.

Implying all Americans are innocent, how is he supporting the initiation of force?

He supports income taxation which is theft.

[Jamzmania]

The federal government is supreme on certain, specifically listed areas.

Law enforcement is one of them.

Federal Law supersedes State Law.

The States can make laws which the Federal Government hasn't done yet for the interest of their residents, however Federal Law can pass a law and render the State Law null and void.

if that Federal law pertains to a right they are given authority over, "law enforcement" not being one of those.

[Dalharil]

Taxation isn't an initiation of force.

I guess I never knew armed robbery wasn't the initiation of force.

I am going to stop now as I feel we are derailing this thread

Quite a bit of a derail lol

That obviously didn't help lol