Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Don’t Support “States’ Rights”
Principles & Policy ^

Posted on 07/06/2012 2:40:23 PM PDT by Sark

Once someone uses the term “states’ rights” these days, the following conversation is seemingly inevitable:

Person 1: “State’s rights!? Like the Confederates believed in? What, are you a racist!?”

Person 2: “No, I’m not a racist! I just think that the federal government is too strong, that’s all! States have rights too, we’re supposed to have a FEDERAL system!”

Person 1: “Oh, sure! You just think that the states need the RIGHT to discriminate against minorities!”

Obviously, that was an overly simplified (and poorly scripted) conversation. My point is that most people automatically associate the term “states’ rights” with some form of overt or subtle racism. Personally, I believe that extremely few users of the term are racists, or advocate for states’ rights due to race-related reasons. So, that puts me on the side of Person 2.

I also agree with Person 2 that the federal government has grown too powerful at the expense of state governments, and that this has damaged the American system of federalism. So, do I agree with Person 2 on the issue of states’ rights?

(Excerpt) Read more at principlesandpolicy.wordpress.com ...


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: constitution; federalism; founders; statesrights

1 posted on 07/06/2012 2:40:30 PM PDT by Sark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sark

Actually the more correct term would be states powers.

That said, the states have a long history of pimping those powers out. For example, we the feds won’t give you federal highway dollars if you don’t enact a standard seat belt law or blood alcohol content...


2 posted on 07/06/2012 2:44:26 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark

Call it state sovereignty, I don’t care.


3 posted on 07/06/2012 2:57:27 PM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark
I disagree with this part:

When the Founders bound the former colonies together into one nation by writing the Constitution, they made an important choice. They decided to focus on powers with regard to this new government. Therefore, they granted the federal government specific, enumerated powers. In the 10th amendment to the Constitution, they granted all remaining powers to the states and citizenry. They didn’t grant the states any rights, just powers. States don’t have rights, only the powers allowed to them by their citizens.

The powers not granted to the national government by the States are retained by the States. They were not "granted" to the States by the Founders. While the Founders were the authors of the Constitution, and the architects of the Republic, they did not themselves bind the States to the national government. The States did that themselves, by the process of ratification.

The States themselves brought all the powers to the table, and agreed to a transfer of a very few and specific powers to the national government. The Tenth Amendment grants nothing, it merely clarifies for the conveniently confused what should be intuitive - that any powers not enumerated were not granted, but retained.

4 posted on 07/06/2012 2:57:59 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are woefully misunderstood and under-taught.

The Constitution is the template for how our government is supposed to work and clearly lines out what each branch is responsible for.

The Bill of Rights is the handbook of limitations on the power that is granted to the Federal government.

The Federal Government is designed to be subservient to the States and not the other way around.

If one were to make an honest assessment of the actions of President Lincoln and his Administration, one could only come away holding him in complete and utter contempt.


5 posted on 07/06/2012 2:58:47 PM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

You should be angriest at Booth because he singlehandedly handed power to those who sought to punish the south.


6 posted on 07/06/2012 3:07:34 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Partially.

Lincoln pretty much shot a huge hole through the Constitution by that time, though.


7 posted on 07/06/2012 3:15:20 PM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sark

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.


8 posted on 07/06/2012 3:18:57 PM PDT by Delta 21 (Oh Crap !! Did I say that out loud ??!??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark
Article [IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article [X]

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.

9 posted on 07/06/2012 3:20:29 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark

Are you in favor of abolishing the United States Senate? The Senate was designed as the most significant constitutional expression of “state’s rights”.


10 posted on 07/06/2012 3:23:43 PM PDT by reg45 (Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

Southern states were seceding before Lincoln ever set foot in the white house. The fist shots were fired by the south before he had a chance to issue an order.

The south went to war with a man who wasn’t even in office yet.


11 posted on 07/06/2012 3:30:33 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sark
Personal liberty and states rights were taken away by the 16th and 17th amendments. Repeal those two abominations and the republic MIGHT come back to life.

As for the butcher, Sic Semper Tyrannis.

12 posted on 07/06/2012 3:31:57 PM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I updated the post, thank you for highlighting that unclear wording.


13 posted on 07/06/2012 3:33:49 PM PDT by Sark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reg45

No, please read the post if you haven’t already. The Senate is meant to be a deliberative body and a check on the momentary passions of the people, as expressed by the House of Representatives. The Senate was also a means by which the states could preserve the American system of federalism, by allowing them to defend against overreaches of the federal government. By doing so, they weren’t defending their “rights” as states, they were defending the rights of their individual citizens.


14 posted on 07/06/2012 3:33:57 PM PDT by Sark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kabar

This really makes my point. When the Constitution speaks of rights, it talks about rights held by the people, by individual citizens. When the Constitution speaks of powers, it then includes states in the discussion. States don’t have rights, only powers granted to them by their citizens. Only individuals have rights.


15 posted on 07/06/2012 3:34:06 PM PDT by Sark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reg45

As to representing states interests, the 17th Amendment pretty much drove a stake in that. So to answer your question, yes, I’d go for it, abolish the senate and just take the 100 of them and throw them in amongst the other peoples representatives in the congress as an extra 2 “wild card” congress critters...

I mean hell, as long as we’re going nationally full tilt at destroying the Republic we might as well get all experimenty with it...


16 posted on 07/06/2012 3:35:34 PM PDT by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sark

I like states rights. I don’t care what someone wants to call me for asserting such, either.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

That is ten guaranteed rights and reserving for the people any rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the people or the States.

The English Bill of Rights, The Age of Enlightenment(natural rights), Magna Carta, Virginia declaration of Rights. It is all about rights.

There is no power without God and our rights.


17 posted on 07/06/2012 3:40:48 PM PDT by Irenic (The pencil sharpener and Elmer's glue is put away-- we've lost the red wheel barrow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark

The people should have the rights, not the state or federal government.


18 posted on 07/06/2012 3:49:33 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sark
Right. You need to refer to both the 9th and 10th amendments, which are complementary. I agree that "states rights" has a pejorative meaning given the civil rights context, not to mention the Civil War.

10th amendment powers is preferable. It captures the constitutional meaning sans the emotional baggage.

19 posted on 07/06/2012 3:50:02 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Sark

No level of government is automatically more righteous than any other. Any level and any department of government can abuse its power. This is the purpose of dividing power between the various branches and between the various levels.

If the feds abuse their power, at least in theory you resort to the state as a bulwark against them. If the state abuses its power you turn to the feds. If the executive abuses its power you look to the judges or to congress. And so on.

The purpose of all this is to preserve the power of the individual citizen.

When all of the above are determined to abuse their power, and they all are complicit in protecting one anothers’ abuses, or compete for the upper hand in abusing their power, then the individual citizen is crushed underhoof.

And, we have sprouted a fourth branch of government at both the federal and state levels, which is the regulatory branch which is not checked or balanced by anyone, and against whom there is no bill of rights. You can vote out your congressman but the regulator is a monarch with a lifetime appointment.

We’re all aware that it is the natural inclination of rulers to demand more power. We forget sometimes that it is the natural inclination of men to demand a king. The desire for freedom has its root in a certain kind of moral character and in its absence freedom is an intolerable burden.


20 posted on 07/06/2012 3:50:24 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reg45

reg45, The 17th Amendment needs to be repealed to restore the Senate to what it must be.


21 posted on 07/06/2012 3:53:09 PM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The entire purpose for Lincoln to engage the War of Northern Aggression was to “preserve the Union” (read Federal).

The Southern States were merely responding to the outrages that were being conducted by the Northern Industrial States.


22 posted on 07/06/2012 3:56:21 PM PDT by Howie66 (I can see November (2012) from my house.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sark

States don’t have ‘rights’, they have powers.
Only individuals have rights.


23 posted on 07/06/2012 3:58:29 PM PDT by mnehring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

Whatever.

You can’t blame Lincoln for your current ongoing state fire sale of powers.


24 posted on 07/06/2012 4:02:05 PM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sark

why not just say I believe in the Constitution including the 10th amendment


25 posted on 07/06/2012 4:10:51 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howie66

exactly and thiough I[ve had this debate with tons of people to their face I will not shut up speaking about it, if those can give their lives then I can fly a flag and speak up


26 posted on 07/06/2012 4:32:31 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sark
OK... soooooo freedom under a Federalist Republic is racist, and like under a national socialism is not.

whatever.

People like that are against a business monopoly, because as a consumer they loose. They understand that they loose freedom to choose products, services, and pay higher prices under a corporate monopoly.

Government monopolies are more dangerous. They have power over you that corporations do not. A Nationalist government is a government monopoly and we all loose. We need Federalism under a Federal Republic to have competition among the states. They the states that cut taxes, promote business freedom, individual liberty and property rights will prosper. States that promote socialism will fail.

National Socialism or Socialist Democracy will pull all of us down with no where to escape to.

27 posted on 07/06/2012 5:00:29 PM PDT by GregoTX (Federalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

“You should be angriest at Booth because he singlehandedly handed power to those who sought to punish the south.”

True, but I still hate damn Yankees. Excluding NY Yankees baseball.


28 posted on 07/06/2012 5:25:33 PM PDT by A Strict Constructionist (We're an Oligrachy...Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson