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


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: 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: 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: 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

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: 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: 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: 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 ]

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