Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
The problem was that there is no such thing as 'state rights'only individual rights.
All gov't (local, state and Federal) are for the purpose of defending the individual from arbitrary power of either of these governments.
Neither one is inherently better then the other, only easier to control since it is smaller (Local and State).
Most people mean powers of government not specifically delegated to the federal government when they talk about "states rights".
Inconvenient truth.
The problem was that there is no such thing as 'state rights'only individual rights.
Those of us that believe so are a very small minority at FR, surprisingly enough.
Most here have surrendered to the idea that if you can get a State to enforce 'the rules', [as you would have them] its 'right'.
-- It's also the Constitution turned on its head.
I think speaking of any branch of Gov't as having 'rights'confuses the reason why we have gov't.
The States have their areas of responsiblities and power as does the Federal gov't.
Neither have 'rights'.
This is what caused so much confusion before the Civil War.
This was Calhoun's notion that the State was itself a sovereign entity and had 'rights'to protect when it was, in fact, a part of the Federal system whose function was to protect individual rights.
Most people mean powers of government not specifically delegated to the federal government when they talk about "states rights".
Conveniently [there's that word again] ignoring that States are prohibited by the Constitution from infringing upon individual rights.
You say that the Cons prohibits the states from infringing on individual rights. This isn't quite true. The Cons pretty much leaves the states free to deal with civil liberties as they see fit. The prohibitions on the states are found in art 1 sec 10, and as you can see, those prohibitions are pretty thin. It's not that the framers didn't care or anything, it's just that the states were used to dealing with their own issues, and would have certainly had problems if the new G had come along and said, "Here now, we're the new boys in town and you will do this and this with your laws, and that's that."
That is because the South did a very good job in historical revisionism after the Civil War.
According to them, The war was not really about slavery but 'states rights'(war between the states etc)
Many conservatives accepted this as being 'gospel'and the civil rights movement (brought about in reaction to the Jim Crow laws) was yet an additional attack on the 'states'.
The South before the Civil War rejected the Declaration of Independence and its statement that áll men were created equal...ánd it was determined after the Civil War, to ignore it.
I said 'most people'. I know better.
Responsibilities is a much better description.
I think Sen.Calhoun began to use the term.
When in doubt ask the author. 'tis a pity how the true spirit of the Constitution is pretty much gone.
Ray: --- You say that the Cons prohibits the states from infringing on individual rights. This isn't quite true.
The Cons pretty much leaves the states free to deal with civil liberties as they see fit.
You're ignoring Art. VI and the Amendments.
The prohibitions on the states are found in art 1 sec 10, and as you can see, those prohibitions are pretty thin.
Our Bill of Rights is 'thin'?
It's not that the framers didn't care or anything, it's just that the states were used to dealing with their own issues, and would have certainly had problems if the new G had come along and said, "Here now, we're the new boys in town and you will do this and this with your laws, and that's that."
Yep, there was a lot of fancy language used, & compromises made, -- in order ratify our Bill of Rights, -- but they're still pretty clear to me.
Do you have a problem with States obeying them as the Law of the Land?
Convenience has become an entitlement.
When in doubt ask the author. 'tis a pity how the true spirit of the Constitution is pretty much gone.
I always like to ask some of FR's resident defenders of the "general welfare" to enlighten us all.
Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states. The Bill of Rights is irrelevant. I am discussing the ORIGINAL cons, which was ratified w/out a BOR. Furthermore, the BOR did NOT apply to the states until after the Civil War. The BOR applied ONLY to the Federal Gov. Many of the states, for example, (VA included) actually had state supported churches. If you lived in VA,you paid taxes to support the state church. That simple. Again, the prohibitions in Art 1, sec 10 are indeed thin.
If "general welfare" means that the feds can legislate anything, then why bother enumerating the powers in Article 1, Section 8? I defer to Mr. Madison's explanation...I wish more would but I fear that most of todays voting citizens are blissfully ignorant of the limitations intended on the federal government.
You are correct. Additionally, why would the Framers have locked themselves in that oven in Philly for 3 mos if they were gonna produce a cons that said, essentially, "Oh, the G can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, so long as they do it for the undefined, vague, hazy, mean anything general welfare." They could have done that in five mins.
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.