Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Federalism Debate [And 'States Rights']
Cato Institue ^ | 10/28/04 | Rodger Pilon

Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-391 next last
This excellent essay has probably been posted in the past, but it is rarely referred to in todays "States right's" controversies on FR.
1 posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:12 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: tpaine
But what about the sorry history of "states' rights" as a doctrine that southern states invoked by way of defending slavery and then, after the Civil War, the reign of Jim Crow? Does this not give weight to the question, "Why doesn't Washington trust the states?" Indeed it does, but here too there has been substantial misunderstanding over the years, with a seminal Supreme Court case at its core. The tragic compromise that led the Framers to accept slavery in their midst is well known. It took a civil war to abolish that institution, and the Civil War Amendments to secure the legal rights of the freed slaves.

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).

2 posted on 10/28/2004 6:15:54 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Most people mean powers of government not specifically delegated to the federal government when they talk about "states rights".


3 posted on 10/28/2004 6:22:35 PM PDT by GeronL (FREE KERRY'S SCARY bumper sticker .......... http://www.kerrysscary.com/bumper_sticker.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Not remotely did the Framers intend that the clause would be converted from a shield against state abuse--its use in the first great Commerce Clause case, Gibbons v. Ogden -- into a sword, enabling Congress, through regulation, to try to bring about all manner of social and economic ends.

Inconvenient truth.

4 posted on 10/28/2004 6:23:18 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
fortheDeclaration wrote:

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.

5 posted on 10/28/2004 6:33:24 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Most people mean powers of government not specifically delegated to the federal government when they talk about "states rights".

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.

6 posted on 10/28/2004 6:37:37 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; tacticalogic
GeronL wrote:

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.

7 posted on 10/28/2004 6:39:55 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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."


8 posted on 10/28/2004 6:46:59 PM PDT by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
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.

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.

9 posted on 10/28/2004 6:49:25 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I said 'most people'. I know better.


10 posted on 10/28/2004 6:56:17 PM PDT by GeronL (FREE KERRY'S SCARY bumper sticker .......... http://www.kerrysscary.com/bumper_sticker.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Actually, I'm not sure where the term originated. It is quite confusing to most people.

Responsibilities is a much better description.

11 posted on 10/28/2004 6:57:35 PM PDT by GeronL (FREE KERRY'S SCARY bumper sticker .......... http://www.kerrysscary.com/bumper_sticker.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I think Sen.Calhoun began to use the term.


12 posted on 10/28/2004 7:00:13 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson: With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

When in doubt ask the author. 'tis a pity how the true spirit of the Constitution is pretty much gone.

13 posted on 10/28/2004 7:09:53 PM PDT by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
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.

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?

14 posted on 10/28/2004 7:12:02 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Conveniently [there's that word again]

Convenience has become an entitlement.

15 posted on 10/28/2004 7:13:54 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: gorush; yall; robertpaulsen; mrsmith
gorush wrote:

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.

16 posted on 10/28/2004 7:22:54 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


17 posted on 10/28/2004 7:29:10 PM PDT by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tpaine; abbi_normal_2; Ace2U; adam_az; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; alphadog; amom; AndreaZingg; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
18 posted on 10/28/2004 7:31:14 PM PDT by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

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.


19 posted on 10/28/2004 7:34:43 PM PDT by gorush (Exterminate the Moops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gorush

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.


20 posted on 10/28/2004 7:44:29 PM PDT by RayStacy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.

Art VI, para 2...,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to Contrary notwithstanding.

I'm no great connoisseur of the law or anything, but that sure sounds like a "prohibition" to me..

21 posted on 10/28/2004 8:01:01 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yes, the Tenth Amendment was the first to fall. I especially like the following:

if a power has not been delegated to the federal government, that government simply does not have it. In that case it becomes a question of state law whether the power is held by a state or, failing that, by the people, having never been granted to either government.

In Tennessee, three times the state courts have ruled that the state legislature does NOT have the power to institute an income tax (at least once before the 16th Amendment was "ratified"). However, the Tennessee legislature also voted to ratify the 16th Amendment.

This causes the following question to arise: How can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do not have the power to do?

22 posted on 10/28/2004 8:06:06 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (God is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan; tjwmason; carenot; carton253; sionnsar; Free Trapper; dcwusmc; Wampus SC; Fiddlstix; ...

States Rights ping


23 posted on 10/28/2004 8:09:46 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy
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?

Art VI, unless I'm missing something, is not a prohibition on the states.

You're missing the main point of it. The --- "laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" -- is very clear language.

The Bill of Rights is irrelevant.

Our RKBA's is "irrelevant"? Bet me.

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.

You're parroting the Statist line. Art VI proves you wrong.

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.

Thank you ray, -- its always fun to see another anti-constitutionalist out himself on FR.

24 posted on 10/28/2004 8:12:55 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RayStacy; tpaine; fortheDeclaration
The Doctrine of Incorporation (of the Bill of Rights) screwed the whole thing up. It was assumed that unalienable rights were not negotiable before the first 10 were written. Some of the main rights were specifically deliniated as a double check against government's infringing nature.

Now that they were formally included, all of a sudden they became negotiable (those that were included), the federal government found a way to deny or alter some of the people's rights, giving the states the power to legislate some of those rights away. The second amendment comes to mind.

How convenient. State and federal governments working hand in hand to subvert the will of we the people. I don't think anyone will argue that the federal government will impose its will on the states (by virtue of contracts between the state and the fedguv), and at the same time, will withdraw its power and allow the state to frame its own laws against the rights of the people. Gun rights are not uniform, due to the doctrine of incorporation which allows states to write laws before the fedguv becomes involved.

But two things show both the state and the fedguv as inconsistent in practice. One is Roe v Wade, which is really a state problem, and the other is the second amendment, which the fedguv is supposed to enforce in favor of the people of all states. The 14th was supposed to be the teeth of the first Civil Rights act, but the fedguv deferred and allowed the states their Jim Crow practices. It wasn't until 100 years later that the fedguv created another Civil Rights Act and began enforcing them for the first time. (Thanks to Martin Luther King.)

It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote.

In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.

25 posted on 10/28/2004 8:23:53 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

A Southerner drafted the DOI. Get your facts straight.


26 posted on 10/28/2004 8:27:45 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
But two things show both the state and the fedguv as inconsistent in practice. One is Roe v Wade, which is really a state problem, and the other is the second amendment, which the fedguv is supposed to enforce in favor of the people of all states. The 14th was supposed to be the teeth of the first Civil Rights act, but the fedguv deferred and allowed the states their Jim Crow practices. It wasn't until 100 years later that the fedguv created another Civil Rights Act and began enforcing them for the first time. (Thanks to Martin Luther King.)

I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved.

All states must adhere to the Federal Constitution and the principles of the Declaration.

It was as though the fedguv knew that it couldn't control how the states treated the blacks immediately after the civil, but it gave the states 100 years to get used to the idea that the 14th Amendment was going to be enforced, which it was upon the enactment of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I think the people just got tired of Reconstruction and were not too concerned about what happened to the Blacks.

The South just waited the North out.

Concerning indvidual rights, I'm with Forthedeclaration, and believe that unalienable rights are personal rights and neither the state nor the fedguv have been given power by the people to alter them. The federal government has enumerated powers, and they should have been more tightly defined on day one. States are also subject to the will of the people, and in that each state has a republican form of government, the rights of the very least Citizen can in no way be infringed upon by any kind of a majority vote. In any case, Article VI para 2 (supreme law clause) is the logical formula to use in determining whose law is more supreme -- the people, the state or the federal government. I vote for the individual first, then the state, in matters not pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights, and then the federal government, in matters pertaining to the protection of unalienable rights which some states are prone to infringe upon. IMO.

Agreed.

A State tryanny is no better then a Federal one.

27 posted on 10/28/2004 8:53:07 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
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.

This statement shows complete lack of American history knowledge. I hope you don't really mean this.

The Sons of the South have played an integral role in the founding of this Republic and have fought to maintain our sovereignty since it's inception. They were there in Korea, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, GWI, GWII, Revolutionary, WBTS, and every other conflict. The South has given her finest statesmen and soldiers to defend this Republic time and time again - that includes defending the DOI/Const/BOR.

28 posted on 10/28/2004 8:55:07 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
A Southerner drafted the DOI. Get your facts straight.

And the pre-Civil War South rejected it.

Get your facts straight.

The Vice President of the South stated the war was about slavery and the South would correct the error of the DOI that áll men were created equal'

29 posted on 10/28/2004 8:57:25 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound; Everybody

Well put.
You sum up in a few paragraphs undeniable Constitutional truths.

Yet day in, day out, self described conservatives on this site claim they cannot understand these basic principles about our liberties.

I fear for the republic.

--- "The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."
-Arthur Koestler-

Thus, we are driven to the conclusion that the trouble with our species is an excess capacity for fanatical devotion to "the cause".


30 posted on 10/28/2004 9:00:25 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
And the pre-Civil War South rejected it.

Where is that documented?

31 posted on 10/28/2004 9:01:37 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Vice President of the South

Did you just make this up?

Perhaps you meant A.H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Prob. referencing the "cornerstone" speech. Where are you getting your talking points from?

32 posted on 10/28/2004 9:05:31 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

The 'sons of the south' are not being attacked on this thread.

Statism is.

Read Eastbound's post. Read the essay. -- They both made clear undeniable Constitutional truths.

Yet day in, day out, self described conservatives on this site claim they cannot understand these basic principles about our liberties.

Why is that?


33 posted on 10/28/2004 9:08:58 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
FTD brought the South into this discussion by stating "The South before the Civil War rejected the Declaration of Independence and its statement that áll men were created equal"

It's a red herring and I won't let that slip.

34 posted on 10/28/2004 9:14:11 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
"How can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do not have the power to do?"

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or..."

Looks like the legislatures may vote on whether or not to ratify a proposed amendment without regard to whether or not any particular one of them has or doesn't have the power to do whatever the amendment authorizes.

More to the point of this thread:

Can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?

Can the people vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?

35 posted on 10/28/2004 9:23:16 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Vice President of the South Did you just make this up? Perhaps you meant A.H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America. Prob. referencing the "cornerstone" speech. Where are you getting your talking points from?

By 'talking points' you mean facts!

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/6460/doct/861crnrstn.html

by Alexander H. Stephens Given extemporaneously, text from in Henry Cleveland, Alexander H. Stephens, in Public and Private: With Letters and Speeches, before, during, and since the War, Philadelphia, 1886, pp. 717-729. I was remarking, that we are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the annals of the world. Seven States have within the last three months thrown off an old government and formed a new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]

. . . . But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.

The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] (emphasis added)

Yea, real defenders of liberty!

36 posted on 10/28/2004 9:23:50 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner

Whatever.

In context, the remark doesn't seem worth re-fighting the civil war.


37 posted on 10/28/2004 9:28:41 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Your point is easily refutable by "3/5" in the Constitution which applies to North and South.


38 posted on 10/28/2004 9:29:32 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
the remark doesn't seem worth re-fighting the civil war.

Agreed.

39 posted on 10/28/2004 9:30:25 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved."

Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?

40 posted on 10/28/2004 9:38:50 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
More to the point of this thread:

Can a legislature vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?
Can the people vote to give the federal government the power to do something that they themselves do have the power to do?

Yes.. -- As long as the powers do not violate the US Constitution.
-- And, we cannot Amend the Constitution in ways that are repugnant to its basic principles. [This is why the income tax is seen as unconstitutional, as was prohibition.]

41 posted on 10/28/2004 9:42:49 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

bttt


42 posted on 10/28/2004 9:43:12 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Now what does that have to do with the South's rejection of the DOI?

The 3/5 clause was a compromise to accomplish the Constitution with the hope that eventually slavery would die.

That is why it was banned in the NorthWest Ordinence and importation of slaves was also banned.

The South's view changed when cotten came into play, and slavery went from an evil that had to be eventually removed to a positive good.

This was admitted by Stevens himself.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other -- though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.(emphasis added)

By the way, with that statement, Stephens went against the Dred Scott decision, in which Taney stated that the Founding Father's never intended for slavery to be ended.

43 posted on 10/28/2004 9:50:48 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Eastbound
I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved." Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?

No, because it is denying someone of their life, hence it takes on a Federal aspect.

The punishments may differ, but the taking of an innocent life must be viewed as a crime.

The States cannot legalize it.

44 posted on 10/28/2004 9:53:23 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
If your claim the South rejected the DOI by virtue of slavery, the same must apply to the Northern states. You can't separate the two.

If you produce some legislation or documentation that the South formally denounced the DOI, I'll stand down. Until then, I consider your claim inadmissible.

45 posted on 10/28/2004 9:57:59 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
If your claim the South rejected the DOI by virtue of slavery, the same must apply to the Northern states. You can't separate the two. If you produce some legislation or documentation that the South formally denounced the DOI, I'll stand down. Until then, I consider your claim inadmissible.

LOL!

You have the speech given by the Vice President stating exactly that!

What part of the speech did you not understand?

The Pre-Civil War South rejected the principles of the DOI (as noted in Stephens speech)

The DOI was rejected because slavery in the Pre Civil War South was seen as a positive not a negative.

As Stephens himself notes regarding the Declaration generation, they had hoped to see the eventual end of slavery, hence, they made compromises regarding the Constitution.

The Pre Civil War South rejected the notion that all men were created equal and thus were of a different mind then the Southerners of Jefferson's day.

Facts are stubborn things.

46 posted on 10/28/2004 10:26:57 PM PDT by fortheDeclaration
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
fortheDeclaration:

"I do not agree Roe vs Wade is a State issue if life is involved."

______________________________________


Strictly speaking, homicide is a state issue, isn't it?
40 Eastbound

______________________________________


No, because it is denying someone of their life, hence it takes on a Federal aspect.

The punishments may differ, but the taking of an innocent life must be viewed as a crime.
The States cannot legalize it.
44 ftD


______________________________________


Murder is tried in State courts, & guilt is decided by juries, not legislative decrees declaring that abortion is murder.

You say, "IF life is involved". -- Exactly the point. A fertilized human egg is alive. It is not yet a person, a 'life'.
Later in pregnancy the State becomes involved in protecting that soon to be persons life. -- But not at conception.
That is the point of Roe v Wade, as I'm sure you know. It's a State issue.
47 posted on 10/28/2004 10:31:40 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"The States cannot legalize it."

But the fedguv can? Didn't Roe v Wade over-ride state's rights to ban abortion except in some instances? Seems to me that the states were handling it much better than the fedguv is. Doesn't abortion on demand, a decision of the USSC, offer far less protection to life than what the states offered?

Maybe I'm mis-understanding you. I still think Roe was a case where the fedguv over-stepped its enumerated powers.

48 posted on 10/28/2004 10:42:54 PM PDT by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy Be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
The DOI was rejected because slavery in the Pre Civil War South was seen as a positive not a negative.

Doesn't even make sense.

49 posted on 10/28/2004 10:53:12 PM PDT by stainlessbanner (For Liberty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner; fortheDeclaration

He got his facts straight. By the 1830's the South was in deep denial of the founding principles.


50 posted on 10/28/2004 10:58:13 PM PDT by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-391 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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