The Demonization of States' Rights

The funny thing is that the constitution was actually an attempt to greatly expand the powers of the federal government. The only reason that the constitution wasn't even more nationalist than it was was because of the idiot southerners on the backbenches.
 
apple0154 said:
The Constitution was written 200 years ago. Unless the Framers were psychic they had no idea how the world would change. For example, Presidential elections in November and the transfer of power in January. Why? The time was necessary for the elected President to get to Washington. He was coming by horse!
Click to expand...

this is something i need you liberals to explain. how in the world can you get from the founders demanding ultimate freedom for the individual to having a central government regulate the very freedom because you claim the founders weren't psychic? please, explain.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
this is something i need you liberals to explain. how in the world can you get from the founders demanding ultimate freedom for the individual to having a central government regulate the very freedom because you claim the founders weren't psychic? please, explain.
Click to expand...

What freedoms are being taken away by ensuring everyone has proper medical care? The Founders were designing a country. If total freedom was their plan they wouldn't have done anything. Just let the colonies stay colonies and each do their own thing.

Or the Constitution could have been one sentence. "If a colony is attacked the other colonies have to help." That's it. Security is established.

But they put a little more into the Constitution. Why?
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
The funny thing is that the constitution was actually an attempt to greatly expand the powers of the federal government. The only reason that the constitution wasn't even more nationalist than it was was because of the idiot southerners on the backbenches.
Click to expand...

Yes, without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution could be a formula for a lot more government. But federalism still requires a very certain balance of powers that we are failing to maintain.

It's true that the confederation had the states working against each other. Federalism allows them to each pursue the economic and social policies they want, and leaves the Federal government only with the task of making sure they don't do anything to undermine the other.

I disagree that every state will race to the bottom to provide the least amount of services if we were to look less to the Federal government. Especially if less money and regulatory authority is concentrated in Washington, there will be more responsibility on state legislatures and more competition on what policies and models people prefer.

Some states would have education vouchers, some states would have more generous tax credits for working people, etc. And some will have different policies based on the resources and industries available to them.

Alaska can afford to have no substantial taxes and generous benefits to its residents because of oil. Delaware can rely on franchise taxes that other states don't have access to unless they change their laws. And so on.

As far as Apple's suggestion about one state creating infrastructure that would be harmful to another, that certainly would seem to be a compelling reason for the federal government to exercise its limited constitutional responsibility to make commerce among the states regular.
 
Dixie said:
You shouldn't be so proud of your closed-minded bigotry. People might think you're the kind of person who often makes generalizations about entire groups of people, and form prejudiced opinions about groups of people, based on those generalizations or stereotypes. It's precisely that sort of mind that hates women, gay people, or blacks.

Most bigots would at least try to camouflage their bigotry... you should maybe try saying stuff like.... I have several Southern friends! :cool:
Click to expand...
ROTFLMAO! Dude you just been pwned by Dixie! LOL
 
Dixie said:
It can be argued that the South has remained consistently strong in their position on States Rights and the 10th Amendment.This was the cause for the Civil War, contrary to false accusations. You have a very warped perception of history, it's as if you have been taught by a communist.
Click to expand...
I think the Civil War also put an end to that argument, in general, about the role of the Federal Government and State rights. The south kinda lost that argument.
 
Correction: the south has been for state's rights when it has benefited the south's ideological perspective. Actually, pretty much any state has been like that. It's just that the south has almost always been in the minority.
 
A lot of what governs a nation isn't in its constitution but is a part of tradition. For instance, say Marbury vs. Madison hadn't ever happened and the supreme courts role as constitutional arbitrator were never established? It's not mentioned in the constitution. At best it's one possibility that could flow from the penumbras of the constitution.

The civil war definitely did set the tradition on the side of the nationalists and strong federalists, and it was established in much of law that nullification and succession were illegal acts - although, really, it's only by tradition that the supreme court won its shaky position as arbitrator and succession and nullification lost their shaky positions. The weak federalists and confederalists could theoretically reverse that tradition in the future by something equally as dramatic.
 
As it is, an act of succession by a state could very easily just be defined as rebellion and give a cause of war much more easily than it could in Lincoln's time.

Then again, the US public in this age is much more war averse than in previous ages.
 
HUGO DITZ said:
A lot of what governs a nation isn't in its constitution but is a part of tradition. For instance, say Marbury vs. Madison hadn't ever happened and the supreme courts role as constitutional arbitrator were never established? It's not mentioned in the constitution. At best it's one possibility that could flow from the penumbras of the constitution.

The civil war definitely did set the tradition on the side of the nationalists and strong federalists, and it was established in much of law that nullification and succession were illegal acts - although, really, it's only by tradition that the supreme court won its shaky position as arbitrator and succession and nullification lost their shaky positions. The weak federalists and confederalists could theoretically reverse that tradition in the future by something equally as dramatic.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the following statement is illegal?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Waterhead, that was the founding principle which this nation was established upon. How can it be "illegal" without our entire premise for existence as a nation being illegal? When the government becomes destructive, it is not only our right but our DUTY to overthrow it.
 
Threedee said:
Jefferson wrote it. Not some sane, decent person...
Click to expand...

Uhm... no, John Adams wrote it, after much deliberation with the other founding fathers and it was passed by Congress....

As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble that would explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was even hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, "it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed". Everyone understood that Adams' preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance. Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest. Adams regarded his May 15 preamble as effectively an American declaration of independence, although he knew that a formal declaration would still have to be made.


...But that was a nice impersonation of Waterhead, I'll give you that!
 
The single most evident theme that runs through all this revisionist nonsense and state rights crapola is when Conservatives (far right republicans/ corportists/ wingnuts) lose power, they go bonkers. How many remember the same mood when Clinton won? Same thing - they spent millions investigating him every time he farted. This BS isn't about states rights and too big federal government, it is about losing power. Amazes me that I don't hear this spoken in our conservative MSM, but then again electing a democrat who leans slightly progressive has sent the corporate wingnuts into political frenzy land. Imagine if all Americans got healthcare or Unions gained power, Gawd forbid we move forward, the nut cases are stirring up the choir over the irrelevant and the imaginary again.

And if by chance anyone considers my opinion off track, I ask you only to wonder where these wingnuts were when Reagan built up the military industrial complex, wasting billions on magic, where were they when Clinton helped the voodoo libertarian types destroy regulatory structure, and more than anything where they were when Bush/Cheney took a surplus and created debt galore and started unnecessary wars. Bah humbug! It is an argument soaked in absurdity and really meaningless, but sadly relevant to those who lost power and those who resent the new president and democratic party. It is a creation of an insecure imagination in distress that defies explanation or is that maybe honesty - a view of the real picture.

If you want to see a clearer picture may I suggest:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/HIRRHE.html?show=reviews

http://www.newamerica.net/publications/books/cornered

http://www.conservativenannystate.org/cns.html



"In the eight years since George W. Bush took office, nearly every component of the U.S. economy has deteriorated. The nation’s budget deficits, trade deficits, and debt have reached record levels. Unemployment and inflation are up, and household savings are down. Nearly 4 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared and, not coincidentally, 5 million more Americans have no health insurance. Consumer debt has almost doubled, and nearly one fifth of American homeowners are likely to owe more in mortgage debt than their homes are actually worth. Meanwhile, as we have reported previously, the final price for the war in Iraq is expected to reach at least $3 trillion."
 
I never liked the term "States Rights" and I don't see any reason to try and resurrect it. States do not have rights. They get the powers we assign them.

There are still plenty of people using the term who primarily want to ignore the 14th amendment at the state level. So I would never use the term without qualifying it with a statement of support for the 14th.

I am all for decentralization of power, though.
 
RStringfield said:
I never liked the term "States Rights" and I don't see any reason to try and resurrect it. States do not have rights. They get the powers we assign them.

There are still plenty of people using the term who primarily want to ignore the 14th amendment at the state level. So I would never use the term without qualifying it with a statement of support for the 14th.

I am all for decentralization of power, though.
Click to expand...

The 14th did not intend to nullify the 10th, sorry!
 
HUGO STIGLITZ said:
In a place with a highly integrated market and a great deal of labour market fluidity, a welfare state is impractical. No one is going to shed their American citizenship to avoid taxes that feed the poor, but it's very easy to simply make your home in another state.
Click to expand...

I have heard you argue before that it it too difficult for people to move out of depressed areas.

Anyway, do you then argue for a lack of fluidity between nations?

HUGO STIGLITZ said:
The funny thing is that the constitution was actually an attempt to greatly expand the powers of the federal government. The only reason that the constitution wasn't even more nationalist than it was was because of the idiot southerners on the backbenches.
Click to expand...

It was certainly intended to strengthen the Federal government. But Madison also clearly intended to divide power and protect against the concentration of power in the federal government.
 
I too think the term "State Powers" is really more accurate and appropriate to their proper function, but that is not the language that is common in our country.

I don't know that rebranding itself will assist in spreading the idea of decentralization. People have to recognize the value of the idea on an individual level, no matter what it's called.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top