What happened to States Rights?

Its great if states want it.
Agreed but state laws have to comply with the Constitution. Specifically the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Not a lawyer, but it seems that women already have the same rights as men under the Constitution. Ergo, any problems are a matter of enforcement, not new law.

Section 1.​

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

equal protection​

Overview

Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws . The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

Permissible Discrimination

It is important to acknowledge that a government is allowed to discriminate against individuals, as long as the discrimination satisfies the equal protection analysis outlined below, and described in full detail in this Santa Clara Law Review article .

U.S. Constitution

The Fifth Amendment 's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause requires states to practice equal protection.

Equal protection forces a state to govern impartially—not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective. Thus, the equal protection clause is crucial to the protection of civil rights .

Equal Protection Analysis

When an individual believes that either the federal government or a state government has violated their guaranteed equal rights , that individual is able to bring a lawsuit against that governmental body for relief .

Based on the type of discrimination alleged, the individual will first need to prove that the governing body actually discriminated against the individual. The individual will need to prove that the governing body's action resulted in actual harm to them. After proving this, the court will typically scrutinize the governmental action in one of several three ways to determine whether the governmental body's action is permissible: these three methods are referred to as strict scrutiny , intermediate scrutiny , and rational basis scrutiny. The court will determine which scrutiny the individual will be subject to, relying on legal precedent to determine which level of scrutiny to use. It is important to note that courts have combined elements of two of the three tests to create an ad hoc test.
 
Leftists are already fascists
71pBBPg01QL._SY385_.jpg
 
What is your goal with this thread Veruca? Are you wishing to debate the concept of States rights? Or is this just another one of your shit threads because you think you have stumbled upon some level of hypcrisy by the right?

Before, diving in, why don't you tell us where you stand on State's rights?

If it is just another Veruca "gotcha" thread designed to nothing more than troll the board then I am not interested. But, if you really want to debate/discuss State's rights as an issue then I am all in.

Ball is in your court Veruca
 
If leftists truly believed in states rights, they would not have made marijuana illegal in all 50 states, nor would they prohibit states from making machine guns legal in any state that chose it.
 
Leftists are already fascists
but... but...
What is your goal with this thread Veruca? Are you wishing to debate the concept of States rights? Or is this just another one of your shit threads because you think you have stumbled upon some level of hypcrisy by the right?

Before, diving in, why don't you tell us where you stand on State's rights?

If it is just another Veruca "gotcha" thread designed to nothing more than troll the board then I am not interested. But, if you really want to debate/discuss State's rights as an issue then I am all in.

Ball is in your court Veruca
It can be anything the discussion leads us to... but initially it was to point out the hypocrisy of the Trumpper.
 
So when it came to slavery existing, it was states' rights. When it came to slaves escaping to free states, they no longer supported states' rights. When it came to segregation, it was states' rights. When it came to desegregation, they no longer supported states' rights. It is almost like they are selectively states' rights supporters.

Have you ever heard of a need to preserve government rights over human rights? That is what states' rights proponents want, government rights. Just one specific level of government too. They are definitely against local government, or federal government, just state (middle level) government having absolute rights. When a local government tried to desegregate their schools, they demanded states had the right to put a stop to that.

So what is this "perfect" size of government? Somewhere between 10,000 and 40 million.
 
So when it came to slavery existing, it was states' rights. When it came to slaves escaping to free states, they no longer supported states' rights. When it came to segregation, it was states' rights. When it came to desegregation, they no longer supported states' rights. It is almost like they are selectively states' rights supporters.

Have you ever heard of a need to preserve government rights over human rights? That is what states' rights proponents want, government rights. Just one specific level of government too. They are definitely against local government, or federal government, just state (middle level) government having absolute rights. When a local government tried to desegregate their schools, they demanded states had the right to put a stop to that.

So what is this "perfect" size of government? Somewhere between 10,000 and 40 million.
The perfect size of government is only what the Constitution gives the govt authority to do. The gift has no authority to operate a department of education. Or transportation. Or energy. The list goes on and on
 
The perfect size of government is only what the Constitution gives the govt authority to do. The gift has no authority to operate a department of education. Or transportation. Or energy. The list goes on and on
Congress created those departments by law? How is that unconstitutional?
 
The perfect size of government is only what the Constitution gives the govt authority to do.
States' rights have been used to take away the basic human right to be free from slavery. Why would a mid level government have so much more rights than human beings?
 
Back
Top