NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?

There's the key assumption. Most state's rights involve to not protecting basic civil rights.

A lot of states, especially the ones in the Deep South, want States' Rights to oppress the minority.

Look, if two people of the same sex get married in, say, Massachussetts, and they decide to go to Louisiana for a weekend, their marriage probably wouldn't be recognised with "States' Rights". Giving each state the opportunity to give legislation and voters such power is a very, very bad thing.

There's the key assumption. Most state's rights involve to not protecting basic civil rights.

just a question, what do you call civil rights?

There's the key assumption. Most state's rights involve to not protecting basic civil rights.

That was true in the 60's, but I'd bet that's not the case these days.

That was true in the 60's, but I'd bet that's not the case these days.

I beg to differ. "Heartland" states trying to outlaw abortion and gay sex are the thing these days.

Woohoo, states' rights! :rolleyes:

A lot of states, especially the ones in the Deep South, want States' Rights to oppress the minority.

Look, if two people of the same sex get married in, say, Massachussetts, and they decide to go to Louisiana for a weekend, their marriage probably wouldn't be recognised with "States' Rights". Giving each state the opportunity to give legislation and voters such power is a very, very bad thing.

you go on vacation somewhere, the state doesnt have to know if your married or not.

I've often wondered that. Personally, I'd like a little more good ol' decenteralization, not to mention militias (http://www.michiganmilitia.com/).

you go on vacation somewhere, the state doesnt have to know if your married or not.
It does if you want all the rights associated with it

you go on vacation somewhere, the state doesnt have to know if your married or not.

But, what if the couple liked the place so much that they decided to live there, only to find out weeks later that the state didn't recognise their marriage status?

Don't try to weasle out of this one.

I beg to differ. "Heartland" states trying to outlaw abortion and gay sex are the thing these days.

Woohoo, states' rights! :rolleyes:

So, if we were to assume a strong and swift Federal response to civil rights violations, would you still have a problem with states' rights?

So, if we were to assume a strong and swift Federal response to civil rights violations, would you still have a problem with states' rights?

Yes.

States' rights is bad just because it gives individual states the power to oppress people. This oppression differs from state to state, naturally, but still. It shouldn't be that way.

But, what if the couple liked the place so much that they decided to live there, only to find out weeks later that the state didn't recognise their marriage status?

Don't try to weasle out of this one.

too damn bad, shit happens, if you move country to country do you expect to abide by the same laws, do you expect coming from canada to the usa that healthcare here should be free

States' rights is bad just because it gives individual states the power to oppress people. This oppression differs from state to state, naturally, but still. It shouldn't be that way.
So its cool if the Federal authorities to oppress people?

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?


Didn't we fight a war partially based on states rights? Oh yeah...that whole thing about slavery..:rolleyes:

But, what if the couple liked the place so much that they decided to live there, only to find out weeks later that the state didn't recognise their marriage status?

Don't try to weasle out of this one.

1. Why would anyone want to live in Louisianna? ;)

2. Any stupid enough to expect gay marriage to be honored anywhere besides Mass. deserves what they get.

too damn bad, shit happens, if you move country to country do you expect to abide by the same laws, do you expect coming from canada to the usa that healthcare here should be free
Unlike moving to a different country I think the expectation that you are still married should be universal within the SAME COUNTRY

Yes.

States' rights is bad just because it gives individual states the power to oppress people. This oppression differs from state to state, naturally, but still. It shouldn't be that way.

theres nothing like opressing people like the federal government deciding a law that affects the whole country when its only an issue in certain regions

The Constitution gives the Federal government certain powers and resonsibilities and everything else is left to the states. I hardly see the states as being oppressed or something.

The Constitution gives the Federal government certain powers and resonsibilities and everything else is left to the states. I hardly see the states as being oppressed or something.

But the Federal government gets around that with the power of $. "Pass this stupid law if you want $ for your pothole covered roads".

you go on vacation somewhere, the state doesnt have to know if your married or not.
Until your husband gets sick and you're not allowed to visit him because you're not family. Heaven forbid he slips into a coma and your mother-in-law gets to decide what happens to him before you.

Didn't we fight a war partially based on states rights? Oh yeah...that whole thing about slavery..:rolleyes:

Did you notice my insistance that the Federal government correct civil rights violations by the states?

Anyway, why does everyone think that the states will all suddenly start oppressing their people any more than Uncle Sam already does? Are all state Governors dictators in waiting?

But the Federal government gets around that with the power of $. "Pass this stupid law if you want $ for your pothole covered roads".

That is why our illustrious membes of congress get pork into all bills so that money goes back to their home state.

Until your husband gets sick and you're not allowed to visit him because you're not family. Heaven forbid he slips into a coma and your mother-in-law gets to decide what happens to him before you.

That shouldn't require marriage. A person should be able to choose who makes decisions for him/her whether they're married or not.

Did you notice my insistance that the Federal government correct civil rights violations by the states?

Anyway, why does everyone think that the states will all suddenly start oppressing their people any more than Uncle Sam already does? Are all state Governors dictators in waiting?

its the whole government conspiracy thing, same reason why there cant be a national identification system, people think their own governemtn is out to get joe blow just because they dont like his name

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

1) governments don't have rights, they have powers.
2) states rights has almost always been used as a code word for "opression, murder, intolerance, and other family values"
3) probably just a lot of unitarists running around

Did you notice my insistance that the Federal government correct civil rights violations by the states?

Anyway, why does everyone think that the states will all suddenly start oppressing their people any more than Uncle Sam already does? Are all state Governors dictators in waiting?


Well they have power.. And those with power will do anything to keep that power.

Oh well if the government doesn't plan to do anything about the poor we will have a repeat of history. After all revolutions didn't start by the rich and those in power, nope they were started by the oppressed minority.

Any stupid enough to expect gay marriage to be honored anywhere besides Mass. deserves what they get.

No, they don't. It's not stupidity to expect to be held accountable to the same basic set of laws in one state of the United States as any other.

That shouldn't require marriage. A person should be able to choose who makes decisions for him/her whether they're married or not.
They can to an extent but there are over 1000 rights associated with marrage in this country ... it is not practical to require a waver for each one.

That shouldn't require marriage. A person should be able to choose who makes decisions for him/her whether they're married or not.
Yes but it comes automatically with the "spouse" status.

1) governments don't have rights, they have powers.
2) states rights has almost always been used as a code word for "opression, murder, intolerance, and other family values"
3) probably just a lot of unitarists running around

1. I know, I'm just using the term in common usage.

2. In the past yes, but they don't have to be.

3. Clearly.

1. Why would anyone want to live in Louisianna? ;)

2. Any stupid enough to expect gay marriage to be honored anywhere besides Mass. deserves what they get.
You have to be stupid to expect something as basic as the union of two people to be the same everywhere in the same country?

Wow

its the whole government conspiracy thing, same reason why there cant be a national identification system, people think their own governemtn is out to get joe blow just because they dont like his name

i don't like joe blow's name.

and at least if the federal government is oppressive, it's oppressive to everyone equally. makes for fewer court battles to have to fight it only at one level.

1) governments don't have rights, they have powers.
2) states rights has almost always been used as a code word for "opression, murder, intolerance, and other family values"
Most of your problems are just syntax. I wish that my territory had more independence in my our own local affairs.
3) probably just a lot of unitarists running around
An assumtion. Must I repeat my fifth grade teacher? :p

You have to be stupid to expect something as basic as the union of two people to be the same everywhere in the same country?

Wow

Slightly off topic question:

How does the full faith and credit clause not apply in this case? Does anyone know?

That shouldn't require marriage. A person should be able to choose who makes decisions for him/her whether they're married or not.

Shouldn't, but does.

Slightly off topic question:

How does the full faith and credit clause not apply in this case? Does anyone know?

It really does, but no one is challenging it yet because it's evident that if it is challenged it might trigger a backlash that could result in a total nationwide ban. It's playing politics.

i don't like joe blow's name.

and at least if the federal government is oppressive, it's oppressive to everyone equally. makes for fewer court battles to have to fight it only at one level.

It's easier to fight a crook who controls one state than it is to fight a crook who controls 50.

It's easier to fight a crook who controls one state than it is to fight a crook who controls 50.

But is it easier to fight one crook who controls fifty states or to fight 43 crooks who control one state each?

It's easier to fight a crook who controls one state than it is to fight a crook who controls 50.

true, but in fighting the second crook, you're much more likely to have a helluva lot of people backing you.

which is great in theory, as long as the current government doesn't become a total dictatorship.

It's easier to fight a crook who controls one state than it is to fight a crook who controls 50.

No. Just no.

You're trying to make it seem as if states' rights is okay, just because the federal government might enact legislation that could be as oppressive.

At least when the federal government enacts legislation, it's for all states. What these "heartland" states are doing is stripping minorities of their rights (some of you will know just which minorities I'm talking about) because they "reserve the right". That isn't right in any time or place.

It should be the central, or federal, government's job to pass such laws, requiring nation-wide votes. It shouldn't be the task of a bunch of hee-haw fuckheads in Kentucky to decide weather or not homosexuals have the right to marry, much less have rights in their own state, because chances are, the vote's going to be a landslide against the minority in those states.

It should be the central, or federal, government's job to pass such laws, requiring nation-wide votes. It shouldn't be the task of a bunch of hee-haw fuckheads in Kentucky to decide weather or not homosexuals have the right to marry, much less have rights in their own state, because chances are, the vote's going to be a landslide against the minority in those states.

it is not clear the federal government would do any differently. and it has been pointed out that regionalism is a problem at the federal level, where country-wide legislation reflects the views of a few states.

No. Just no.

You're trying to make it seem as if states' rights is okay, just because the federal government might enact legislation that could be as oppressive.

At least when the federal government enacts legislation, it's for all states. What these "heartland" states are doing is stripping minorities of their rights (some of you will know just which minorities I'm talking about) because they "reserve the right". That isn't right in any time or place.

It should be the central, or federal, government's job to pass such laws, requiring nation-wide votes. It shouldn't be the task of a bunch of hee-haw fuckheads in Kentucky to decide weather or not homosexuals have the right to marry, much less have rights in their own state, because chances are, the vote's going to be a landslide against the minority in those states.

Well, if you really want the federal government, led by Bush and a conservative Congress, to decide such things for the entire country, that's fine by me. Just don't whine if Mass loses its current gay rights.

*snip*

I'm not saying that the states should be able to make decisions on civil rights. Unless, of course, they pass laws protecting more civil rights than the Federal government recognizes. You can add, but not take away.

I'm saying that the states should have more control over their domestic policies, such as education, drug laws, healthcare, things like that. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

I'm not saying that the states should be able to make decisions on civil rights. Unless, of course, they pass laws protecting more civil rights than the Federal government recognizes. You can add, but not take away.

I'm saying that the states should have more control over their domestic policies, such as education, drug laws, healthcare, things like that. I guess I didn't make that very clear.
they don't like it because they want one big government that takes all the stuff and distributes it evenly, if one state has a better idea on the education front and their kids get a better education and then better jobs and make more money then that's not fair.

it is not clear the federal government would do any differently. and it has been pointed out that regionalism is a problem at the federal level, where country-wide legislation reflects the views of a few states.

A piece of legislation requiring a vote on the national level would be quite different than a specific state deciding something for itself.

And the only point where nationwide legislation would be bad, as far as I can see, is if the majority of people become heartland morality ninnies, though that's extremely unlikely. "Shoving" equal opportunity, equal rights, and equal treatment down their throats is better than them oppressing people within their own states, which they're currently doing.

Well, if you really want the federal government, led by Bush and a conservative Congress, to decide such things for the entire country, that's fine by me. Just don't whine if Mass loses its current gay rights.

If BushCo. did such things, the population as a whole wouldn't stand for it. He'd be out on his ass, and fast. That stands for any president.

I'm not saying that the states should be able to make decisions on civil rights. Unless, of course, they pass laws protecting more civil rights than the Federal government recognizes. You can add, but not take away.

I'm saying that the states should have more control over their domestic policies, such as education, drug laws, healthcare, things like that. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

If that was what states used their powers for, then I'd be four-square with you on that one. The problem, however, is that too often they don't. Moreover, this isn't a simple problem with a few bad apples, but rather institutional. Any time you limit the number of voters, you enhance the degree of directness in a democracy. Now sometimes that is good, as you note in your post. But it has the downside of 1) making it more likely that a minority will be oppressed, and 2) making it more likely that a charismatic can single-handedly change public policy. Unfortunately in this case, the charismatics are changing public policy to oppress the minorities. Given the choice between a less responsive federal government that does protect rights and a more responsive local government that oppresses minorities, I'm going to go with the former option.

It should be the central, or federal, government's job to pass such laws, requiring nation-wide votes. It shouldn't be the task of a bunch of hee-haw fuckheads in Kentucky to decide weather or not homosexuals have the right to marry, much less have rights in their own state, because chances are, the vote's going to be a landslide against the minority in those states.
Yup, let's throw out democracy out the window. I remember a certain vote in 11 states were the vast majority was against gay marriage over a year ago, a fair number blue states as well. I doubt the States have changed much since I left its shores.

What you want to do is have these "hee-haw fuckheads" by all means "officially" respect a homosexual pair's union, marriage, what have you. By giving this "official" recognition, its not helping the problem at all. We cannot change attitudes by a sheet of paper saying that Adam and Steve are united until death do they part, so while the gay couples will have their marriage, they'll still be discriminated. What we'll be settling for is some sort of hypocratic government where people are forced to support something they will not do.

Have we had a national vote on this subject matter? I don't recall one, but one certainly could have occured. If so, and the majority of the entire nation voted in favor of giving gays the right to marry, then that's fine by me. However, I think the problem is more one of what the said populations distinguish "marriage" as. As marriage has a churhcy undercurrent to it some places, with certain biases like your "hee-haw fuckhead" bias, as in some places where it is viewed as merely a contract between two people on a nice, politically clean adaptation of the churchy doctorine.

Thanks to the media and the GOP spin machine, this topic has been thrown out before the masses, and unlike abortion, something can actually been done with it. Waiting may not be a great option and wait for these hee-hawers to see "the light". We'll just have to wait and see what happens, then do something about it.

if one state has a better idea on the education front and their kids get a better education and then better jobs and make more money then that's not fair.

typically, this is phrased in the reverse - "alabama is too stupid to run its own education system", etc

typically, this is phrased in the reverse - "alabama is too stupid to run its own education system", etc
so? let the people of Alabama be stupid...if the state of Alabama ends up taking care of them then why should I care?

they don't like it because they want one big government that takes all the stuff and distributes it evenly, if one state has a better idea on the education front and their kids get a better education and then better jobs and make more money then that's not fair.
Bah I normaly agree with you but have you read some of the arguments posted so far ... that sort of stuff frankly does not bother us ... and we hope that good education ideas make their way to ALL states

If the only moves individual states would make would be positive or creative moves then there would be no big issue

But what bothers us is the ability of all the stupid shit they seem to pull go unchecked.

(note I am not "for" "big" government in any way shape or form ... personally I am "for" a slimlined balance between the two)

I'm not saying that the states should be able to make decisions on civil rights. Unless, of course, they pass laws protecting more civil rights than the Federal government recognizes. You can add, but not take away.

I'm saying that the states should have more control over their domestic policies, such as education, drug laws, healthcare, things like that. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

1: That would really upset the balance, because heartland and deep south states would almost never enact new legislation, and the now-standard laws in the far more socially-libertarian states would make them seem, well, the same as they are now, really.


2: Again, this is bad. It's a lot like my first point...

A: Is it right for one state to have better, higher standards of education than the next? I mean, one state could have excellent schools and teachers, while a neighboring state could have the standard of education that Texas has (which is horrible).

B: Making some drugs legal in one state and making them illegal in another is also pretty ridiculous.

C: Again, this is a standards issue, is it not? Then, I'll just have to say that this is also a bad thing, because each state should have equal healthcare. People in one state shouldn't be worse off healthcare-wise than people in another state, just because their legislation passed laws that made it that way.


they don't like it because they want one big government that takes all the stuff and distributes it evenly, if one state has a better idea on the education front and their kids get a better education and then better jobs and make more money then that's not fair.

1: No. Taking things away from people to redistribute them to others is not what I'm talking about. It's very far from it.

2: Sort of. If one state has high ideas for better education, then those ideas should be passed nation-wide. It really isn't fair for one state to have better education than the rest, just as it isn't fair for another to have better healthcare policies than the rest. When things like this are concerned, it really should be taken to a national level.

-snip-

Giving the "right" to let a lot of assholes oppress people who have done nothing wrong is hardly excusable by the "Democracy is freedom" bullshit.

You want pure, untainted Democracy? Fine. Don't start crying when a rabid, uneducated mob starts oppressing you with "morality" laws.

A: Is it right for one state to have better, higher standards of education than the next? I mean, one state could have excellent schools and teachers, while a neighboring state could have the standard of education that Texas has (which is horrible).

Are you saying that this doesn't happen already?

C: Again, this is a standards issue, is it not? Then, I'll just have to say that this is also a bad thing, because each state should have equal healthcare. People in one state shouldn't be worse off healthcare-wise than people in another state, just because their legislation passed laws that made it that way.

If the people in a state with worse healthcare wanted better healthcare, why wouldn't they vote in people that would deliver it?


2: Sort of. If one state has high ideas for better education, then those ideas should be passed nation-wide. It really isn't fair for one state to have better education than the rest, just as it isn't fair for another to have better healthcare policies than the rest. When things like this are concerned, it really should be taken to a national level.

So we'll just force mediocrity on everyone then? And why wouldn't states adopt successful education and healthcare policies that were enacted by other states?

Seriously, this isn't the 60's. Many state governments are rather more progressive than the Feds these days. They're not all just waiting for the chance to oppress their citizens. Sure, some would like to, but that can be prevented.

Didn't we fight a war partially based on states rights? Oh yeah...that whole thing about slavery..


No, it was not about slavery at all. It was actually about the right of states to secede. This is a right guaranteed in the consitution and never amended out of existence. Despite the fact that the consitution guarantees this we still don't have it. Why? Because the federal government became too powerful (and still is) and killed a bunch of people to stop it from happening. Now if a state wants to secede and make itself a better place, it can't. That is the fruit a powerful central government bares.

Are you saying that this doesn't happen already?



If the people in a state with worse healthcare wanted better healthcare, why wouldn't they vote in people that would deliver it?




So we'll just force mediocrity on everyone then? And why wouldn't states adopt successful education and healthcare policies that were enacted by other states?

Seriously, this isn't the 60's. Many state governments are rather more progressive than the Feds these days. They're not all just waiting for the chance to oppress their citizens. Sure, some would like to, but that can be prevented.

1: No, I'm saying that it happening is a bad thing. And yes, it's happening already, which is why I used Texas as an example.

2: In a lot of states, people care more about how low their taxes are than how well-funded their infrastructure is. It's not like this in every state, but that just furthers my point.

3: Mediocrity? What the hell are you on...? It's about making every state conform to the same, higher standard of education, rather than having a bunch of Kentuckys and Alabamas alongside a few Minnesotas and New Yorks.

4: It can be prevented, but it's not.

No, it was not about slavery at all. It was actually about the right of states to secede. This is a right guaranteed in the consitution and never amended out of existence. Despite the fact that the consitution guarantees this we still don't have it. Why? Because the federal government became too powerful (and still is) and killed a bunch of people to stop it from happening. Now if a state wants to secede and make itself a better place, it can't. That is the fruit a powerful central government bears.
That's a right retained by the people, not by the states or state governments, and the people always retain it even when they're unable to exercise it such as when the Southern rebellion was put down. You can always rebel, you just have no guaratee of success.

That gets to the fundamental point though, namely that it is the people who have rights, not governments themselves, which is made clear in the distinction between "rights" in the 9th Amendment and "powers" in the 10th. So instead of saying "respecting states' rights" it should be "respecting states' powers", which is why we have federalism. Self-government can be a good thing, but when there are abuses of peoples' rights by state actors then the ruling power that has oversight should step in and correct that, which is why the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation.

And yes, it was about slavery, insofar as the Slave States didn't want their institution restricted from entering the new territories.

1: No, I'm saying that it happening is a bad thing. And yes, it's happening already, which is why I used Texas as an example.

2: In a lot of states, people care more about how low their taxes are than how well-funded their infrastructure is. It's not like this in every state, but that just furthers my point.

3: Mediocrity? What the hell are you on...? It's about making every state conform to the same, higher standard of education, rather than having a bunch of Kentuckys and Alabamas alongside a few Minnesotas and New Yorks.

4: It can be prevented, but it's not.

1 and 2. Well, those of us who actually want education and services from our state can live in states that provide such things. Those who don't can live elsewhere. That way we don't end up with half assed, underfunded Federal programs.

3. I had an argument, but I'm too tired to make it coherent, so I'll concede the point.

4. Unfortunately, you're quite correct. That is something that would have to be addressed.

Giving the "right" to let a lot of assholes oppress people who have done nothing wrong is hardly excusable by the "Democracy is freedom" bullshit.
Yes, it is, but then again, when has democracy ever lived up to its romanticised ideals?
You want pure, untainted Democracy? Fine. Don't start crying when a rabid, uneducated mob starts oppressing you with "morality" laws.
Education does not influence predjudices, as you should know.

That's a right retained by the people, not by the states or state governments, and the people always retain it even when they're unable to exercise it such as when the Southern rebellion was put down. You can always rebel, you just have no guaratee of success.


No, states were able to to ratify their consitutions and appeal for statehood, they also had the ablity to rescind their statehood. That means that legally, when the southern states seceded they become a separate nation. The "Civil" War was therefore the war and annexation of a foreign state. Those opposed to the war in Iraq: How can you not be opposed to the Civil War? Both used a pretense of liberation after the fact. Both caused the conquered nations to become poor and impoverished. Both caused needless deaths. I don't really see a difference. (Remember, like I said, the "liberation" argument was not the original justification for war in either case.)

There's no overt statement in the U.S. Constitution that proscribes how or why dissolution is to take place, it's only implied through the 9th Amendment's "rights retained by the people". It should also be noted that the Congress has the implied power to put down rebellions in the exception to the Habeas Corpus clause. Just because a state declares its independence doesn't make it so, they have to win it, just like America wasn't sovereign until it successfully overturned British rule and forced the signing of the Second Treaty of Paris.

The Iraq War stuff is a non sequitur since Iraq was its own sovereign nation prior to the war and not under United States jurisdiction, unlike the states that attempted to secede which were subject to U.S. law and were not sovereign nations unto themselves.

You'll find no sympathy from me on this since under the Fifth Amendment no person can have their life, liberty or property deprived of them without due process of law, and slaves routinely were denied due process.

That was true in the 60's, but I'd bet that's not the case these days.
I'm from the south and it is the case, sadly. Living in the bible belt sucks.
States have to much individual power with law making.

3: Mediocrity? What the hell are you on...? It's about making every state conform to the same, higher standard of education, rather than having a bunch of Kentuckys and Alabamas alongside a few Minnesotas and New Yorks.


What, like the "Every child left behind" strategy, which has managed to dumb down the good education systems to the level of the bad ones?

Federal programs work okay at big issues and infrastructure. They work badly, if at all, on the areas of individuals and small groups. These areas, Healthcare, Education, and at least to a certain extent welfare programs, work more efficiently at the state level.

What a lot of people seem to be complaining about is that some states fuck it up. This is true. But the Federal system is no more immune to fucking up than the states, and will affect the entire country when it does.

Oh, and as regards the whole marriage thing: It's state rights that PREVENT the very horror stories you people are talking about. States have the right to establish marriage conventions according to their wishes. And according to the Constitution, every other state must respect those laws. So, if you're married in Hawaii, Florida has to accept you marriage certificate.

Finally, why NOT allow different states to have different drug laws? We actually do now - there are states where alcohol is illegal. What harm if you cross the border to get smashed?

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with states rights, as long as they are held in the true spirit of federalism and not in the spirit of withholding civil rights.

You'll find no sympathy from me on this since under the Fifth Amendment no person can have their life, liberty or property deprived of them without due process of law, and slaves routinely were denied due process.


I am neither from the south nor a supporter of slavery, so I wouldn't be the one receiving your sympathy anyway. With that said, the Civil War was not about slavery. I don't expect you to have sympathy for the southerners of the time (except all those who suffered from Sherman's March to the Sea) any more than expect you to have sympathy for Saddam. I do, however, expect you to condemn the actions of the Lincoln Administration the same way you most likely condemn the actions of the Bush Administration. Despite your saying there is no overt statement in the consitution, it is clear the United States was set up as a voluntary republic.

Tell me then, if the Slave States didn't revolt because of their fear that slavery would be prevented from entering Western territories north of 36'30" and thereby prevent the formation of new slave states, which would no longer have equal representation with free states in the Senate and therefore not be able to block the House's resolutions against slavery and perhaps one day see a Constitutional amendment banning it, then why did they revolt? Lincoln said he would go back to the Missouri Compromise days, which likely would do exactly what I've laid out above, and that is what the southerners feared if they remained in the Union and lost power because of that.

And I do have sympathy for those who suffered needlessly and I am not in favor of the brand of "total war" that Sherman introduced, including for the effects that it has had on American war tactics in the 20th and now 21st centuries. What it is that I do not have sympathy for is the argument that those states had a right to deny people due process. It is sad though that in order to correct that injustice even more atrocities were committed--too bad the Southerners bought into the "positive good" argument of slavery in the 1830s and '40s, they could have been spared much of that suffering if they had continued the work of the Founders to gradually eliminate slavery.

I'm just gonna drop a bottom line on everyone here:

We're the UNITED States of America.

Emphasis on UNITED.

We're not the Neighboring Provinces of Ancient China, or even the Warring Factions of Ancient Japan. We're UNITED, at least, legislatably. The "hee-haws" will be "hee-haws", regardless of what "hee-laws" are passed. We force them to recognize gay marriage, and they can't do anything about it. They can still be hee-haws all they want, spouting off their bullshit about the heartland and blacks and gays, but when it comes down to it, they can't do anything incredibly "hee-haw"-ish without breaking a few laws, to which we send them to "hee-haw federal prison" where they get "hee-buttfucked" by their large and possibly black cellmate.

How's that for irony and justice in one burrito?

Point being, state-decided rights are for small things. This is a big thing. We're the type of country that cares (or wants to seem like it cares) about the people within it. That means we need to be seen as ONE country, not one country with incredible differences within it.

Saddight? Saddight.

Tell me then, if the Slave States didn't revolt because of their fear that slavery would be prevented from entering Western territories north of 36'30" and thereby prevent the formation of new slave states, which would no longer have equal representation with free states in the Senate and therefore not be able to block the House's resolutions against slavery and perhaps one day see a Constitutional amendment banning it, then why did they revolt?


In that sense the Civil War was about slavery, but that is not what the north went to war for.


What it is that I do not have sympathy for is the argument that those states had a right to deny people due process.


And I don't expect you to. Like I said; they had no more right to do what they did than Saddam had to do what he did, but the United States had no more right to invade the Confederacy than they did Iraq.

I got the solution: how about only the North East of the country and the West Coast get States rights?

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?It is mostly because states' rights are usually associated with conservative violations of civil rights.
Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?
As I said, the states' rights position is usually considered conservative. Therefore, I should preface this by saying that I am so far left of liberal I can't even see liberal anymore...

I think that essential political relations belong at the local level. This encompasses a version of states rights... and more, since I think that localities within states should be much more autonomous than they are at present.

What does my view mean for civil rights? Well, although on this particular front I happen to enjoy the outcome of federal legislation, I am willing to bite the bullet and say that states should be allowed to govern themselves with respect to most (caveats forthcoming) civil matters. If democratic states have a majority of assholes, so be it... While I think other democratic states should be able to exert some pressure to change the worst among them, I do not think they should have the right to overrule local law.

Now, this only goes so far. Given that these states are part of a political union, some concessions need to be made: but these should be minimal. Basically, I think "national civil rights" only encompass those immunities that are fundamental to the concept of "union." In other words, a national union requires a common conception of "citizenship," and a common application of the term. If you are a citizen of the United States, your citizenship does not change depending on what state you are in.

In the first place, this means that states' rights stop short of (for instance) black slavery: since blacks are (now) considered citizens of the United States, they cannot be enslaved. Moreover, because Congress controls US immigration law, states cannot go importing "new" slaves either. Citizens must be free to leave their state if they wish: movements cannot be restricted. This, I think, is fundamental to what it means to have a "union."

Of course, someone may point out that federal civil rights legislation of all kinds rests on the authority of the commerce clause: it being held that segregated and white-only businesses restrict the ability of African Americans to move in interstate commerce, Congress should have the power to regulate these practices. I am willing to accept this argument, to an extent. However, when the commerce clause is also used to tell restaurants that are nowhere near highways or train stations, but which happen to import food from another state, that they must comply with federal legislation... I think this is taking commerce too far. Let the states deal with those issues.

I feel that I should remind everyone, once again, that I am no racist and I strongly oppose oppressive legislation of all stripes. I merely think that this is an issue that should be dealt with at the state level. The state of California should have no more power to dictate law to the state of Alabama than the United States has to dictate law to another sovereign country... except where such federal legislation is essential to the concepts of "union" and "citizenship."

This means, among other things, that while I support gay marriage I do not think that one state has to recognize marriages from another. I wish they would, but I don't think they must.

Look, if two people of the same sex get married in, say, Massachussetts, and they decide to go to Louisiana for a weekend, their marriage probably wouldn't be recognised with "States' Rights".So? It probably also would not be recognized if they decided to vacation in Mexico. While I support gay marriage, I do not think that marriage is such a fundamental "right" that we cannot be citizens of the same country while having to deal with a diversity of marriage laws. It's not something I like, but I prefer it to the loss of political participation and determination at the local level.

Presumably, this might mean a loss of tourism in some states. There are also other kinds of pressures that may encourage them to change their ways. But I do not think states that can muster majority support in Congress or the Supreme Court should be able to force such changes on other states. The police-power and civil role of the federal government should be minimal indeed.

Giving each state the opportunity to give legislation and voters such power is a very, very bad thing.Why? It just means that going to Louisiana is a bit more like going to Mexico.

But, what if the couple liked the place so much that they decided to live there, only to find out weeks later that the state didn't recognise their marriage status?
People would just have to take more personal responsibility and actually learn such things before making a life-changing decision like moving to a new home.

Unlike moving to a different country I think the expectation that you are still married should be universal within the SAME COUNTRYWhy? I think marriage licenses are still issued by the state government for heterosexual couples, too... If the State of Massechusetts married you, why should you expect that this will hold elsewhere in the United States, other than the fact that this is how we have usually done things?

It's not stupidity to expect to be held accountable to the same basic set of laws in one state of the United States as any other.
Agreed.

The question is, what counts as "basic"?

Why? It just means that going to Louisiana is a bit more like going to Mexico.

then what are we? we certainly aren't united if intersate travel resembles international travel.

How does the full faith and credit clause not apply in this case? Does anyone know?

Now that is a good question. Answer: I always wonder that, too... but have not been interested enough to research it.

then what are we? we certainly aren't united if intersate travel resembles international travel.

1) It depends on what you're trying to "unite."
2) I did say "a bit" more like international travel. I think that the lack of border patrol, customs, passports and so on suggests that there would still be significant differences.

1) It depends on what you're trying to "unite."

um, amerika, its peepul?
no childe left beehinde?
2) I did say "a bit" more like international travel. I think that the lack of border patrol, customs, passports and so on suggests that there would still be significant differences.

laws that are radically different from state to state are a problem. gay marriage, womens rights, others . . . .

i give up. its hard to have a unified decentralized country, IMHO.

No, it was not about slavery at all.Yes it was.

You'll read a lot of bullshit that says it's not, because it is and always will be easy to write a dissertation or publish a book claiming that the Civil War was not "really" about slavery. But it most certainly was. Even when other issues (economic; political/states' rights) were at the fore, the subtext was always slavery.

It was actually about the right of states to secede. This is a right guaranteed in the consitution and never amended out of existence.Where in the Constitution exactly?

Where in the Constitution exactly?

the whole argument against seccession comes from the constitution. how can you say it doesn't apply to you when it created you as an entity?

SC tried it with Jackson and the tariff, and they had no grounds to secede then.

have i missed something?

*hey anarchyeL, you live in south jersey? not the only one, ya know!*

Despite your saying there is no overt statement in the consitution, it is clear the United States was set up as a voluntary republic.That's not "clear" at all. As John Marshall put it, the Preamble to the Constitution indicates that it was created by "we the people", not "the States" or the State legislatures. Moreover, it was ratified by conventions in each State, not by the State legislatures.

Therefore, argued Marshall--in a well-regarded and influential opinion--the United States was instituted directly, by popular sovereignty, over and above the State governments. This reasoning tends toward the view that individual States do not have the right to secede from a union that is politically superior to themselves.

I don't really see why have one government control you instead of having several to balance each other is so much better.

I understand that you can't let states have complete control, but if the states have no power, why even bother having states? Why not just let Bush and a large group of random people choose how we aaalllll live?
Personally, I don't want someone over a thousand miles away with no concept of my life controlling me.
Could a federal government oppress people? Very easily, especially when it's still rich people and less of a chance of we middle class to get a government position.

Off topic: It sounds to me you guys want to control the South completely instead of letting someone, say, think? The South is not just white people beating blacks.

um, amerika, its peepul?
no childe left beehinde?That's right. Because No Child Left Behind is such an unequivocal success.
laws that are radically different from state to state are a problem.I agree entirely. But the question remains, what counts as "radically" different. Nothing is obviously a "radical" difference: we need some standard to identify what we mean.

Of course, as with all legal standards, we don't look for much specificity and we expect plenty of ambiguity. (Look at any standard the Supreme Court tries to apply.) The idea is rather to focus our discussion, not to determine it before-hand.

I maintain that laws are "radically" different when their diversity is repugnant to the very concept of "citizenship." This implies that for a political union, political rights -- the right to vote, the rights to free speech and free association (which includes unrestricted travel), and I might even include the right to a basic education -- these rights are fundamental and inviolable.

Civil rights, however, are more ambiguous. To the extent that violations of civil rights sometimes tend to incidentally restrict political rights as well (e.g. discrimination in transportation-related services), I think the nation should have the power to protect them against state intrusions. Otherwise, however, I think civil rights are a matter of local community (state) politics... partly because I think that in the long run localized civil rights movements are more likely to change attitudes, while national ones can only change laws. Ultimately I think it is more important to change attitudes.

Off topic: It sounds to me you guys want to control the South completely instead of letting someone, say, think? The South is not just white people beating blacks.

no, but its sadly safe and bigoted to assume that laws would be enacted against blacks if states rights were full.

it may be a stretch, but history repeats itself

That's right. Because No Child Left Behind is such an unequivocal success.

my shot was totally random, and i'm proud of that.
is there sarcasm there? my detector is dying on me.

the whole argument against seccession comes from the constitution. how can you say it doesn't apply to you when it created you as an entity?Precisely. That's why Marshall (a die-hard Federalist) insisted that the federal government was not created by the States; it was created by the people.


*hey anarchyeL, you live in south jersey? not the only one, ya know!*
I guess, if New Brunswick is "south" Jersey... I'm sort of new to the State, so I'm not at all clear on these distinctions. ;)

This isn't the constitution, but it is the tenth amendment:

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.

is there sarcasm there? my detector is dying on me.I was off the charts. Perhaps I broke it.

Precisely. That's why Marshall (a die-hard Federalist) insisted that the federal government was not created by the States; it was created by the people.

one more reason i love john marshall!
I guess, if New Brunswick is "south" Jersey... I'm sort of new to the State, so I'm not at all clear on these distinctions. ;)
*depending on what side you vote on, sports prefs, and other things, you'll soon learn that north is different from south. and welcome! (wait, my mental map is defecting.. . not SJ. oh well, got me hopes up on myself!*

This isn't the constitution, but it is the tenth amendment:

yes, not delegated. the laws we are specifying currently lie with the fed gov't.

to the respective states or people. big 'or' there, if i do say so myself.

and since the states aren't the people in a sense, it can go either way.

and don't give me strict constructionist bullshit.

The Tenth Amendment is about "powers" anyway, which is specifically means what the government can and cannot do and to what extent its authority extends. It's the Ninth Amendment that mentions "rights", which are of the people only and are retained in society no matter what the laws say--that is to say natural rights, which includes the right to cast off one's own defective government and form a new one.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to secede.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to secede.
Please explain how secession is a power of governance.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to secede.

Depends on your view. Acceptance in the Union is a contract or bond between the other states, some believe. As you cannot dissolve your legal contracts at whim, you cannot secede unless the other parties, in this case the other states, allow you to leave.

See? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/massachusetts_health) Liberals can do states' rights too.

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?

As has been pointed out, your assumption is sticking point.

Historically, the battle has been between "civil rights" and "states' rights."

In general, this nation affords a great deal of leeway to states under federalism. And rightly so.

But when someone asserts "states' rights" they are almost always do so in the context of wanting to deny liberty or equality to some citizens.

See? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_us/massachusetts_health) Liberals can do states' rights too.

And conservatives can be anti-states' rights. See the Supreme Court and the issues of medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon.

But when someone asserts "states' rights" they are almost always do so in the context of wanting to deny liberty or equality to some citizens.

And this is an assumption that bothers me to no end. Yes, in the past that was true, but not all supporters of states' rights have that intention. I myself am rather liberal, but am (obviously) a supporter of states' rights. But generally whenever I say this people accuse me of things ranging from hating gays to wanting a return to slavery (which my state never legally had anyway).

States' rights may have been a code word for the reduction of civil rights in the past, but there is no reason that it has to remain that way, other than the kneejerk reaction of those who refuse to give up their assumptions.

edit:

And conservatives can be anti-states' rights. See the Supreme Court and the issues of medical marijuana in California and assisted suicide in Oregon.

Yes, and those issues killed the second to last issue that I am in accord with Republicans on. As soon as they turn anti-gun that'll be the end of it.

The Tenth Amendment gives states the power to secede.

LOL.

Where does it say that?

Good luck finding caselaw to support you.

On the other hand, TEXAS v. WHITE (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/74/700.html), 74 U.S. 700 (1868) :

And this is an assumption that bothers me to no end. Yes, in the past that was true, but not all supporters of states' rights have that intention. I myself am rather liberal, but am (obviously) a supporter of states' rights. But generally whenever I say this people accuse me of things ranging from hating gays to wanting a return to slavery (which my state never legally had anyway).

States' rights may have been a code word for the reduction of civil rights in the past, but there is no reason that it has to remain that way, other than the kneejerk reaction of those who refuse to give up their assumptions.

You are like those that argue the swastika should be considered to have its original Hindu meaning.

The fact is that throughout the history of this nation and to this very day "states' rights" has been used as an excuse for tyrrany.

Now you say you wish to but a shining new meaning on the term. Why not pick a term without such baggage instead?

And in what context are you arguing for more "states' rights" anyway/

And in what context are you arguing for more "states' rights" anyway/

The only reason I use the term is because if I said "home rule" or something to that effect no one would know what the hell I was talking about. That probably is the best route though, finding a new term.

The context I mean is allowing states more complete control of their domestic institutions such as education, healthcare, welfare, things like that.

In no way am I saying that states should be able to restrict civil rights, and would welcome strong and swift Federal action in that particular arena.

Hello! Everyone just completely missed the bottom line!

UNITED. Bam. End of story, thank you for playing!

Hello! Everyone just completely missed the bottom line!

UNITED. Bam. End of story, thank you for playing!

We didn't miss it, we ignored it. Some random person on the internet coming in and making proclamations doesn't seem to end conversations for some reason.

And I think you're missing the States part of United States.

The only reason I use the term is because if I said "home rule" or something to that effect no one would know what the hell I was talking about. That probably is the best route though, finding a new term.

The context I mean is allowing states more complete control of their domestic institutions such as education, healthcare, welfare, things like that.

In no way am I saying that states should be able to restrict civil rights, and would welcome strong and swift Federal action in that particular arena.

States do have fairly complete control over education, healthcare, welfare, and things like that.

Your going to have to be more specific if you expect anyone to rally to your cause.

States do have fairly complete control over education, healthcare, welfare, and things like that.

Your going to have to be more specific if you expect anyone to rally to your cause.

I'll have to collect and organize specific information and get back to you later, I have to head to class. Damned morning classes.....

If by "basic civil rights" you mean 'everything in the constitution' then states' rights is OK. It wouldnt be "states rights" anymore though.

But, what if the couple liked the place so much that they decided to live there, only to find out weeks later that the state didn't recognise their marriage status?

Don't try to weasle out of this one.

Here's the cool part-If you get married in ANY state, and move to another state, the state you move to HAS to recognize your marriage. Regardless of whatever laws they may have against your marriage. It's actually specifically mentioned in the Constitution. So, unless the Constitution is overturned, and each state becomes it's own country again(And we all know how well the Confederate States of America turned out; note this is different than the Confederecy, which came about much later), no amount of "States Rights" will change it.

So, nothing to worry about as far as marriage is concerned.

LOL.

Where does it say that?

Good luck finding caselaw to support you.


Seeing as how the courts do not have the authority to decide such a matter, I don't care.

Here is some more proof:

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

The only reason I use the term is because if I said "home rule" or something to that effect no one would know what the hell I was talking about. That probably is the best route though, finding a new term.

new terms have to start somewhere. might i suggest 'decentralist'.

my favored ideology has historically used the term 'federalism', but that one doesn't work so well in u.s. political discourse. but it's ok, nobody listens to us long enough to even get to that part anyway.

Seeing as how the courts do not have the authority to decide such a matter, I don't care.

Here is some more proof:



http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm


The constitution makes no allowance for secession, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The ultimate law.

It should be the central, or federal, government's job to pass such laws, requiring nation-wide votes. It shouldn't be the task of a bunch of hee-haw fuckheads in Kentucky to decide weather or not homosexuals have the right to marry, much less have rights in their own state, because chances are, the vote's going to be a landslide against the minority in those states.

I disagree, If a clear majority of those who live in Kentucky don't want homosexuals in Kentucky, then that should be their choice. It doesn't effect anyone outside of Kentucky...

I disagree, If a clear majority of those who live in Kentucky don't want homosexuals in Kentucky, then that should be their choice. It doesn't effect anyone outside of Kentucky...

*sigh*

This is the problem. It shouldn't be the decision of many to oppress anyone they want.

The constitution makes no allowance for secession, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The ultimate law.

The constitution makes no allowance for breathing or walking your dog either, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional to do so. I think secession is a terrible idea, but not one forbidden by the constitution.

Hmm, states rights versus the rights of the Federal government. Well in recent years this has come up more often than you’d think, especially since many of the former checks and balances we had have become blurred, for better or for worst.

Yes there was a war fought over the issue of states rights, not the issue of slavery. Consider, South Carolina in the 1830’s had it’s economy crippled by tariffs that the more populous North enforced. It became an issue not of slavery but rather of the stranglehold that some parts of the country held over others. It becomes a tyranny of the majority over the minority. One that is enforced by a mangled constitution.

The issue is not just the lack of enforcement upon civil rights, but at what point does what the federal government stop being the supreme authority. What right do people in California have to tell people in North Dakota how to live their lives? These are two entirely different sub cultures with different rules and norms. We are indeed one nation, but we are so large that we have several different moral systems. Who’s to say that any one belief, or lack there of, is the correct one to enforce on everyone?

Now the major problem I see is that some states could repeal abortion, or could oppress their minorities. My question is firstly if the majority of people wanted it, and if this is a democracy, how can we say no? People do crazy stupid things, we have Hitler’s obtaining power through democracy, yet if Hitler wins the popular vote, and you refuse to allow him to take his office, are you any better than he? Joe six pack, with his bigoted views, rules this nation, whether we like it or not. Now he could be the nicest person ever, or the meanest racist every. What ever the case what he votes for we have to accept.

Now then, suppose Mississippi decides that hey were going to back and oppress blacks. How long do you think it would take before Mississippi had no blacks? Not long correct? Now then, when any state oppresses a viable portion of it’s population that state suffers, Mississippi would lose revenue, influence, and population quick a s a snap. I guarantee you that most people aren’t going to want to live in a racist mud hole. So while everyone around Mississippi allows blacks equal rights, and flourish, Mississippi spins downward on a spiral of backwaterness until there are no racists. And there would be no racists because it would be so unprofitable to be racist.

Consider if you put healthcare in the hands of the states or social security. People would flock to those states that did provide it, will others would start to sag, until every state has healthcare, or social security, or abortion or gay marriage. What is socially right depends on the culture, productive open and accepting cultures prosper, condemning, closed, and controlling ones tend to decline.

Now you may say that it is unacceptable for someone to enforce racism on anyone. But holding a gun to someone’s head, even if it’s only full of dollars, and saying, “Follow what I believe, or else.” Is no better. Morality is only moral if the people choose it them selves. If you enforce abortion, or gay marriage or any moral issue on people, you take away their choice and merely fuel resentment. This is a democracy and peoples choices for better or for worse are what did runs this nation, and should run this nation.

*sigh*

This is the problem. It shouldn't be the decision of many to oppress anyone they want.

(Um, actually, that is pretty much how democracy works...) And they are not oppressing anyone they want, only those who Choose to live in their state.

But this is a whole other question. Who defines what is oppression? The presumption is that the hypothetical Kentuckians are making homosexuality illegal in their state because they believe that it is "wrong".
So long as it is illegal, it is hardly oppression to disallow it.
The key difference between this and civil rights is that, to take a historical example, being black was never illegal, and thus laws oppressing black people were clearly unjust, whereas this Kentucky thing would be better defined as "oppression" of a criminal element.

The constitution makes no allowance for breathing or walking your dog either, but that doesn't make it unconstitutional to do so. I think secession is a terrible idea, but not one forbidden by the constitution.


Its pretty ludicrous to compare secession with "breathing or walking."

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?

Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?
It's a case by case basis. For example, although I'm prochoice, I think Roe v Wade should be overturned because the constitution doesn't grant the right to an abortion. on the other hand, blacks and others should have their rights even if the hicks down in mississippi are against it because the constitution does protect civil rights. so the federal government shouldn't enforce it's abortion law, but it should enforce the civil rights laws. that's it.

(Um, actually, that is pretty much how democracy works...) And they are not oppressing anyone they want, only those who Choose to live in their state.

But this is a whole other question. Who defines what is oppression? The presumption is that the hypothetical Kentuckians are making homosexuality illegal in their state because they believe that it is "wrong".
So long as it is illegal, it is hardly oppression to disallow it.
The key difference between this and civil rights is that, to take a historical example, being black was never illegal, and thus laws oppressing black people were clearly unjust, whereas this Kentucky thing would be better defined as "oppression" of a criminal element.

Americans' rights are defined in the constitution, and the constitution is superior to state law.

The "opression" with which states' rights menaces americans is that it abridges constitutional rights which they are guaranteed as americans, regardless of what region of america they "Choose[sic]" to live in.

Its pretty ludicrous to compare secession with "breathing or walking."

Not really, the point is that because something is not specifically provided for by the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Not really, the point is that because something is not specifically provided for by the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional.


Secession is treason, it is an attack on the constitution and on the United States.

It is ludicrous to compare "breathing and walking" to secession.

Secession is treason

oh, come off it

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies"

Americans' rights are defined in the constitution, and the constitution is superior to state law.

The "opression" with which states' rights menaces americans is that it abridges constitutional rights which they are guaranteed as americans, regardless of what region of america they "Choose[sic]" to live in.

I don't think the question here is to put states rights above the constitution. If that were the case, there would be not point in having a constitution.

oh, come off it

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies"


Assuming that the United States would take action to prevent the attack on its citizen's called "secession," and the seceding states would respond with force, they would be "levying war against" the united states in a very manifest sense.

This is disregarding the notion that attacking the constitutional rights of american citizens inside the seceding state is a "levying of war."

Secession is treason, it is an attack on the constitution and on the United States.

It is ludicrous to compare "breathing and walking" to secession.

If succession is not forbidden by the constitution, how is it an attack on the constitution?

I don't think the question here is to put states rights above the constitution. If that were the case, there would be not point in having a constitution.


An increase in states' rights is only significant to the extent it allows them to violate the constitution.

States already have lots of rights under the constitution, an increase would be more or less at the expense of the constitution.

"States rights" implies an increase in state power at the expense of constitutional power.

Assuming that the United States would take action to prevent the attack on its citizen's called "secession," and the seceding states would respond with force, they would be "levying war against" the united states in a very manifest sense.



No, that would be the United States levying war against the seceding states.

the attack on its citizen's called "secession"

wtf?

If succession is not forbidden by the constitution, how is it an attack on the constitution?


Secession is, at its most basic level, the revocation of constitutional rights.

When a state secedes, it tells its residents "you no longer have american constitutional rights."


Secession means over-throwing the constitution.

No, that would be the United States levying war against the seceding states.


Self defense doesnt apply when you shoot a cop who's trying to arrest you.

Secession is, at its most basic level, the revocation of constitutional rights.

no, it isn't

wtf?


When a state secedes, it claims that it has over-thrown the constitution and that its residents no longer have constitutional rights. Telling americans to 'get out' if they want to keep their rights is not acceptable. This is why secession is an attack on american citizens.

An increase in states' rights is only significant to the extent it allows them to violate the constitution.

States already have lots of rights under the constitution, an increase would be more or less at the expense of the constitution.

"States rights" implies an increase in state power at the expense of constitutional power.

Not necessarily. At the expense of federal power, yes.

Not necessarily. At the expense of federal power, yes.


Extra-constitutional federal power. Would you care to give six or seven examples of this?

When a state secedes, it claims that it has over-thrown the constitution and that its residents no longer have constitutional rights. Telling americans to 'get out' if they want to keep their rights is not acceptable. This is why secession is an attack on american citizens.

That's ridiculous. Presuming the historical case, that the seceding states have voted internally to secede from the union, and this is not forbidden by the constitution, then the constitution doesn't even come into it. They voted to join, why shouldn't they be able to vote to leave?

Yes.

States' rights is bad just because it gives individual states the power to oppress people. This oppression differs from state to state, naturally, but still. It shouldn't be that way.

Or in Mass, grants equal rights to gay marriage.

Or in Ca, requires financial corporations to inform customers of hackers gaining access to their info (which the upcoming federal law will weaken, making if voluntary for, as an example, BofA to tell you when someone stole your SSN, bank account number, etc, for use at a later date...)

What I'd like to see is basic federal minimums, which states can expand upon as desired.

And I fail to see the evils of each state defining marriage their own way. The backward states can remain so, and all the hot lesbians can move out here and provide me with free shows! ;)

Extra-constitutional federal power. Would you care to give six or seven examples of this?

Not six or seven probably, because I'm lazy, but consider legality of abortion, " " gay marriage, labor laws, environmental restrictions. You get the idea.(hopefully)

It's a case by case basis. For example, although I'm prochoice, I think Roe v Wade should be overturned because the constitution doesn't grant the right to an abortion. on the other hand, blacks and others should have their rights even if the hicks down in mississippi are against it because the constitution does protect civil rights. so the federal government shouldn't enforce it's abortion law, but it should enforce the civil rights laws. that's it.

And Roe vs. Wade doesn't grant a right to abortion. Check up on the ruling. It grants one to a right of privacy.

That's ridiculous. Presuming the historical case, that the seceding states have voted internally to secede from the union, and this is not forbidden by the constitution, then the constitution doesn't even come into it. They voted to join, why shouldn't they be able to vote to leave?


This notion might be defensible if the vote were completely unanimous.

It ignores the fact that the land which secessionists occupy is territory of the United States, subject to her laws, &c.

Not six or seven probably, because I'm lazy, but consider legality of abortion, " " gay marriage, labor laws, environmental restrictions. You get the idea.(hopefully)


None of which have a constitutional basis whatsoever, in your opinion?

Unlike moving to a different country I think the expectation that you are still married should be universal within the SAME COUNTRY

But....

During the revolutionary war, France assigned 13 ambassadors, to deal with the 13 nations...

State is pretty synonymous with nation - except for this country, where now they're somewhere between nation and province. But we started as 13 countries banding together for free trade and defence against all those meanies out there.

But....

During the revolutionary war, France assigned 13 ambassadors, to deal with the 13 nations...

State is pretty synonymous with nation - except for this country, where now they're somewhere between nation and province. But we started as 13 countries banding together for free trade and defence against all those meanies out there.


After the ratification of the constitution, and especially after the horrors of secession in the civil war, the most accurate description of states is "province" or "administrative district."

This notion might be defensible if the vote were completely unanimous.

It ignores the fact that the land which secessionists occupy is territory of the United States, subject to her laws, &c.

If a law had to be completely unanimous to pass, democracy would not exist.

And obviously, up to the point where they vote to secede, they are under US law. Voting to secede is not unconstitutional, and after the vote, they are no longer under US law. Simple.

The Constitution gives the Federal government certain powers and resonsibilities and everything else is left to the states. I hardly see the states as being oppressed or something.

The constitution grants the federal gov't powers to regulate trade between the states.

I forget the exact lawsuit, but during the depression, a case made it to the Supreme Court. Farmer was growing wheat to sell and to eat himself. The outcome was that the Feds could regulate his growing grain to feed himself, because if enough people did that it would affect interstate trade. (talk about a load of crap!)

Which is also how the Feds ban medical weed someone grows in their kitchen for their own use in states that permit medical marijuana.

And I fail to see the evils of each state defining marriage their own way. The backward states can remain so, and all the hot lesbians can move out here and provide me with free shows! ;)
Then you fail to see the evil in discrimination. ;)

Basic rights should be the same across the board. If some classes of people can marry, every class of people should be able to marry.

If a law had to be completely unanimous to pass, democracy would not exist.

And obviously, up to the point where they vote to secede, they are under US law. Voting to secede is not unconstitutional, and after the vote, they are no longer under US law. Simple.


The majority of people in a region cannot vote to revoke the constitutional rights of the rest of the people, this is a violation of due process, among much else.

But....

During the revolutionary war, France assigned 13 ambassadors, to deal with the 13 nations...

State is pretty synonymous with nation - except for this country, where now they're somewhere between nation and province. But we started as 13 countries banding together for free trade and defence against all those meanies out there.

Don't know much of history? We weren't always the United States of America. After the Revolutionary War, we became the Confederate States of America, each state was a different country with it's own centralized government. Each was rather loosely bound to protect the others(They were supposed to, but didn't have to). However, this government was extremely weak, and basically useless. See Shay's Rebellion, for example, where the government militia couldn't even quell a small mob of quite poorly equipped irrate farmers. So, the United States was formed there after.

So, we started off as individual countries, but it didn't work out, and had to change.

The constitution makes no allowance for secession, and the constitution is the supreme law of the land. The ultimate law.


Since it is not included as a power of the federal government in the consitution it is automatically a power of the state or the people. Do I have to quote the Tenth Amendment again?

None of which have a constitutional basis whatsoever, in your opinion?

exactly.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/006-Constitution.pdf

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/007.pdf

Secession is, at its most basic level, the revocation of constitutional rights.

When a state secedes, it tells its residents "you no longer have american constitutional rights."


Secession means over-throwing the constitution.


No, when a state secedes it tells its residents that they no longer live in the same country as idiots like you.

The majority of people in a region cannot vote to revoke the constitutional rights of the rest of the people, this is a violation of due process, among much else.

I'm sure the that the vote to repeal prohibition would have been less than unanimous, but it happened.

After the ratification of the constitution, and especially after the horrors of secession in the civil war, the most accurate description of states is "province" or "administrative district."

In your opinion, not as defined by the constitution.

The majority of people in a region cannot vote to revoke the constitutional rights of the rest of the people, this is a violation of due process, among much else.


One, voting to secede does NOT revoke any rights; the new government can guarantee the same rights. All seceding does is make the state its own nation. Which is its right. If the founding fathers didn't believe in this right they wouldn't have seceded from Britain. Two, any law can be voted into or out of existence. Amendments can be repealed and the constitution can be changed.

.


If the founding fathers didn't believe in this right they wouldn't have seceded from Britain.

Excellent point.

When a state secedes, it claims that it has over-thrown the constitution and that its residents no longer have constitutional rights.

no, it doesn't. all that seceding means is that a state/region/locality will no longer be taking part in the current political union of such areas. it makes no comment at all about whether the seceding area will operate under a constitution or what set of rights will be recognized by it.

I'm sure the that the vote to repeal prohibition would have been less than unanimous, but it happened.


The constitution is very clear how amendments are ratified.

I've noticed that a lot of posters on this forum seem to disagree with the concept of states' rights on general principle. Why is that?
Assuming that basic civil rights are protected, what is the harm in allowing the states to handle their own domestic policies?
The only time I ever notice the idea of states rights being controlversial is when states try to violate civil rights.

There's also the issue that too much freedom for states could result in drastically different standards of living throughout the country.

In your opinion, not as defined by the constitution.


He is right that after the Civil War that is how is has been. But you are right that that is not how it is defined by the consitution. The Civil War changed the constitutional definition through force of arms instead of legally.

The constitution is very clear how amendments are ratified.

so were the articles of confederation

The constitution is very clear how amendments are ratified.

For sure, but secession is not a constitutional question.

.


One, voting to secede does NOT revoke any rights; the new government can guarantee the same rights. All seceding does is make the state its own nation. Which is its right. If the founding fathers didn't believe in this right they wouldn't have seceded from Britain. Two, any law can be voted into or out of existence. Amendments can be repealed and the constitution can be changed.


It revokes the rights to live under the system of government spelled out in the constitution.

For sure, but secession is not a constitutional question.

As long as secession abridges constitutional rights of those who live near the secessionists, it is a constitutional question.

I'm sure the that the vote to repeal prohibition would have been less than unanimous, but it happened.

I'm not seeing what the point here is. Could you explain this more? The result of the repealing prohibition was that it granted states the right to restrict achohol sales, and removed a federal ban on the substance. I see no correlation with this and sussession.

Woohoo, states' rights! :rolleyes:

Woohoo, centralized government! :rolleyes:

It revokes the rights to live under the system of government spelled out in the constitution.

there is such a right?

There's also the issue that too much freedom for states could result in drastically different standards of living throughout the country.


Indeed; imagine the horror if some states escaped the federal hegemony and improved their standards of living.

It revokes the rights to live under the system of government spelled out in the constitution.

As far as I know, the US constitution was never copyrighted by the federal govt., so they would have every right to keep it, if they chose

there is such a right?


Yup

As far as I know, the US constitution was never copyrighted by the federal govt., so they would have every right to keep it, if they chose


There is more to the constitution than the amendments.

I'm not seeing what the point here is. Could you explain this more? The result of the repealing prohibition was that it granted states the right to restrict achohol sales, and removed a federal ban on the substance. I see no correlation with this and sussession.

the correlation is that it was done by repealing on of the constitutional amendments, but you're right, it was a bit off to the side.

An increase in states' rights is only significant to the extent it allows them to violate the constitution.
Not necessarily.

The doctrine of states' rights does not really stand in opposition to the Constitution, nor even to the constitutional supremacy clause, which states that the federal Constitution and federal laws (etc.) trump State laws.

What the doctrine of states' rights fundamentally opposes is the doctrine of federal interpretive supremacy, which is NOT stated in the Constitution and which was invented more or less from whole cloth by John Marshall and his fellow Federalists.

This doctrine does one better than the Constitution's supremacy clause. It states that in addition to the Constitution's and federal law's supremacy over state law, the branches of the federal government are also the supreme interpreters of the Constitution, which is in itself a rather ambiguous and contradictory document.

And before you go leaping to the conclusion that this is the "only" way, or the "natural" way, to read the Constitution, consider that opposition to federal supremacy is implicit (and sometimes explicit) in the restraint sometimes demonstrated on the Supreme Court with respect to overturning state legislation. Frankfurter established the basic principles, the essence of which is that if the constitutional interpretation offered by the State is plausible or reasonable, then the Court will not overrule it... even if it is not the Court's preferred interpretation.

Yup

bullshit.

even if rights existed in some real sense, the right that is claimed to exist is the right of self-determination and self government, not the right to live under the current constitution of the united states of america.

you need to slow down and actually think all of this through - you're being sloppy and muddled.

There is more to the constitution than the amendments.

Oh, and Those are copyrighted. Now I get it!! :rolleyes:

Excellent point.

No, not really. The colonies seceeded from Britain due to an almost complete lack of representation in parliament. Most secessionists want to secede because they don't get their way(Usually), or they disagree with how the Constitution works against their own personal agenda.

It's been fun, gotta go to class.

the correlation is that it was done by repealing on of the constitutional amendments, but you're right, it was a bit off to the side.


It was done by ratifying and amendment which repealed another one.

Prohibition was not simply stricken from the constitution, and amendment was added to repeal it.

If an amendment were ratified permitting local majorities to revoke the constitutional rights of their neighbors, secession might pass constitutional muster.

And Roe vs. Wade doesn't grant a right to abortion. Check up on the ruling. It grants one to a right of privacy. Actually, it expands an existing privacy rights doctrine to include a right to abortion.

Oh, and Those are copyrighted. Now I get it!! :rolleyes:

...

What I'm talking about are articles I, II, III, and IV specifically.

No, not really. The colonies seceeded from Britain due to an almost complete lack of representation in parliament. Most secessionists want to secede because they don't get their way(Usually), or they disagree with how the Constitution works against their own personal agenda.


So? I am not trying to justify slavery or the southern secession, just the right to secession. The south seceded for the wrong reason, but that was their right. The north declared war and annexed a foriegn nation. It is as simple as that.

Actually, it expands an existing privacy rights doctrine to include a right to abortion.

Ah, true, however there are reasons other than a woman's right to abortion. It covers most (in not all) medical proceeders, including but not limiting to abortion. It set firmly that right to privacy exists, and that an abortions are protected under this.

It was about abortion-but not solely.

No, not really. The colonies seceeded from Britain due to an almost complete lack of representation in parliament. Most secessionists want to secede because they don't get their way(Usually), or they disagree with how the Constitution works against their own personal agenda.

so?

so?

Trying to say that the colonies seceeded from britain is quite a bit different than a state seceeding from the Union.

Trying to say that the colonies seceeded from britain is quite a bit different than a state seceeding from the Union.

because you approve of the motivations of the third of the population that supported that secession at the time?

because you approve of the motivations of the third of the population that supported that secession at the time?

No, not for that reason at all. The colonies had a lack of representation. Many "States Rights" people just don't like the fact that the Constitution works against them more often than not.

So in the end: It wasn't proving much of anything. Just an offshoot of the original topic.

There is more to the constitution than the amendments.

Show me where it says "thou shall not secede".

No, not for that reason at all. The colonies had a lack of representation. Many "States Rights" people just don't like the fact that the Constitution works against them more often than not.


So, in other words: Because you approve of the motivations of the third of the population that supported that secession at the time. I mean, come on. You have now implicitly stated that secession is not inherently bad. You are just saying that certain reasons are good and others aren't. I am not saying that is not reasonable, but it is what you are saying. On the other hand; whether or not the reason is good, it is the state's right to secede. Don't worry though, I doubt any state would actually do that if the federal government suddenly admitted they can. I would merely use it as a threat to make the federal government stop taking our basic rights away. (Example: The Patriot Act, which despite what the Democratic party says, is supported by both parties.)

Show me where it says "thou shall not secede".

Meh.

The document assumes throughout an indissovable union - "a more perfect Union."

See also Article IV, Sec. 1-4.

Texas v. White (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/74/700.html), 74 U.S. 700 (1868):

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and [74 U.S. 700, 725] arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that cthe people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,' and that 'without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.' 12 Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. [74 U.S. 700, 726] When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Edit: Moreover there is aRticle VI, supremacy clause.

The Constitution repeatedly invokes a union that is not unilateral. There is a total absence of any evidence that secession is allowed or provision for it in the Constitution.

Meh.

The document assumes throughout an indissovable union - "a more perfect Union."

though to be fair, the articles of confederation came right out and said "and the Union shall be perpetual". the authors of that were still alive when they effectively broke it up and tried again.

sometimes the perpetual union needs more perfecting than it's worth.

So, in other words: Because you approve of the motivations of the third of the population that supported that secession at the time. I mean, come on. You have now implicitly stated that secession is not inherently bad. You are just saying that certain reasons are good and others aren't. I am not saying that is not reasonable, but it is what you are saying. On the other hand; whether or not the reason is good, it is the state's right to secede. Don't worry though, I doubt any state would actually do that if the federal government suddenly admitted they can. I would merely use it as a threat to make the federal government stop taking our basic rights away. (Example: The Patriot Act, which despite what the Democratic party says, is supported by both parties.)

LOL.

First of all, of course some reasons for secession are better than others.

Second, the colonies were not part of a union with Great Britian. We did not seceed - we fought for independence.

Third, a state cannot simply take its marbles and go home anytime a majority of its citizens disagrees with a policy of the federal government. That would not only violate the rights of the citizens of that state, but would reek havoc on the system of federalism.

The argument for a right of secession was not just lost in the battlefields. It was lost in the Congress and in the US Supreme Court. It was lost in every conceivable way it could be lost.

though to be fair, the articles of confederation came right out and said "and the Union shall be perpetual". the authors of that were still alive when they effectively broke it up and tried again.

sometimes the perpetual union needs more perfecting than it's worth.

the union created by the confederation was perpetuated, by the more perfect union of the Constitution.

just because you would perfer a more decentralized government does not mean that such is consistent with our Constitution and history

Here is some more proof:



http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htmThis is really, really funny.

Had you read the remainder of that document (yes, the very one you just posted), you would have seen this:

In New York's convention, for instance, on July 24, 1788, Antifederalist John Lansing Jr. moved that a resolution be adopted giving New York the right to secede from the Union if certain amendments were not adopted within a certain number of years. Alexander Hamilton, who had anticipated such a proposal, had written to James Madison several days earlier and posed the question to him. Madison, in his capacity as a Congressman, had replied, indicating that Congress would not consider a conditional ratification to be valid. Hamilton read the letter to the convention, and Lansing's motion was defeated on the 25th by a vote of 31 to 28.[6]

So the right of secession claimed by Virginia and New York cannot be seen as "conditions" or amendments to the Constitutional proposal. If they were, those states' ratifications would have been rejected, as per Madison's letter.

How do you like the taste of your own foot?

Not six or seven probably, because I'm lazy, but consider legality of abortion, " " gay marriage, labor laws, environmental restrictions. You get the idea.(hopefully)

Um. If this is the best you can do, you ought to give up.

Abortion is a federal constitutional right.

What about gay marriage? Are you objecting to DOMA? States aren't currently forced to recognize gay marriage.

They should be, however. Marriage is a federal constitutional right. As is Equal Protection under the laws. There is also to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Labor laws and environmental protections at the federal level are more than justifiable.

In general I'm strongly in favor of states' rights.

Power in domestic, internal policy should be as decentralized as possible. People have a right to run their own lives, and local communities have a right to make their own laws.

There are exceptions, of course, mostly in civil rights issues, and any situation where the actions of one state can have a negative impact on another.

the union created by the confederation was perpetuated, by the more perfect union of the Constitution.

i don't know that i'd call it the same union at all - more of a different union involving many of the same actors, though with the independent republic of vermont joining up rather quickly and other new bits joining up later.

just because you would perfer a more decentralized government does not mean that such is consistent with our Constitution and history

well, i'm not personally too concerned about constitutionality (except where the constitution actually gets things generally right).

if the people of a region decided to peacefully secede from the u.s., then any attempt to stop them would be a massive violation of liberty and self determination, constitution be damned.

theres nothing like opressing people like the federal government deciding a law that affects the whole country when its only an issue in certain regions

Amen to that! For some reason, the year 1860 comes to mind??

Amen to that! For some reason, the year 1860 comes to mind??

In what way? That blacks only need to be free in certain regions of the country?

Second, the colonies were not part of a union with Great Britian. We did not seceed - we fought for independence.

Um, the colonies were as much a part of Britain as the states are of the United States.

Third, a state cannot simply take its marbles and go home anytime a majority of its citizens disagrees with a policy of the federal government. That would not only violate the rights of the citizens of that state, but would reek havoc on the system of federalism.

And states wouldn't do that. If they did every state would have seceded from the union long before 1860.

The argument for a right of secession was not just lost in the battlefields. It was lost in the Congress and in the US Supreme Court. It was lost in every conceivable way it could be lost.

How was it lost in Congress? Only by an amendment can they affect any such thing.

This is really, really funny.

Had you read the remainder of that document (yes, the very one you just posted), you would have seen this:
How do you like the taste of your own foot?

I agree, it is funny. Where you accused me of not reading on, you yourself didn't read on. Either that or you didn't understand it. Here is the material immediately following what you quoted:

The other conditions listed as presumed in the preamble to the Virginia ratification -- the inability of the federal government to interfere in free exercise of religion and the press -- were agreed by all, federalists included, to be beyond the power of the federal government.
The question was not whether such rights would exist under the new government, but whether the rights, specifically those of individuals, needed to be made explicit in a bill of rights.[7] Their being claimed in Virginia's ratification presented no obstacle to Virginia being accepted by Congress as the 10th state in the new union, because the powers claimed were consistent with the Constitution, as understood by those who drew it up and those who recommended it to the states for ratification. The right to secede claimed in the Virginia ratification has to be regarded in the same light.

In the 1787 debates in the constitutional ratification conventions of the various states, even those that did not make right of withdrawal explicit or implied in their articles of ratification were presented with a union that was anything but "inviolable." They looked to a union so well-made and so obviously mutually beneficial that it would prove inviolable. They did not make it so by threat of force.


Whose foot is in whose mouth?

Um, the colonies were as much a part of Britain as the states are of the United States.

Um. No they were not. India was not to Britian as New York is to the United States.

Look up the difference between "colonies" and "states"

And states wouldn't do that. If they did every state would have seceded from the union long before 1860.

Wouldn't or couldn't? Thank you for proving my point.

How was it lost in Congress? Only by an amendment can they affect any such thing.

You assume the Constitution provides for secession. You have shown no such thing and have ignored the evidence that the Constitution forbids secession without consent of the Union.

I agree, it is funny. Where you accused me of not reading on, you yourself didn't read on. Either that or you didn't understand it. Here is the material immediately following what you quoted:

Whose foot is in whose mouth?

Um. It is still hard to hear you speak through your toes.

There's nothing wrong with states' rights, as long as states' rights aren't put above civil rights.

Look up the difference between "colonies" and "states"

The difference is that states have more autonomy.

Wouldn't or couldn't? Thank you for proving my point.

Wouldn’t, you idiot. None of them tried before 1860.

You assume the Constitution provides for secession. You have shown no such thing and have ignored the evidence that the Constitution forbids secession without consent of the Union.

I have shown that it does. You have not shown this.

Um. It is still hard to hear you speak through your toes.

You obviously didn’t read what I just posted.

Um. No they were not. India was not to Britian as New York is to the United States.

Look up the difference between "colonies" and "states"

states and colonies may be administratively different, but both are definitely part of the country in question. especially the american colonies.

The difference is that states have more autonomy.

depends on the colony, really. for example, canada at various stages of history had quite a bit of autonomy despite it's colonial status.

depends on the colony, really. for example, canada at various stages of history had quite a bit of autonomy despite it's colonial status.

Pretty much since 1867. There were some things that they needed westminster to pass until 1982 (around then), but I don't believe that any request for a bill to the westminster parliament was ever refused.

Edit: Though I suppose they were techinically a dominion at that point, and not a colony.

i don't know that i'd call it the same union at all - more of a different union involving many of the same actors, though with the independent republic of vermont joining up rather quickly and other new bits joining up later.



well, i'm not personally too concerned about constitutionality (except where the constitution actually gets things generally right).

if the people of a region decided to peacefully secede from the u.s., then any attempt to stop them would be a massive violation of liberty and self determination, constitution be damned.

People do not have infinite "self determination," we have needed to establish a state and hold power over certain liberties for the overwhelming good of the overwhelming great majority.


People are free to "peaceably secede" as long as they dont violate any laws or do anything injurious to the US or to americans in doing so.

One way is to leave the country and go live somewhere else, another is to go live in the woods, so-called "off the grid."

Pretty much since 1867. There were some things that they needed westminster to pass until 1982 (around then), but I don't believe that any request for a bill to the westminster parliament was ever refused.

Edit: Though I suppose they were techinically a dominion at that point, and not a colony.

personally i'd say a dominion is a colony. but even ruling it out, there was still a whole lot of self government going on before that.

Whose foot is in whose mouth?Yours, still.

Your original quotation claimed that Virginia and New York had established a right of secession as a "contractual" reservation by making it a "condition" of ratification. Since the passage I quoted demonstrated that there were no conditional ratifications, you lose.

The latter passage that you quote makes the much less convincing argument that a right to secession, like a right to self-determination in matters of religion, was merely "consistent" with the original Constitution. This is a matter of interpretation, not contractual history... and it would seem that the controlling interpretation has been Marshall's Federalist one.

Try not to bite too hard.

Your original quotation claimed that Virginia and New York had established a right of secession as a "contractual" reservation by making it a "condition" of ratification. Since the passage I quoted demonstrated that there were no conditional ratifications, you lose.


The point is that no one EVER told these states they didn't have that right. Besides, secession is not forbidden in the consitution, and is therefore not illegal. The Tenth Amendment gives this power to the states.

The point is that no one EVER told these states they didn't have that right. Besides, secession is not forbidden in the consitution, and is therefore not illegal. The Tenth Amendment gives this power to the states.Clearly you need a serious education in the Tenth Amendment.

No government action has ever been ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment alone... because this is not what the Tenth Amendment was supposed to do.

It was supposed to do one, and only one thing: namely, to contradict the argument that the States lack certain powers just because the Constitution fails to name them; or that Congress possesses powers just because they are not forbidden by the Constitution.

In other words, when Congress considers some action the constitutionality of which is questionable, and some Member of Congress says, "It doesn't say we can't"... the Tenth Amendment gives force to the rebuttal, "that doesn't mean we can."

Of course, it is still possible that Congress can do just what they were contemplating, within the scope of the necessary and proper clause. But they will need to find a better argument than "it doesn't say we can't."

Since Congress has "implied powers," and these powers are (by way of supremacy clause) over and above similar powers held by the states, it follows that there are "implied restrictions" on the states, as well.

The Tenth Amendment does not reserve any specific powers to the States. It simply acts as a check on the argument that lack of prohibition implies actual authorization. It was never meant to do anything else.