I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I kept forgetting to actually do so.

The Republican party, often touted as being in favour of States' Rights, has been in control of the Federal government for quite some time now.

What rights have the States (re)gained in that time? What rights have they lost?

Is the Republican party REALLY pushing for States' Rights, as they claim?

Is the Republican party REALLY pushing for States' Rights, as they claim?

No.


Not that it matters. 'States Rights' is a long outdated idea, anyway; it's only beneficial to local organized crime syndicates and the politicians who get a cut for protecting them. It never was anything but a 'good ole boy' system of serfdom, exactly like the feudal baronies of yore, in actual practice. The amazing 'election system' in this country is a prime case for stripping states from running their own elections.

"States Rights" ... the ghost of George Wallace still haunts

Yes. With the additions of Alito and Roberts there was a huge advance towards returning to the states their traditional rights regarding abortion (baby killing) to name JUST ONE ISSUE.

Giving power back to the states means the federal government loses power. And neither party wants that. For the most part, the left removes states rights by federalizing social issues, while the right wants to removes states rights by federalizing economic issues. Both will eventually lead to tyranny.

"States Rights" ... the ghost of George Wallace still haunts

Not to mention the rapist and murderer Strom Thurmond, and Richard Daley, Scoop Jackson, and many, many other stellar examples of 'States Rights' travesties.

It's hilarious anybody actually thinks 'States Rights' made us all 'free from government interference' ... there's certainly no evidence at all it ever promoted anybody's rights, other than well connected criminals who preyed on citizens, and who got to hide all sorts of violent crimes and grand thefts behind that rubrick, and still do.

Both will eventually lead to tyranny.

It's true. One party wants to eliminate half our freedom, and the other party wants to eliminate the other half. We bounce back and forth and each one gains a little more ground.

We amended the constitution and solved the civil rights issue quite some time ago. There are a great many federal programs that the states could and should control that the federal government won't relinquish. The size and scope of the federal government is directly related to the reduction of states rights. The removal of states rights only pushes crime and corruption to a higher, larger, more powerful and uncrontollable level of government. The idea is for the states and the people to have the power that the constitution doesn't grant to the feds.

States having more power than the federal government? What a scary idea being the federal government does such a great job when it comes to financial discipline.

On a more serious side: The federal government needs to be stripped of many of it's powers before it can destroy every citizen financially. The framers wanted the power to flow from the states to a central government not the other way around.

The party not in control of the federal government becomes the states' rights party.

why am i so smart

At least when power is put in the hands of individual states, there is some diversity. If you don't like the laws of one state you can move to another.
When the Federal Government controls everything, there is no diversity in laws or opinion. There is only what "they" will allow.
I'd much rather take my chances with states' rights.

why am i so smart:scratch:

The party not in control of the federal government becomes the states' rights party.That seems to be the case at least for the Republicans. When the Dems run the federal government, the Reps complain about the central government usurping state's powers. But, when the Republicans control the federal government, I don't hear anyone espousing state's rights.

Personally, I think we need to return the government to only the roles specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

The farther away the policy makers are from the results of their policies, the less sense the policies will make. That's why local gov'ts should have as much of the government's power as possible, and the federal gov't should have as little as possible.

Of course, some civil rights should be absolute, and local gov'ts shouldn't have the option of taking them away.


But both parties tend to get excited when they get control of the federal gov't, and states' rights quickly become a second priority behind "solving" everyone's problems.

I think someone is confusing Strom Thurmond with ex-president BJ Clinton.

I've been meaning to post this for awhile, but I kept forgetting to actually do so.

The Republican party, often touted as being in favour of States' Rights, has been in control of the Federal government for quite some time now.

What rights have the States (re)gained in that time? What rights have they lost?

Is the Republican party REALLY pushing for States' Rights, as they claim?
Without an enumeration on hand, it's hard to judge, honestly. Offhand, I'd say the GOP's record regarding federalism is something of a mixed bag. There's been quite a bit of things the Congress has passed that have not been keeping in the spirit of federalism. As long as the broad interpretation of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 stands, we will see federalism continue to diminish.

However, with regards to Bush's judicial appointments, and subsequent confirmations by the Senate, I'd say that there have been steps taken in the right direction.

I really can't see how Republicans can be the state's rights party when they were the party that obliterated the whole idea of state's rights by going outside the constitution with Abe Lincoln.

I really can't see how Republicans can be the state's rights party when they were the party that obliterated the whole idea of state's rights by going outside the constitution with Abe Lincoln.

You might want to look at those history books again and see that it was some southern states that left the union.

The Civil War definitely decided that issue of states' rights.

States don't have the right to secede, with the exception (I think) of Texas.

You might want to look at those history books again and see that it was some southern states that left the union.

The Civil War definitely decided that issue of states' rights.

States don't have the right to secede, with the exception (I think) of Texas.

What part of the Constitution forbids secession? You had better crack open a history book and see what the conditions were when ratifying the Constitution during the Constitutional Convention. States were not surrendering all their rights to the federal government or giving up their sovereignty in order to enter a Union in which they could not leave. If this was the case the Constitution would have never been ratified.

So the civil war decided states rights? It was decided outside the constitution and the Tenth Amendment has not been annulled it's ignored. It's still valid.

[QUOTE]What part of constitution forbids session?

What part allows it?


You had better crack open a history book and see what the conditions were when ratifying the Constitution
during the Constitutional Convention. States were not surrendering all their rights to the federal government or giving up their sovereignty in order to enter a Union in which they could not leave. If this was the case the Constitution would have never been ratified.

None of this matters.

The issue was ambiguous and now it is decided>

You don't want to fight the civil war again do you?

So the civil war decided states rights?

Nope. Settled the issue of whether or not states could secede.


It was decided outside the constitution and the Tenth Amendment has not been annulled it's ignored. It's still valid.

I am not arguing it.

here is the 10th:

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.

[QUOTE=CrazyHorse]

What part allows it?

Nothing. There is nothing that says the act in itself is forbidden or illegal.


None of this matters.

Yes none of this matters. The Constitutional Convention was just one big ambiguous charade and the Constitution is just a myth.

The issue was ambiguous and now it is decided

No. The issue is ignored by way of interpretation of the Constitution.

You don't want to fight the civil war again do you?

No I don't. The federal government has no right to use force to keep other states in the union that is a myth. For example the states that composed New England threatened to leave the union a couple of times and it was determined that federal power would not be used to force them back into the union if they should secede. (the south was different because at that time they were generating 80% federal government's income(cotton tariffs). they saw little of the revenue they were generating. There was incentive to keep them in)


Nope. Settled the issue of whether or not states could secede.

Did it? Where's the amendment that forbids it?(states need to ratify it BTW)


I am not arguing it.

here is the 10th:

Not arguing it either. Just pointing out to you the civil war did not get rid of the constitutionality of states' rights

Nothing. There is nothing that says the act in itself is forbidden or illegal.

What 'act'? We are, well really you are, basing your argument upon the 10th amendment.



Yes none of this matters. The Constitutional Convention was just one big ambiguous charade and the Constitution is just a myth.

If you really want to get all picky then the Constitutional Convention violated the law of the land.



No. The issue is ignored by way of interpretation of the Constitution.

How would YOU have it interpreted?

Would you interpret the tenth amendment to allow secession?


No I don't. The federal government has no right to use force to keep other states in the union that is a myth. For example the states that composed New England threatened to leave the union a couple of times and it was determined that federal power would not be used to force them back into the union if they should secede. (the south was different because at that time they were generating 80% federal government's income(cotton tariffs). they saw little of the revenue they were generating. There was incentive to keep them in)

The fact is that, secession as it relates to "states' rights" has been resolved.




Did it? Where's the amendment that forbids it?(states need to ratify it BTW)

Need to ratify what? The 10th amendment?

That has been ratified. But you are making the argument that one of the rights reserved to the states, is the right to secede, and you are basing that upon the existence of the 10th.

The Civil War had already been fought when the rebel states were allowed back in. From that perspective the right to secede issue has been settled.




Not arguing it either. Just pointing out to you the civil war did not get rid of the constitutionality of states' rights

I haven't said they did. As a matter of fact the GMA is a violation of the principle of states' rights that the Republicans pay lip service to when they talk about abortion.

States have rights. I say that the Civil War resolved that the states, with the exception of Texas, do not have the right to secede.

What 'act'? We are, well really you are, basing your argument upon the 10th amendment.

No. When it comes to secession I'm basing my argument on there is nothing the Constitution that forbids it.


If you really want to get all picky then the Constitutional Convention violated the law of the land.

Well if you really want to get all picky the Constitutional Convention is what produced and ratified the Constitution.(at this point I have to ask are you aware of this because it does not sound like it) So the very event that produced the Constitution violated the law of the land?



How would YOU have it interpreted?

How would I interpret the 10th? Powers not delegated or given in the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.

Would you interpret the tenth amendment to allow secession?

You need to go back and read my posts again. I'm not basing the right of secession on the 10th amendment. I'm basing it on that there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it and what was agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention when the states formed the federal government.


The fact is that, secession as it relates to "states' rights" has been resolved.

Has it? Secession can be done without war. It can't? Look to our neighbor in the north. How did they handle secession a few years ago?(i.e. Quebec). There is nothing in their constitution that forbids secession. Rather than using war to keep Quebec part of Canada a more peaceful solution was used:voter referendum in Quebec.


Need to ratify what? The 10th amendment?

Ratify an amendment that specifically states that secession from the union is not allowed.

That has been ratified.

Where in the Constitution? What amendment forbids secession?


But you are making the argument that one of the rights reserved to the states, is the right to secede, and you are basing that upon the existence of the 10th.

First of all let's get one thing straight since you seem to be stuck in a loop when it comes to my argument: I'm not basing my argument on a state's right to secede on the 10th amendment. That right(10th amendment not secession) are theirs when they remain in the union. That amendment is ignored. Again: There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids secession. During the Constitutional Convention the states were only delegating some of their power to the federal government(with the understanding that power could be taken back) Some states went as far as to say that they would only ratify the Constitution if it was understood that they reserve the right to leave the union.

The Civil War had already been fought when the rebel states were allowed back in. From that perspective the right to secede issue has been settled.

You need to crack open a history book again because the states that rebelled were not allowed back into the union during Reconstruction(Re-destruction) for a period of time.

The issue of secession has not been resolved because there is nothing in the Constitution that addresses it. Lincoln and the federal government went outside the constitution to bring about a change in power. In doing so they destroyed the government of the framers. He reversed the polarity of power.
Instead of flowing from the states(as intended) to the federal government with the balance of power remaining with states it was reversed with a Union victory.


The issue can only be resolved according to and within the confines of our Constitutional process not with war.



States have rights. I say that the Civil War resolved that the states, with the exception of Texas, do not have the right to secede.

So you admit the issue was not decided by the Constitution but with war. Might makes right not the Constitution. So you would advocate doing the same and not what Canada did a few years ago? Remember: It's what you say not what the Constitution says.

No. When it comes to secession I'm basing my argument on there is nothing the Constitution that forbids it.

And I am asserting that the issue was resolved as a consequence of the Civil War.




Well if you really want to get all picky the Constitutional Convention is what produced and ratified the Constitution.(at this point I have to ask are you aware of this because it does not sound like it) So the very event that produced the Constitution violated the law of the land?


Yes. Under the Articles of the Confederation, it was.


How would I interpret the 10th? Powers not delegated or given in the Constitution to the federal government belong to the states.

And there is, as you say, no where in the constitution forbiding the secession, yet also there is no where that allows it either. AND the Civil War solved that particular aspect of the states' rights issue.



You need to go back and read my posts again. I'm not basing the right of secession on the 10th amendment. I'm basing it on that there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it and what was agreed upon at the Constitutional Convention when the states formed the federal government.

And there is nothing that allows it either.


Has it? Secession can be done without war. It can't? Look to our neighbor in the north. How did they handle secession a few years ago?(i.e. Quebec). There is nothing in their constitution that forbids secession. Rather than using war to keep Quebec part of Canada a more peaceful solution was used:voter referendum in Quebec.

Wait? Is Canada now under the US constitutional law?

AND did Quebec secede? AND had they voted to secede would that have been the end of it?

And I am asserting that the issue was resolved as a consequence of the Civil War.

Yes that definitely is an assertion because it was not decided by the Constitution it was decided outside the Constitution which gives it no sanction or constitutionality.



Yes. Under the Articles of the Confederation, it was.

So you mean to tell me the Constitution is not a valid document to begin with? I have news for you it was ratified with consent of the states replacing the Articles of Confederation


And there is, as you say, no where in the constitution forbidding the secession, yet also there is no where that allows it either. AND the Civil War solved that particular aspect of the states' rights issue.

Again did it? So war is the arbitor of such disputes not the Constitution. Why even have the Constitution if that's the case just have war.


And there is nothing that allows it either.

There is nothing that forbids or allows it just like the Canadian Constitution.
When the issue came up the Canadian federal government did not threaten to invade Quebec. The issue was resolved within the confines of their political process not with war . So is war the only way to resolve secession should it become an issue in this country again?



Wait? Is Canada now under the US constitutional law?

No it is not. Did they use war to solve the issue of secession? (Your missing my point entirely. They acted within the confines of their political process)

AND did Quebec secede? AND had they voted to secede would that have been the end of it?

So the Canadian government would invade if Quebec voted to secede from Canada? I doubt it. Many English speaking Canadians would have been happy to see them go and would not be motivated to fight a war over it. Many parties in Quebec still advocate secession. The issue has still not gone away.

Who gives a shit about Canada in a discussion about states' rights?

Who gives a shit about Canada in a discussion about states' rights?

Who gives a shit about carrying on a conversation with someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

No. When it comes to secession I'm basing my argument on there is nothing the Constitution that forbids it. I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I don't think secession is necessarily "forbidden"...however, there is no Constitutional mechanism which allows it. There is no procedure for it. There is a procedure for a state to join the union...but none for it to leave. How should this be handled? It seems that it would (and should) be very complicated. You'd need to have approval of the State legislature or a refurendum. Then, I would think the other states would also need to approve. Our federal government is supposed to be a collection of states...rather than a division of the whole landmass into smaller provinces.

Then there are the issues of commerce between the remaining states and the seceeded states...water rights...national defense (just about every state has at least one US government military base)...etc.

I think the only peaceful way to seceed would be to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, if you can fight a war against the Union and win, you can pretty much do anything you want.

Who gives a shit about carrying on a conversation with someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

Well that is what I thought when you repeatedly introduced the subject of Canada into American states' rights.

Last I checked Canada is not a part of the US and using that as an example demonstrates your inability to form an argument that matters,.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you. I don't think secession is necessarily "forbidden"...however, there is no Constitutional mechanism which allows it. There is no procedure for it. There is a procedure for a state to join the union...but none for it to leave. How should this be handled? It seems that it would (and should) be very complicated. You'd need to have approval of the State legislature or a refurendum. Then, I would think the other states would also need to approve. Our federal government is supposed to be a collection of states...rather than a division of the whole landmass into smaller provinces.

Then there are the issues of commerce between the remaining states and the seceeded states...water rights...national defense (just about every state has at least one US government military base)...etc.

I think the only peaceful way to seceed would be to amend the Constitution. Otherwise, if you can fight a war against the Union and win, you can pretty much do anything you want.

I have stated in other posts the issue should be done within the confines of a Constitutional process as you state in your post. How should it be handled since there is nothing to forbid it? I think Quebec serves as an example because just like our Constitution the Canadian Constitution there is nothing that forbids it. Water rights, issues of commerce are not impossible to work out. The federal government should not use force against citizens of a state if they choose to do this when the issue most definitely can be decided in a different way. One of the ways you mention is in your post. If you go back to the Constitutional Convention it was not about states consigning their rights and sovernity to the federal government to form a union. No state was agreeing to enter a union in which they could not leave. That would imply union by way of force. That would of been something they would have never agreed to.

Well that is what I thought when you repeatedly introduced the subject of Canada into American states' rights.

Last I checked Canada is not a part of the US and using that as an example demonstrates your inability to form an argument that matters,.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of knowledge and history with things like the Constitutional Convention does not matter. The Constitutional Convention was forbidden under the "Articles of the Confederation".BTW it's "Articles of Confederation". The war decided that issue(sucession was not being based on the 10th amendment) of states' rights:

The Civil War definitely decided that issue of states' rights

I arrest my case because the above quote sounds like someone who has no idea or knowledge of the 10th amendment or states' rights.

You have repeatedly demonstrated your lack of knowledge and history with things like the Constitutional Convention does not matter. The Constitutional Convention was forbidden under the "Articles of the Confederation".BTW it's "Articles of Confederation". The war decided that issue(sucession was not being based on the 10th amendment) of states' rights:



I arrest my case because the above quote sounds like someone who has no idea or knowledge of the 10th amendment or states' rights.


Hey why don't you bring up how Zimbabwe runs its affairs as analogous to the debate of states' rights in the United States of America...

because it is just as salient.

Hey why don't you bring up how Zimbabwe runs its affairs as analogous to the debate of states' rights in the United States of America...

because it is just as salient.

Hey why don't you bring up more bogus factoids to support your argument?

I have stated in other posts the issue should be done within the confines of a Constitutional process as you state in your post. How should it be handled since there is nothing to forbid it?If the founders intended for States to be allowed to leave after joining, don't you think they would have included at least some discussion of that in the Constitution? I mean, they dedicated space to the process used to admit states to the Union. Didn't they?

The other point being...most of the land in this country was the property of the federal government prior to being settled, divided into smaller territories and then applying for statehood. The Louisiana Territory is a perfect example. The federal government purchased the land from France. American citizens settled those lands and divided the territory up. States like Illinois were originally part of that tract. When the Illinois territory met the requirements for statehood, the process given in the Constitution was followed...and it was admitted. Are you saying that now that land that originally belonged to the federal government can now just be declared a separate nation? That seems a little strange to me...

I think Quebec serves as an example because just like our Constitution the Canadian Constitution there is nothing that forbids it.What happens in Canada is not my concern. I am not familiar with their Constitution. Also, their interpretation of their Constitution has no force on how we interpret ours. It never should.