How far do you support States' Rights?

Edit: Why did I put this in Slug Fest??? I meant to put it in US Politics...

Is this a black and white question? For those who support states' rights, is it across the board? I've seen several people here who make a point to support states' rights. Where does that end? If you support states' rights, is it 100%?

Some questions to consider...

If Maryland wants to get together and, let's say, outlaw dog racing, is that ok?

If Washington state decides it wants to legalize marijuana for personal use, do you have a problem with that?

If New York wants to legalize gay marriage, but Oklahoma doesn't want to recognize it, it that ok with you?

And considering the fact that marriage (heterosexual) is already a states' right, would you support it if Ohio decided not to recognize Indiana's (het) marriages?

Just curious, really.

Just for reference:

The 10th Amendment states: "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."

So, how strong do you feel about states' rights ?


[edit on 5-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

In my case, yes I support states rights 100%, if not more. I would agree with every example you presented and even go as far as to say that the states should have the right of Nullification if the federal law in question is not related to the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

A sate is bound to follow the laws of the republic (constitution) so long as that state is a willing member of the that republic. It must be kept in mind, however, that the federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. People have a tendency to forget this and treat the state/federal relationship as if it was the federal government that granted jurisdiction over geographical areas to the states.

The states, of course, are superior to the feds within their own state, and if irreconcilable differences occur, and a state cannot persuade the other members of the union to see things it's way, then the people of that state have every right to end the relationship between the state and the union.

Anything else is slavery (yes, Lincoln enslaved the people of the south.)

In all the cases you listed, I support the State's right to set its own policy. The commerce clause has been way over expanded.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
In all the cases you listed, I support the State's right to set its own policy.

Where do you not support it? Where is your 'line'? What about Oregon's current situation? Do you support their right to physician-assisted suicide?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Where do you not support it? Where is your 'line'? What about Oregon's current situation? Do you support their right to physician-assisted suicide?

I support Oregon's law.

The only place where the Feds should impose laws is within the confines of what is explicitly laid out as the dutied of Congress in the Constitution -- coining money, declaring war, controlling interstate and international commerce, etc.

Originally posted by cavscout
A sate is bound to follow the laws of the republic (constitution) so long as that state is a willing member of the that republic. It must be kept in mind, however, that the federal government is a creation of the states, not the other way around. People have a tendency to forget this and treat the state/federal relationship as if it was the federal government that granted jurisdiction over geographical areas to the states.

Precisely, which is why I very much support state's rights. In parliamentary countries, federal government grants jurisdiction over geographical area to the provinces. It has never been this way in America and it should never be.

No matter how much the feds currently are trying to change the old ways never forget how it really works, and don't even forget your power is/should be greater then the federal goveernments.

This is part of the great experiment.

and a state cannot persuade the other members of the union to see things it's way, then the people of that state have every right to end the relationship between the state and the union.

I love the politics in this country. It's so rich and delightful to partake in.

Originally posted by TrueLies
I love the politics in this country. It's so rich and delightful to partake in.

Couldn’t agree more. I can't stand those who shun discussion of politics for fear of disturbing the herd. Other than religion (my second favorite topic) what is more important than the health of your nation?

You can tell anyone who refuses to discuss politics and religion that cavscout from Las Vegas Nevada said that they are a damn yellow coward
!

Food for thought:

IMHO we have to determine what rights the states have to set. Can the state choose to not recognize the rights of the citizens as long as they are living decently in the pursuit of happiness? It that not a declaration of bias, a show of prejudice? Discrimination?

Can they say we won't recognize gay marriages of another state, but will recognize heterosexual marriages from that state?

Obviously much of what they deal with is like being crazy. One is either crazy are one is not. (Although one can be crazy in Utah and not crazy in Wyoming at the same time as Gerry Spense says in his book And Justice For None.)

So the question is can the state set their own limits? It would apear they can overstep the constitution even when limits are imposed pronouncing it good of the majority.



[edit on 7-10-2005 by garyo1954]

I am an extremely staunch supporter of states rights. I do not believe that the United States Constitution gives the federal government the authority to regulate any internal matter within a state which does not have a clear and direct bearing either on another state or on the United States as a whole, or some other nation.

I view the federal government as being very much like what the UN was intended to be- a uniting and mediating force between sovreign states, and the organ of policies and undertakings which the several states could not or do not wish to undertake unilaterally.

The social contract whereby citizens submit themselves to the restrictions of certain laws in exchange for the protection of those laws, in my interpretation of the constitution, ultimately rests with the state government.

The stereotypical "shrinking" of the world in the information age does leave its impression on my views. Commerce is broader and more intricate, and therefore the commerce clause extends federal authority to levels that our founding fathers were unlikely to have imagined, yet in principle I support that. It is unwise for states to impose separate standards for products in the form of price caps, prescribed gasoline blends, or virtually any other manner which will separate them from the general economic demand of the nation a whole, thus affecting prices across the nation. If Americans are a family, and not fairweather friends, we must partake of the same plate in feast or famine. This is axiomatic; I doubt the logic of any argument to the effect that such policies are harmful to our union.

Matters affecting the individual state alone however, not having a bearing on the economy, infrastructure, or legitimate policies of the nation as a whole (that is to say, social matters), are subject only to the absolute liberty of the individual state, or where protected by either state or federal constitution, of the individual citizen. There is no justification for a morality, custom, or point of view embraced by 49 states to be thrust upon the 50th. Having recently read John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, and finding Mill's logic quite sound, I feel more keenly aware of the dangers of such tyranny of the majority than ever before. Why should the trial of an idea be prevented among people who find it desireable, when that trial will either prove the prevailing view and chastise those who dissent elsewhere, or will prove the merits of the idea for those who once thought it ill-advised?

In am a strict constructionist in my view of the constitution, I am a federalist, I am a patriot, and as a consequence of these positions, I am a states' rights advocate. I believe the US Constitution, in it's literal interpretation, could potentially be one of the most ingenious plans for government ever devised; I wish somebody would try it.

Originally posted by garyo1954
Food for thought:

IMHO we have to determine what rights the states have to set. Can the state choose to not recognize the rights of the citizens as long as they are living decently in the pursuit of happiness? It that not a declaration of bias, a show of prejudice? Discrimination?

The states can only have their own rights if they are not already taken care of in the constitution. For example, one state cannot make free speech illegal because that would be in contrast to the constitution. Can you give an example of your question here?

Can they say we won't recognize gay marriages of another state, but will recognize heterosexual marriages from that state?

Interesting question and my first response would be yes, I would think so. They have the option now to not recognize any marriages of any other states, but they don't take that option. But I'm sure many states wouldn't be willing to recognize gay marriage from another state.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
I believe the US Constitution, in it's literal interpretation, could potentially be one of the most ingenious plans for government ever devised; I wish somebody would try it.

All I can say is "right on"!

In regards to the homosexual marriages, it does get a little trickier:

(source)

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

(also, the source above has a great breakdown of the Consitution here)

My interpretation of this section is that it makes two points:
1) Every state must recognize the records of the other states in the union, and
2) Congress can legislate how those records are established and what those records mean.

Please, by all means correct me if I'm incorrect in reading the section as that, but I'm going to continue assuming I'm interpreting it reasonably well.

My understanding of this is that, if New York issues a marriage license to a gay couple, Oklahoma has to recognize them as a married couple regardless of whether Oklahoma allows gay marriages or not.

Likewise, if Texas requires someone to be 35 to obtain a drivers license, but Kansas allows 12 year olds to drive, then a 12 year old with a Kansas driver's license can't be held for driving without a valid license. There may be other laws that would prevent the kid from driving, but they won't get a ticket for no license.

Now, the part I'm kind of unsure on is that it seems the second part of the section states that Congress has the power to legislate whether or not gay marriages can exist, or whether Kansas can issue a driver's license to a 12 year old. This seems to me to be completely contrary to the concept of state's rights, but that's my interpretation of it. I'd really like some other opinions of it, to see where I stand in that interpretation.

As far as my personal opinion goes, I'm also a supporter for state's rights as long as they don't conflict with the "rules of the game", the Constitution. I also feel that every state should have the right to secede from the union at their own whim, as long as they know it'll be difficult or impossible to get back in at a later time. My philosophy has always been that it's better to play with those who want to, than to force people to stay on your team.

I don't see any problem with Oregon's law. If someone is wanting to die, they're going to do it and it's better for them to get help from someone who know's what they're doing. I've heard too many horror stories of someone pulling the trigger and missing, or trying to OD on the wrong kind of drug, and the person ends up as a vegetable. Yes, everyone has the right to life, but doesn't everyone have the ability to waive their rights as they see fit?

I've never understood the anti-euthanasia perspectives; it's not like we're talking about a bunch of doctors getting together to perform a mass-murder on unsuspecting victims. It's about people who are in pain with no way out wanting to end it. If the majority of the problem is the religious implications against "murder" and suicide, then I say leave it up to the higher power for sorting it out as long as both parties enter into it willingly.

Originally posted by MCory1
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Full faith and credit is tricky on these matters, and it is possible that, depending on the view taken their by the courts, a federal law or even constitutional amendment may be necessary to ultimately clarify the extent of "full faith and credit".
My interpretation is that states may not reconsider the validity of another states actions.
For example, a fugitive could not flee from one state, and have the state to which he flees declare that he is innocent.

The holder of an Arizona driver's license may drive under that license in California for a short period of time before he is required to obtain a California driver's license. California can not revoke his Arizona driver's license, no matter how horrible of a driver he is (although they might keep him from driving by other means if the law provides for that).

If a person who normally lives and works in a state where gay marriage is legal is transfered to work temporarily in California, California may not tax them their income from California as if they were unmarried.

But, as with a drivers license, could California theoretically pass a law requiring them to be married under California law if they intended to reside in and be subject to the laws of California for an extended period of time? Considering the precedent set by drivers licenses, I do not see this as entirely out of the question, though congress would have final authority over that question if they chose to excercise it.

One more item to consider: Marriage, in and of itself, as a religious, moral, or romantic institution (however you see it) is an absolute right which the government makes no serious attempt to abridge. Does, however, the legal status and associated benefits also qualify as such? Is there really any material change in two people's lives when they become married, other than the potential to have a family? Beyond that, is there any significant difference between a married couple and a dating couple which justifies separate treatment under the law? Might it not then be argued, hypothetically, that there is nothing inherently wrong, much less illegal or unconstitutional, with making the benefits provided to married couples in consideration of their potential to have a family contingent upon actually having that potential?
In short, I believe the whole issue could be sorted out by striking the word marriage from law and inserting, as deemed appropriate by the law makers, either "codependent partners" (a legal analog to marriage established either by declaration or by a certain set of conditions, not unlike common-law marriage), or in other cases with a term such as "partners who have, intend to have, or retain the option of having children" (on that one I would set a time limit, so that if you didn't actually have the kids after say, 10 years together, it was assumed you weren't really saving up to start a family and you stopped getting the benefits).

I'll elaborate later if I have left any flaws or obscurities. I am on a bit of a time limit at the moment.

Not only do I support states rights 100%; I think it should be extended to the county level, even the village level. Extreme you say, the pueblos in my part of the country worked this way even before there was a USA, and still do.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Edit: Why did I put this in Slug Fest??? I meant to put it in US Politics...

Is this a black and white question? For those who support states' rights, is it across the board? I've seen several people here who make a point to support states' rights. Where does that end? If you support states' rights, is it 100%?

When a minority's basic rights are in danger, or etc. (severe cases), the feds should step in, or the state in the case of local governments, I think. Minorities shouldn't be dominated by the majorities when it involves cancelling out the basic freedoms of minorities.

If Maryland wants to get together and, let's say, outlaw dog racing, is that ok?

No. It doesn't hurt anyone (or anything), and if everyone agreed that it was somehow wrong, then there would be no reason to pass such a law anyway. Someone is having a freedom taken away for a stupid reason.

If Washington state decides it wants to legalize marijuana for personal use, do you have a problem with that?

No problem with that. This would simply be repealing a law that limited freedom. Marijuana is not that bad, especially in the face of tobacco/nicotine and alcohol.

If New York wants to legalize gay marriage, but Oklahoma doesn't want to recognize it, it that ok with you?

Not if people in Oklahoma are upset by such a decision limiting what they can and can not do when it comes to such a personal issue.

And considering the fact that marriage (heterosexual) is already a states' right, would you support it if Ohio decided not to recognize Indiana's (het) marriages?

Not if people in Ohio are upset by such a decision limiting what they can and can not do when it comes to such a personal issue.

Originally posted by bsbray11

If Maryland wants to get together and, let's say, outlaw dog racing, is that ok?

No. It doesn't hurt anyone (or anything), and if everyone agreed that it was somehow wrong, then there would be no reason to pass such a law anyway. Someone is having a freedom taken away for a stupid reason.

There is a huge animal rights controversy about dog racing. For many years, most of the dogs were simply slaughtered when their racing career was through. Now, though, most dogs are either adopted, bred or put back on the farm. There are still dogs killed, though. There is a whole anti-racing activist movement that wishes to outlaw dog racing because of how some of the dogs are treated. Dog racing is actually illegal in most states.

Greyhound racing is now illegal in 34 states. Six states, Idaho, Maine, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, have banned greyhound racing in the past seven years.

So does your answer still stand?

Meh, personally I would rather the dogs not be slaughtered. But yeah, that does change the case a bit. If a state decides such then I don't guess I'd have any problem with it as long as it was to protect animal abuse and not simply because some people think gambling is wrong, for example. It's making laws on a basis of difference of opinion that I think is stupid (that inhibit freedom when no one or nothing is hurt, I mean - some dogs are obviously harmed in this case).

[edit on 7-10-2005 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is a huge animal rights controversy about dog racing.

Sorry, animals don't have rights. If they did, they would not supercede the rights of humans. Same with trees, birds or anything else nature worshipers put above the interest of humans.

That said, I do think it deplorable that a person would treat a dog that way. That, however, still does not put the welfare of any animal above that of any human.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If a state decides such then I don't guess I'd have any problem with it as long as it was to protect animal abuse and not simply because some people think gambling is wrong, for example.

Sorry, but that was a bit of a loaded example to see just how far people REALLY support states' rights. It seems that most people support them as long as the rights don't cross their own personal line of beliefs or what's right and wrong.

If you really support states' rights 100%, that means you support a state to make it's own laws on certain issues, even if you disagree personally, doesn't it? And I suspect that's why some of the most vocal advocates of states' rights are absent from this thread. Because although they espouse states' rights, that all gets thrown in the trash if a state wants to do something against their own morals or beliefs.

It's something to think about.

I support states' rights 100%, by the way. Even if I'm against a certain practice (say, the death penalty) I still support the right of states (and I do mean the people of that state) to decide that for themselves

Well, I suppose what I support is as much freedom as possible then. It wouldn't make any difference to me whether a law was federal, state or local if it invaded my privacy or took legal rights from me: I'd be pissed any way.