Are States' Rights already again being usurped!?

Powers reserved to the States as James Madison put it best, are "infinite" while the powers to the Federal Government is "few and enumerated."

However if you could enumerate any powers to the States one of them would be the power to "Provide for public health, safety, and morals."

The emphasis on morals.

Is the Federal Supreme Courts deciding what morals a State should follow (teach evolution, don't say under god in the constitution, don't have anti-sodomy laws.) a direct violation from this obvious power to the States?

I think it is, it is a shame so many Americans today are so dead-brained that they actually probably agree with this Federal example of Unconstitutionality.

However we nobel few who still understand what this nation was meant to be and why it was created to be such, should no longer tollerate such blatant use of Federal power.

Spread the word, Freedom shall one day ring again from the bells of the State Capitols!

Again? Although there are many web sites discussing
Regional Federalism, a few like this one bring into
focus that exactly because States Rights posed such
a threat to the Central Government they were
neutralized years ago. What passes for state government
today is totally contained within control of the
Central (Federal) Government.

www.barefootsworld.net...

This has been going on for a while, and it sucks. It's like the 21 drinking age - the fed threatens the state (with high way funds) so everystate will comply with the age limit.

I think sometimes States rights should be unsurped. You mentioned teach evolution, don't say under god in the constitution, don't have anti-sodomy laws. I think these issues, when we look back at them 200 years from now, we will view them as we view 'seperate but equal' now, and wonder why the federal government didin't do more. Progressive ideas are always dealt with by some who do not want to see a change. Interracial marriage had the same arguments as gay mariage. Sometimes we need the federal government to force states to do the right thing.

I said sometimes.

I completely agree with curme on this one, there are some times that state's rules and laws need to be edited or just scrapped by the feds.

I would rather that the people on the federal level would have the final say over what school people of my race should attend and whom I can marry just to say a few. This is a valid and needed check and balance upon the state.

In the American system the state politicans and judges are sometimes less experenced then their federal counterparts, usually because one starts out their political life in local government and moves their way up to federal.

I feel safer with the American government knowing that my local state cannot create horridly unjust laws without being answerable to a higher power within the government.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Esther thank God for people like you or those of that town you described, who are still willing to fight against the Feds!

There's actually a town not far from where I live, that has already quite a few scares against the Feds over the past few years. The Feds wanted to run a road through there that would change the path of the river and ruin their local farming and grazing, also I think the road was to be built to put a dump near-by.

Either way, the town took up arms and started shooting at any federal agents who came by to try and enforce it.

I don't think the feds are too interested in making such a fuss over such a small place when they know they are outside their enumerated powers.

To all the people who claim that "if not for the Feds there'd still be the Seperate but Equal laws". I point out that it was MEN who established those laws, and it is MEN who will unestablish them.

But our institution has nothing to do with it.

Our institution was such that local people could govern themselves, the Federal Government has destroyed this, and if you think it harms no one, or it is for the better, you are dead wrong.

It doesn't happen in New York City, or Los Angeles.

It happens in small rural towns, that the Feds destroy to give water to Los Angeles, or to give money to New York City.

And these small towns rarely make the news.

Originally posted by The Astral City

I feel safer with the American government knowing that my local state cannot create horridly unjust laws without being answerable to a higher power within the government.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

And do you feel safer that the Federal Government has no higher power to stop it?

I do not think you would feel so safe if it were YOUR beliefs on the receiving end of Federal oppression.

Let us suppose you believe in a thing called "individual rights". So you think you are right, does that make you so?

The Federal Government is taking the beliefs of "individual rights" and destroying communities and States.

James Madison declared it is the right and duty of the States to legislate and maintain morals!

So it is ok for people to be oppressed so long as it is in the name of what YOU BELIEVE?

Well to turn the cards, how would you like it if the Federal Government sided with the anti-gays, and the pro-lifers, and the religious-right and smashed all the Abortion clinics and arrested all the gays and put a cross in every class room!

Then it would be you shouting for States Rights!

And there are those who think like me, who would become you, and say "F--- States Rights, we need morals in this country."

But I am different from people like you. People like you make me sick.

I preach States Rights for the purpose of self-governance. I do not preach my own ideology, I merely want to excersise my own ideology with the rest of my community and State.

And to the other States, let them believe what they want.

Now go you self-righteous federalist.

Go and feel safe that your ideology is in favor with the powerful.

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

One more thing, curme, you said sometimes the Federal Government needs to force the States to do what is right?

Who determines what is right, you do? If I determined what is right, there would be no abortion clinics, there would be no gay marriages, and prayers could be said in classes and creationism could be taught at the will of the teachers!

Am I the Devil?

The almighty enemy of goodness and all that is sacred?

I could say the same of you and your pro-choice movements and so forth.

States Rights allows each community to live as they wish!

And Astral, State politicians know State issues the best, local politicians know local issues the best. Why then do you think that the Federal politicians are more "experienced"?

Few are more experienced in governing people on a local level, and being receptive to local needs and wishes.

Self-governance was the foundation of this nation, not governance from on-high.

Originally posted by FreeMason

Well to turn the cards, how would you like it if the Federal Government sided with the anti-gays, and the pro-lifers, and the religious-right and smashed all the Abortion clinics and arrested all the gays and put a cross in every class room!

Sounds like America before the 1960's!

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

No esther, I merely detected your sarcasm too late, I had already written what I did (and I still can not edit).

I commend your area for standing for their rights to govern their community as they see fit, unless a State constitution bars State interference in local laws (which I know of no such thing) then your State can stop that locality from denouncing a State legislation. But the Federal Government has no jurisdiction there.

And at your expense I commend it.

Just as at the expense of my beliefs I would commend Massachussettes defending Gay Marriages if that is what they wished and the Federal Government opposed it.

People, I think you have fallen prey to such, too often believe that because the Federal Government CAN look out for you, that it always will. The truth is that the Federal Government CAN be absolutely coercive. Where-as a State can not, a State is more receptive and more vulnerable to its people as it is generally small and it is generally less populated than our entire Union.

While your State wants anti-Sodomy laws, others do not.

Does this mean you should have to move? No. You can challenge your State's sodomy laws, try to rally support for a change in legislation. Nothing stops you.

But I always urge that people who think that the States are instruments of oppression to realize that so is the Federal Government.

All governments are coercive.

The smaller the government, the less power it will wield against the people.

A city can barely oppress its people compared to the Federal Government.

For instance, Bush and his anti-Gay policies. Should he convince the Feds to change policies, and support a federal anti-sodomy law (which after Roe vs. Wade is entirely allowable in our Unconstitutional system), what do you do then?

Do you have the power to fight it?

Far less than you do to fight your State's law, and it being national, you can not just give-up and leave to another State, you must leave this nation entirely if you wish to escape such oppression.

I merely ask you to look beyond prejudices, because that can be at any level of Government, just because the Feds have for the past 30 years been on "your side", doesn't mean they always will be.

The Founding Fathers and the States and those of the Constitutional delegation feared this, and believed in States Rights as a check against eventual tyranny.

Funny curme, you speak for all of America, when that was only a few states in the 1960s. Grow-up kid, the real world is no place for people who generalize such as you do.

delete

[edit on 10/2/2004 by esther]

Esther, can you explain the "value of human life"?

Values are not explainable, yours are different from others, and they should not more compromise on them than you should.

I will not allow homosexuals to marry because I don't need to see them holding hands in public, kissing eachother, and confusing gender roles for my family.

You may not believe in gender roles, but I do. I believe in them because it helps to create a solid home, where the men are responsible for providing and the women are responsible for keeping things well kept.

I do not see how a boy acting like a girl, and a girl acting like a boy, is healty to a community in any way.

I don't think you can justify the destruction of gender roles, for your preferences.

FreeMason here's the fundamental flaw in your little therory that you have at least three threads on that are almost identical:

You're just redistributing power, you say who is the federal government to legislate morality? I ask who is the state or city to legislate morality?

I think you're just pissed about rulings like the Texas Sodomy case, Roe V Wade and all of the other great liberal rulings that have brought America closer to being a moral country. Get Over It!

You want to be able to legislate on a state level because you can oppress people like homosexuals and religious minorities, this is not democracy.

NeoCons and other Cons have begun to harp about state's rights again because America is getting a little too free for their liking, and I say to them, wake up, the civil war is over and it's time to move on. You can't keep trying to go back to an antiquated system of American government just because you're little Moral Majority turned out to be oppressive and amoral.

The decisions made by the Supreme Court over the past 50 years (with the exception of a little ruling about the 2000 election) actually give me hope that someday America will become the country that I wish it was. Do you know what has made that possible, a strong federal government.

FreeMason, I would love to debate you on your ideas of gender sometime, I'd tag-team with esther if she were so disposed. At any rate, this is one of my pet issues and I could rail for hours on it, but I will use restraint and just tell you what modern sociology says about hererosexual marriage:

Heterosexual Marriage is a social construct, devised by humans, there is nothing natural about it, same as homosexual, bisexual, interacial, or transexual marriage. They are all social constructs, and in other countries (and The Commonwealth Of Mass.) it is leagal and no Gods have yet to punish anyone for it that I know of.

Change is comming, change is good, and change will happen. Get used to it or move to the middle ages.

Blessed Be
~Astral

I really don't want to start a flame war with you on this though, I think I have laid out my case well enough, and there are plenty of other people to pick up where I have left off. So before this turns into something very ugly, I'm going to just let it go. There's really no way that the current trends involving state's rights are going to change, really nothing that you or I could do about it other then rant on websites all night, and that gets tiring.

FreeMason, I truly hope you can open your mind, I think you'd be a much happier person. That's all I really have left to say to you.

To everyone else, just relax, it's a debate and no one is actually going to do anything about it, the feds aren't about to just give up their power and no state is in a position to try to take it back. Just let it go, and have a drink on me.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral

Astral you are right, it is redistribution of power.

It redistributes it back to the proper and Constitutional authorities which was established to prevent possible tyrants from controlling the nation and from infringements upon the rights of the most people.

A State might tread on some people's toes, but not as much as the Federal Government does.

Originally posted by FreeMason
Astral you are right, it is redistribution of power.

It redistributes it back to the proper and Constitutional authorities which was established to prevent possible tyrants from controlling the nation

Don't forget the largest Constitutional authority, you and me, us the people.

and from infringements upon the rights of the most people.

What about the other people? You only care about the rights of most people? Sounds like you want a democracy, not a republic.

A State might tread on some people's toes, but not as much as the Federal Government does.

Again, what about the other people, the minority? Are their rights not to be protected?

Do not take this the wrong way, I am not harrassing you, just asking you to think critically.