States' Rights Paradox

[HashiriyaS14]

This is far from a new thought, but states' rights are often invoked here and everywhere by conservatives when arguing positions such as the abolition of Roe v. Wade. The typical position is that they don't believe that this should be subject to federal law and that it instead should be left to the states.

On other issues though, most notably gay marriage and a theoretical Constitutional Amendment banning it, social conservatives appear to want to limit the rights of the states. We have also seen this on subjects like affirmative action, gun control, and economic redevelopment, wherein certain states take more liberal positions than the nation as a whole.

What is the rationalization for this?

Obviously, Libertarian-leaning conservatives probably don't think this way at all. I'm really aiming this question at the more "orthodox" social conservatives on this board. What is your logic behind this apparent dissonance?

EDIT: I don't want to somehow exempt the Democrats here. Their position tends to be in favor of more federal intervention in nearly all instances, which I often disagree with. Their position however, while IMO often wrong, doesn't carry within it any blatant contradiction as does that of conservatives.

And *please*, don't anyone (telco) use this thread as an excuse to post something about "omg conservatives suck", or I will absolutely positively delete the post. I want answers from people who actually hold these views.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I used to be a Federalist Republican, I wanted a small powerful federal government telling states what to do and leaving me alone. It's still not a bad idea in my mind, many countries use it. However, as I grew more "well-read" and began to understand the Constitution, I discovered that's not what America is all about. It's about a balance (that's been shifted [see 14th's "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"]) set forth by the 10th Amendment.

Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say it's a power of the Feds, the Feds can't touch it.

Abortion, assuming it's not murder (which I haven't decided on), is a State issue. Affirmative action, well, assuming it's legal, is a State issue. Gun control is NOT a state issue. "Shall not be infringed." Period. Not the 1st "Congress shall pass no law.." (leaving the States to do as they please), but shall not be infringed. "Economic redevelopment" (bull**** phrase) is the realm of States.

<Not Libertarian. Constitutionalist.

[HashiriyaS14]

Gun control is NOT a state issue. "Shall not be infringed." Period.

I don't want to divert this thread into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment, but that issue is actually not quite so cut and dry.

The 2nd Amendment provides the "right to keep and bear arms", which can, by most reasonable parties, be translated to "own and carry".

What the right so often forgets however, is that a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment means that what is omitted is just as important as what is included.

So long as "own and carry" are provided for (admittedly they presently are not, at least not "carry"), the Amendment does not specify that firearms cannot be regulated in other ways. This would include, for instance, mandatory registration, background checks, usage classes, and limitations on types of firearms. These decisions can all, at present, be regulated by the states.

Additionally, the Amendment only states "arms". What does this mean? No one argues that it permits personal ownership of nuclear weapons, but it probably DOES permit us to own pocket-knives. All that stuff in between is a bunch of "gray" space and is not addressed whatsoever by the letter of the law. Remember, don't respond with what is "sensible" or what was done in the past, as this is irrelevant. If conservatives are going to argue on the basis of a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation, they need to be prepared to deal with the full ramifications of such a reading of the law.

I don't really want to get into a big discussion on constitutional law on this one topic, as we already have a 2nd Amendment thread. If you want to keep talking about this, quote me but paste the response in there.

[telcoman]

EDITED by Hash

Sorry man. It wasn't an inflammatory post, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic, and I don't want to let this one get off on tangents.

If you want to expound about your general reasons for being a Democrat, there are other threads to do that in.

I want the conservatives to reply to my question, not your unrelated post. No harm, no foul.

[Jesda]

I agree with you Chris. I believe states' rights extend to the election of presidents, abortion rights, management of social services, gay marriage, and more.

When it comes to the needs of particular members or groups of society, states and municipalities are better equipped to serve.

I despise RVW, NCLB, and DMA. Let the states handle it.

[WDRacing]

State and Federal Gov should stop concerning themslves with governing what people have the right to choose. Vague statement right? By that I mean, want an abortion...go ahead and have one. Want a gun, go ahead and get one. When things I do only effect myself, get out of my bussiness. Whatever type of Gov gets us there the quickest, I'll support.

As far as what part of the Gov should control what? The Federal Gov needs to unteh eff bomb!!!1!!!eleven!! itself and worry about things that effect the entire country. Security, Finances, Health Care, Education on down the line. They need to get there noses out of Mike and Joey's wedding vows. Simply because they have already failed at so many other more important things, they have lost credibility IMO to be trusted with the little things on top of the already horrid mess they've made of the major responsibilities.

Are we that desperate that we need to be told how to do everything? Even I have adopted the whole, "doesn't bother me, I don't care" mentality as of late. If I can do it...anyone can.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I don't want to divert this thread into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment, but that issue is actually not quite so cut and dry.

The 2nd Amendment provides the "right to keep and bear arms", which can, by most reasonable parties, be translated to "own and carry".

What the right so often forgets however, is that a literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment means that what is omitted is just as important as what is included.

So long as "own and carry" are provided for (admittedly they presently are not, at least not "carry"), the Amendment does not specify that firearms cannot be regulated in other ways. This would include, for instance, mandatory registration, background checks, usage classes, and limitations on types of firearms. These decisions can all, at present, be regulated by the states.

Additionally, the Amendment only states "arms". What does this mean? No one argues that it permits personal ownership of nuclear weapons, but it probably DOES permit us to own pocket-knives. All that stuff in between is a bunch of "gray" space and is not addressed whatsoever by the letter of the law. Remember, don't respond with what is "sensible" or what was done in the past, as this is irrelevant. If conservatives are going to argue on the basis of a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation, they need to be prepared to deal with the full ramifications of such a reading of the law.

I don't really want to get into a big discussion on constitutional law on this one topic, as we already have a 2nd Amendment thread. If you want to keep talking about this, quote me but paste the response in there.

Link me and I'll get around to it when I'm not a giant mucus factory.

[themadscientist]

states rights must be protected because the next rights stepped on are the citizens'.

[Jesda]

I don't want to divert this thread into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment, but that issue is actually not quite so cut and dry.

Libertarian minded people also believe the state should not infringe on these rights.

While states and municipalities are most effective at providing services, they should not infringe on the rights of citizens even if the federal government doesn't tell them otherwise.

Its silly and inconsistent to say that the federal government cannot limit how you choose to opine, but its perfectly fine for your state to ban the F-word from being written.

Just because the constitution doesn't say its wrong for the government to ban [activity], doesn't mean its okay.

[HashiriyaS14]

Libertarian minded people also believe the state should not infringe on these rights.

While states and municipalities are most effective at providing services, they should not infringe on the rights of citizens even if the federal government doesn't tell them otherwise.

Its silly and inconsistent to say that the federal government cannot limit how you choose to opine, but its perfectly fine for your state to ban the F-word from being written.

Just because the constitution doesn't say its wrong for the government to ban [activity], doesn't mean its okay.

And I would tend to agree with you, I don't want my state wiretapping me without a warrant anymore than I want the feds doing it.

That said, it still doesn't affect the fact that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment opens a pandora's box of potential regulations on firearms. That doesn't mean I WANT them doing it, but it does mean that they CAN, technically.

Enough tangents.

Matt, Bud, Greg, 96Q, Z? No thoughts on States' rights?

[hsckris]

EDITED by Hash It wasn't an inflammatory post, but it had absolutely nothing to do with the thread topic

Has he ever posted anything relevant?

If conservatives are going to argue on the basis of a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation, they need to be prepared to deal with the full ramifications of such a reading of the law.

From what I have seen, most pro-gun people understand this and are okay with it. As long as the gov't doesn't go too far (ie no handguns at all), most gun folks don't mind things like waiting periods, semi-limited or limited access to certain weapons, etc.

Their position tends to be in favor of more federal intervention in nearly all instances, which I often disagree with. Their position however, while IMO often wrong, doesn't carry within it any blatant contradiction as does that of conservatives.

FOr the record, I am not one who supports federal regulation of some of the issues you mentioned. For sake of argument however, isn't the dem's position far MORE contradictory? From my perspective it blatantly flies in the face of the constitution. I think the social conserv. would probably say that some issues are so important to them, like the life of a child, that there needs to be a universal ruling on it. Sort of a Hamiltonian argument if you will.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

Since this thread has been derailed...

And I just un-derailed it by deleting your whole goddamned post.

If you want to talk about firearms, use the search button and bring back the 2nd Amendment thread like I told you to in the first place.

Back on topic.

--Hash

[Jesda]

And I would tend to agree with you, I don't want my state wiretapping me without a warrant anymore than I want the feds doing it.

That said, it still doesn't affect the fact that a literal reading of the 2nd Amendment opens a pandora's box of potential regulations on firearms. That doesn't mean I WANT them doing it, but it does mean that they CAN, technically.

Enough tangents.

Matt, Bud, Greg, 96Q, Z? No thoughts on States' rights?

And its through interpretations and reinterpretations (court decisions) that we end up with exceptions to the rule, be it free speech or firearms. But the general idea should be to restrict ownership as little as possible, as is true of free speech. The slippery slope argument is a valid one.

[HashiriyaS14]

Matt, Bud, Greg, 96Q, Z? No thoughts on States' rights?

I'll go ahead and ask again.

[smockers83]

I wish I had gone ahead and gotten a dual degree like I originally planned, in econ and political science (one of the best combinations out there IMO), so I could really chime in on this one.

I do see the paradox, however, the federal government can also set the standard for the nation and the states have the right to improve on the standard. I know it isn't the same as abortion or capital punishment, but stuff like emissions standards, food stuffs standards, are all determined at the federal level to set a standard.

States and municipalities, as mentioned before, are much better at providing services and making decisions for their people. The further down the chain of jurisdictional powers, the better the service gets because decisions are being made on localities and what is best for its people as their situation is different from another set of people.

Something like abortion I feel should be a state decision with a minimum standard set by the government, such as in the case that a woman is raped. States then could improve on that standard if they wanted to do so in that they could go all the way and say women could get a shmishmortion for any reason. States that are overpopulated (CA) would benefit from this as it is a form of population control. However, I do understand the argument of the federal government having control over this issue and even going to gay marriage in that another role of a federal government is to keep all of its citizens in line (that's not the phrase I'm looking for, but that's all I could think of at the moment).

Gun rights, state decisions as people of different states have different views. People in MI want their guns because outdoor gaming is a huge industry here. Gun rights could even go down to municipality decisions, which I believe is actually the case?

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[Urabus GodofTraction]

I wish I had gone ahead and gotten a dual degree like I originally planned, in econ and political science (one of the best combinations out there IMO), so I could really chime in on this one.

Hiyo! That's the pair I'm a semester away from getting.

[NY94J30]

Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say it's a power of the Feds, the Feds can't touch it.

The counterpoint to this is quite clearly the Bill of Rights; a cache of liberties retained by the People that neither the States (where "incorporated") nor the federal government can subvert - Constitutionally. And of course, the addendum to your statement is the Commerce Clause - always the means to the end.

[smockers83]

^I'm afraid you have gun rights entirely backwards, if I read you correctly.

The City of Chicago has stricter gun laws than the rest of IL if I'm not mistaken. If they do, they came from the high run up in gun crimes that they experienced long ago.

DC tried to impose their own laws but aren't allowed to because they're under rule of the Constitution and whatever the City comes up with, again if I'm not mistaken.

Hiyo! That's the pair I'm a semester away from getting.

Good for you. I have the econ part, but just wish I had gone with polisci, too. There just were some classes I didn't want to take and some history classes that seemed more interesting.

[96Qowner]

I read this thread when you first posted it but I was pressed for time the past week so I didn't respond.

First, I should reiterate that I'm not a social conservative. Actually, the definitions sorta escape me. I'm not a religious conservative, let's say. I get angry when people seek to weaken another's Faith, and I have a strong Faith myself, but I can't participate in the dogma of organized religion - I'm too logical - I find too many paradoxes in the details of dogma. I'm also not a Constitutional scholar.

You cite gay marriage, affirmative action, gun control, and economic redevelopment in addition to Roe v. Wade. I can understand your puzzlement. I've never really thought of economic redevelopment as States Rights issues. Gun control is a Constitutional issue, so it should be off the table.

I object to affirmative action on principal. It uses preferential treatment to fight preferential treatment - a true kluge - patently ridiculous. Sure, it means well and is effective in its way, but where the preferential treatment it fights is embedded in society, the preferential treatment it imposes is institutional, set in stone. Bad idea. What it meant to fight, it now preserves. I have seen no improvement in social prejudice in a couple decades now, yet AA continues to exist and has a vested constituency that politicians can't oppose. Once more, permanent legislation has outlived its function. A States Right issue? Integration of public schools was the States Rights issue. Public schooling had always been a State function. At the time, it was shocking that the Federal government would try to impose its will on States. It had no right. Unfortunately, history has been distorted. Integration of public schools, busing, etc, was a disaster. Black achievement in public schools is far worse than it was in the 60s. It harmed far more students, Black and White, than it helped. If the legislation had not been so heavy-handed, it could have achieved far more than it did.

The principle is that States should function as individual countries in a Federal alliance. What can be run by the States should be run by the States. Only when the viability of the Union is in jeopardy should the Federal government intervene. Gay marriage is a perfect example. I think the objection is in the Federal requirement that all States recognize a gay marriage if one State recognizes it. Currently, all States must recognize a traditional marriage if one State recognizes it. So, if you eliminate the distinction between gay and traditional marriage, it must be recognized country-wide. This is the reason for the parsing of language. I have no objection to gays "marrying". It's a good idea. But all States should not be required to recognize it, which makes it rather meaningless. All States should not be required to allow abortion.

I repeat that I'm not a Constitutional scholar, and I'm sure my opinions have contradictions, but I'm firmly in favor of variety between States whenever possible. People in New Mexico and Vermont, Massachusetts and North Dakota are not the same, and they don't live where they live by accident. Part of the strength of the USA is in its rich variety of cultures. Local politics are always better than Federal politics because they're more responsive to their constituents and less destructive of society and the economy.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The recent examples of this are rich and plentiful. Whenever possible, legislation should be performed at the most local level, as a matter of principle. But of course, Federal politicians will fight this principle tooth and nail. Politics is the struggle for power. Politicians, legislators will ALWAYS seek more power, and it NEVER turns out well for the electorate.

One could even make the argument that Federal power is unAmerican. Americans have not traditionally sought to place supreme power in the hands of a few. What makes us strong is that WE hold the power.

Did anyone see John Stossel's 20/20 piece on the 17th about government and society, and how society tends to self-organize to accomplish order, all by itself?

http://www.google.com/search?h...ell=1

He gave as an example New Orleans, where anyone who wants to fix their home has to get 9 permits (soil, electrical, plumbing, etc) from 9 different unresponsive political agencies before they can do it, and that they will be fined if they get the permits in the wrong order, and that they have to submit complete architectural plans for several of the permits? Just swell, huh?

[HashiriyaS14]

Gun control is a Constitutional issue, so it should be off the table.

Again, it isn't really. It's mentioned in the constitution, and certain firearms-related liberties are definitely provided for, but the 2nd Amendment isn't terribly specific and thus anything that it leaves out (i.e. registration) can be legislated (just from a purely legal perspective) by the feds, or the states, or whomever so long as that legislation doesn't contradict what is provided for in the 2nd Amendment.

I understand your objection to the gay marriage issue, it makes sense. For the record I actually hadn't thought of that particular constraint. It's a good point, and hopefully there's a workaround that's available. I suppose you could still call it "marriage" on the books (avoiding legal precedent entanglements of the "civil union" moniker) but then add language stating that if the marriage is between two people of the same sex, it can be selectively honored on a state-by-state basis....

Regardless, it's a good point, and I respect nothing more than a good point



As for affirmative action, you're asserting that, let's say, there were NO federal affirmative action statues, you would be okay with states instituting their own? If so, then we are in complete agreement, as I don't think it should be a federal issue either.

[smockers83]

As for affirmative action, you're asserting that, let's say, there were NO federal affirmative action statues, you would be okay with states instituting their own? If so, then we are in complete agreement, as I don't think it should be a federal issue either.

If your state voted out its affirmative action statutes, such as CA and MI, only institutions that are under federal jurisdiction have to follow affirmative action, such as public universities that receive federal funding, in that they have to ask for your race/ethnicity. Race/ethnicity in that state however can no longer be an issue in hiring practices, or in the case of universities, admissions. That's my understanding of that situation in that affirmative action is a state issue

[HashiriyaS14]

No answers from Matt, Greg, or Bud?

I know I've heard you guys assail RvW before on the grounds that it compromises States' Rights.

Does this mean that you also support the States' ability to write their own affirmative action laws, or their own gay marriage laws, or their own firearms regulations laws (so long as they don't contradict the 2ndAm)?

[Cold_Zero]

This is far from a new thought, but states' rights are often invoked here and everywhere by conservatives when arguing positions such as the abolition of Roe v. Wade. The typical position is that they don't believe that this should be subject to federal law and that it instead should be left to the states.

On other issues though, most notably gay marriage and a theoretical Constitutional Amendment banning it, social conservatives appear to want to limit the rights of the states. We have also seen this on subjects like affirmative action, gun control, and economic redevelopment, wherein certain states take more liberal positions than the nation as a whole.

What is the rationalization for this?

Obviously, Libertarian-leaning conservatives probably don't think this way at all. I'm really aiming this question at the more "orthodox" social conservatives on this board. What is your logic behind this apparent dissonance?

A couple of things. I find it interesting that you assert that Social Conservatives use 'States' Rights' to counter act the Roe v. Wade ruling and yet this country claims that conservatives are attempting to stack the Supreme Court to undermine the ruling of Roe v Wade and other abortion rulings.

The problem that I have with Social Conservatives and to a larger extent Christians in this country is that they:1. Hold a view that Government can be used to reform behavior in an attempt to merit Salvation for the people of this country or merit a National Covenant with God (akin to what Israel had).2. Hold a view that is it ok to get Judges to legislate from the bench when the ruling suits their agenda and yet turn around and abhor when a ruling does not come down in their favor.3. Hold a view that Government is evil, unless it is fronting their own agenda. Since Christian doctrine dicates that Government is an institution established by God (Left Hand Kingdom) then Christians should respect all Laws that are established by the Government. Not just some.

With that said, I am always a fan of the Federal Government doing its job and letting the State do its job. I personally think that the Federal Government has overstepped its bounds too much in the rights of States.

Marriage is a status that is imposed on a couple with certain binding and legal ramifications. I can not help but think that it has more to do with Jurisdiction of the matter than anything else. Allowing individual states to come up with their own definition of Marriage and then certify it is very problematic for a number of reasons. 1. It does not offer a consistent definition of the status. This process introduces that risk that some states (like California with its Gay marriages) will lead down the path of radically altering the definition of marriage. Where does the altering of the definition of marriage stop? Soon the Mormons in Utah will pass laws that state polygamy is legal. Another State may allow a marriage between an Animal and a Human. Which will then lead to the next problem..2. There would problems with cohesion of how the status is administrated between states. You would run into problems of other States not accepting the marriages issued in another State, because they were so incongruent.

Could you imagine States getting into the Naturalization Process and determining the legal status of citizens? Bob comes to the US from merry old England and is naturalized as a citizen in Maryland. He travels to Indiana where he is promptly arrested for being an illegal because the State of Indiana does not recognize the naturalization process of Maryland. Think that this is ridiculous? I can’t go to Maryland and conceal carry my firearm because Maryland does not reciprocate with Indiana in such matters. Thank God, I can still drive in Maryland with out being arrested, yet. So I think its more of a problem of Legal Status vs. Certification of a Privilege like say Driving a Car or Carrying a Firearm.

Certainly, States certify in conjunction with religious authorities the marriage process, because the Federal Government does not have the facilities to perform the task. But for the most part in this process they do not determine the definition of Marriage. Of course now groups have been using the State Legislature to pass Marriage Amendments to the individual State Constitutions.

[Cold_Zero]

I guess my biggest problem with this whole matter is that Marriage is an institution established by God. I find it very disconcerting that people and States have played fast and loose with the definition of this institution. But I think we have reaped what we have sown in the matter and now we want to go jacking around with the definition again?

[HashiriyaS14]

A couple of things. I find it interesting that you assert that Social Conservatives use 'States' Rights' to counter act the Roe v. Wade ruling and yet this country claims that conservatives are attempting to stack the Supreme Court to undermine the ruling of Roe v Wade and other abortion rulings.

I didn't mean to personally implicate you as having taken position "x" in the past, but I know that in abortion threads, one of the three of you at least had, at one point, used the "I support States' Rights" justification in a RvW argument.

The problem that I have with Social Conservatives and to a larger extent Christians in this country is that they:1. Hold a view that Government can be used to reform behavior in an attempt to merit Salvation for the people of this country or merit a National Covenant with God (akin to what Israel had).2. Hold a view that is it ok to get Judges to legislate from the bench when the ruling suits their agenda and yet turn around and abhor when a ruling does not come down in their favor.3. Hold a view that Government is evil, unless it is fronting their own agenda. Since Christian doctrine dicates that Government is an institution established by God (Left Hand Kingdom) then Christians should respect all Laws that are established by the Government. Not just some.

As even-handed a response on the subject as I've ever heard. I expect no less from a Skins fan.

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with you that, while none of us like sweeping federal legislation when it is avoidable, many matters (i.e. the naturalization you mentioned) is not suitable for being handled at the state level.

Like most things, it's a delicate compromise. Everyone is following some ideology or other, be it maximization of states rights or maximization of central planning, but ultimately everyone needs to make concessions to reality.

I apologize if I came off as if I was trying to indict you personally, as I certainly was not.

I know that in the "abortion rights" thread much was made about how RvW is wrong chiefly because it is an incursion on States' Rights, maybe not by you, I don't recall. I'm not going to go so far as to start quoting people from months-old threads.

I just know that there ARE a huge contingent of Americans out there, who may or may not be represented on this board, who do hold that belief but simultaneously also hold the belief that State-level regulations of firearms, affirmative action, gay marriage, and other issues are patently wrong.

You hit the nail on the head when you said that this contingent sees Government as evil unless said government is pushing their own agenda. I don't think I could have said it any better than that.

So how about this, does ANYONE on this board feel this way? Does anyone oppose RvW on the grounds of States' Rights but simultaneously decry states making laws like requiring background checks on firearms purchases?

I would still like to hear from Matt and Greg in here, although I won't necessarily assume that they're part of that contingent. I'd like to hear what they have to say on the matter, though.

[Cold_Zero]

Hash,

No worries bro. To be honest, I can't remember that far back to prior conversations we had on the Abortion Issue. What I do remember is that I have always opposed Roe v. Wade not so much politically as morally and religiously. Because it is a ruling from one of the branches of the Federal Government is it effectively "the Law of the Land." And as a Christian, I have to obey the Laws of the Land. Now that doesn't mean that as Christians we can work to change the Law. But this is a whole other discussion that we can have.

I tend to view that the Federal Governments role as being very limited under the Constitution and wish it would relinquish a lot of its roles and jurisdictions to the States. Now obviously there are things that the States can not simply do, like overseeing Inter State commerce or providing for the Defense of our Nation or Ratifying/Signing Treaties. But where and when it is right, prudent and with in their Jurisdiction the States should take over certain roles of government. A perfect example of this is Student Loans. The Federal Government runs Direct Lending that competes with the private participants of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, as well as with State Funded financial aid programs (almost every State Guarantee Agency has a program), and private lenders. Now what is interesting is that while it competes with private lenders and State guarantors through the Department of Education, it also regulates the FFEL programs through the same Department of Education and the banking laws that the lenders are subject to through the Congress. What is also ironic is that the Department of Education/Direct Lending competes with private lenders and state guarantors using your tax dollars. If they run out of money, they just hit up the American Tax payers up for more money (they effectively have leveraged their monopoly on taxes at the federal level to have an endless supply of capital.) I strongly believe that competition is good, but when the federal government has a conflict of interest like this, it is no good for anyone. If they truly want to compete with the private sector, do so and relinquish your control over the programs or spin off Direct Lending from the control of the Department of Education and make it private or a not for profit organization and sever all government ties. Now if the Federal Government took over all firearm regulations and conceal carry permitting, would that make it easier for me? You bet you, it would make things a whole lot easier and consistent in certain respects. But it would also opens up a huge can of worms where the will of a few States or worse the Federal Government could determine laws that are enforced against the wills of the States. I think its better to allow the people in States, where it doesn’t infringe on Constitutional Rights and Jurisdictions, to determine how these activities, rights, privileges are administered.

I guess what I am saying is that Federal Government is a necessary Evil, I think the Europeans are coming around to this concept with the (EU).bud

[NY94J30]

In order to consider the modern state/federal balance in terms of rights and liberties, you have to look at the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause and the jurisprudence of "incorporation."

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the courts had held that the Bill of Rights was a check on the federal government and not the States.

The 14th Amendment provides that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Over the course of a century and a half, the USSC has interpreted the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause to incorporate certain of the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights - and thus prevent the States from abridging those liberties, the same as the federal government. Among those rights are the rights to free speech and free practice of religion guaranteed in the 1st Amendment, the right to privacy found in the 5th Amendment's Due Process Clause (Griswald, Roe, etc.).

Any argument, therefore, that the determination of a right/liberty should remain with the States is an argument either that such issue bears no constitutional protection at all, or that such right or liberty has not been incorporated in the the protections of the 14th Amendment.

I would note also that a distinction must be made between positive law and negative liberty. Federal positive law is in large measure controlled by the Enumerated Powers Clause of Article I, and at the state level through a much broader interpretation of the the police power of the state and public welfare. Negative liberties, on the other hand, exist to the extent that the courts have interpreted the Bill of Rights to protect those rights and liberties that were never ceded to the government at the creation of the social compact.

[Cold_Zero]

The Lawyers have arrived! j/kI think to continue this discussion; someone schooled on Constitutional Law will need to guide the discussion.bud