States rights

Socrtease

Socrtease

Verified User
Lots of talk, both here, and on the national level about state's rights. About how a state should have the right to pass laws inside their own borders and the judiciary should have no say as to the constitutional propriety of those laws. The States have been the most violative of our rights through out our history. The most agregious violation of rights came at the hands of those states that thought it was ok to own human beings as slaves. That was so contentious that we fought a war over it. The state's righters lost.

So then, even after an amending of our constitution, the states tried to claim they had a right to decide who could vote. They created tests and restrictions aimed to keep those that had been free from voting in elections in which ALL citizens on the US had a right to vote. They lost that argument too.

Then until the 50's and 60's the states ran around denying citizens their constitutional protections. State and local cops could kick in your door and search your house without a warrant and there was nothing you could do about it, until Mapp v. Ohio. They could force confessions out of you, which the 5th Amendment forbade, and there was nothing you could do about it, until Miranda. They could try you for a crime and not let you have an attorney, unless you could afford it, and there was nothing you could do about it, until Gideon.

Though out our history, state governments have intruded on our rights and without the SCOTUS, many of us, especially in the south, would still be without those rights. Now we have arguments about whether a woman should be allowed to determine if she should conceive a child, people like Rick Santorum thinks that birth control gives us too much sexual freedom. Whe shouldn't be able to fuck whenever we want, because that's bad mmmm'kay. People are pissed because the Supreme Court has now said the state has no right to criminalize consentual sexual behavior in the privacy of our own house. These rulings piss off the right because they don't want Fags and Dykes doing icky things, even if no one but the fags and dykes doing it can see it. You don't have a right to be safe in this country. You don't have a right to be unoffended, or comfortable. That is not what the Constitution of this country protects. There is a Ninth Amendment for a reason. The founders were smart enough to know that there would be authoritarians in this country that would say if the right was enumerated it wasn't a right. It floors me that conservatives today believe that the men that founded this country did not believe that they had a right to privacy, or a legal giant once said, "the right to be left alone." The right wing in this country wants to feel safe and ick free MORE than they want to feel free. That is why they invoke state's rights.
 
Last edited:
Socrtease said:
Lots of talk, both here, and on the national level about state's rights. About how a state should have the right to pass laws inside their own borders and the judiciary should have no say as to the constitutional propriety of those laws. The States have been the most violative of our rights through out our history. The most agregious violation of rights came at the hands of those states that thought it was ok to own human beings as slaves. That was so contentious that we fought a war over it. The state's righters lost. So then, even after an amending of our constitution, the states tried to claim they had a right to decide who could vote. They created tests and restrictions aimed to keep those that had been free from voting in elections in which ALL citizens on the US had a right to vote. They lost that argument too. Then until the 50's and 60's the states ran around denying citizens their constitutional protections. State and local cops could kick in your door and search your house without a warrant and there was nothing you could do about it, until Mapp v. Ohio. They could force confessions out of you, which the 5th Amendment forbade, and there was nothing you could do about it, until Miranda. They could try you for a crime and not let you have an attorney, unless you could afford it, and there was nothing you could do about it, until Gideon. Though out our history, state governments have intruded on our rights and without the SCOTUS, many of us, especially in the south, would still be without those rights. Now we have arguments about whether a woman should be allowed to determine if she should conceive a child, people like Rick Santorum thinks that birth control gives us too much sexual freedom. Whe shouldn't be able to fuck whenever we want, because that's bad mmmm'kay. People are pissed because the Supreme Court has now said the state has no right to criminalize consentual sexual behavior in the privacy of our own house. These rulings piss off the right because they don't want Fags and Dykes doing icky things, even if no one but the fags and dykes doing it can see it. You don't have a right to be safe in this country. You don't have a right to be unoffended, or comfortable. That is not what the Constitution of this country protects. There is a Ninth Amendment for a reason. The founders were smart enough to know that there would be authoritarians in this country that would say if the right was enumerated it wasn't a right. It floors me that conservatives today believe that the men that founded this country did not believe that they had a right to privacy, or a legal giant once said, "the right to be left alone." The right wing in this country wants to feel safe and ick free MORE than they want to feel free. That is why they invoke state's rights.
Click to expand...

While I agree with your sentiments (wall of text or not), like wise the founders created the 10th amendment for a reason as well. A federal government can, and in our case has, become fundementally disconnected with the complexity and multitude of different problems that each state may face. Of course the doctorine of states rights has been used by those interested only in surpressing our rights, but the same can be said for the doctorines of federal supremecy. Its why freedom requires constant vigilance.
 
Jarod said:
Abe Lincoln, the first Republican win that war!
Click to expand...

And done without freeing a single slave in a jurisdiction he actually had power in, yet convincing millions of morons he was ll about the slaves.

Lincoln had one goal; perserve the union. And he was entirely single minded in achieving that goal.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
And done without freeing a single slave in a jurisdiction he actually had power in, yet convincing millions of morons he was ll about the slaves.

Lincoln had one goal; perserve the union. And he was entirely single minded in achieving that goal.
Click to expand...

amen. people continue trying to revise history saying that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. It was not. It was preserving the union at all costs, even if it meant violating the constitution.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
amen. people continue trying to revise history saying that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. It was not. It was preserving the union at all costs, even if it meant violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

People always point to the Emancipation Proclimation as though that was the point of the war. But they ignore he 1.5 million slaves that were still in non rebelious states an therefore not freed. Lincoln was a terrible president.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
People always point to the Emancipation Proclimation as though that was the point of the war. But they ignore he 1.5 million slaves that were still in non rebelious states an therefore not freed. Lincoln was a terrible president.
Click to expand...
If I remember right, the only slaves he initially freed were those that chose to fight for the union, correct?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
amen. people continue trying to revise history saying that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. It was not. It was preserving the union at all costs, even if it meant violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

Agreed---
The below is excerpted from the fourth Lincoln/Douglas debate of 1858. I don't know if Lincoln's thinking evolved or he succumbed to pressure from abolitionists, but he still has to be credited for the Emancipation Proclamation, regardless of his motivations.

"While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this occasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regard to it. I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/....2240:1.lincoln.2052.2056.2059.2070.2075.2081
 
SmarterThanYou said:
amen. people continue trying to revise history saying that the civil war was about freeing the slaves. It was not. It was preserving the union at all costs, even if it meant violating the constitution.
Click to expand...

"When the Civil War broke out in 1861, shortly after Lincoln's inauguration as America's 16th president, he maintained that the war was about restoring the Union and not about slavery. He avoided issuing an anti-slavery proclamation immediately, despite the urgings of abolitionists and radical Republicans, as well as his personal belief that slavery was morally repugnant. Instead, Lincoln chose to move cautiously until he could gain wide support from the public for such a measure.

In July 1862, Lincoln informed his cabinet that he would issue an emancipation proclamation but that it would exempt the so-called border states, which had slaveholders but remained loyal to the Union. His cabinet persuaded him not to make the announcement until after a Union victory. Lincoln's opportunity came following the Union win at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862. On September 22, the president announced that slaves in areas still in rebellion within 100 days would be free...

After the Emancipation Proclamation, backing the Confederacy was seen as favoring slavery. It became impossible for anti-slavery nations such as Great Britain and France, who had been friendly to the Confederacy, to get involved on behalf of the South. The proclamation also unified and strengthened Lincoln's party, the Republicans, helping them stay in power for the next two decades."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-issues-emancipation-proclamation

Lincoln walked a tight rope. He needed the border states to win the war and needed to keep Europe out of the war. He also wanted black troops. History is never as black and white as conservatives see it.

This conservative brand of black and white thinking reminds me of the build up to the Iraq invasion. Remember a few yrs ago if you were against the war you were un-American? Remember when 'support the troops' meant supporting the neo con vision of middle east domination? Remember 'you're either for us or against us'? Narrow minded black and white thinking leads to extremes which is why the U.S. is in the mess it's in now. Free your mind your ass will follow.
 
Crashk said:
"When the Civil War broke out in 1861, shortly after Lincoln's inauguration as America's 16th president, he maintained that the war was about restoring the Union and not about slavery. He avoided issuing an anti-slavery proclamation immediately, despite the urgings of abolitionists and radical Republicans, as well as his personal belief that slavery was morally repugnant. Instead, Lincoln chose to move cautiously until he could gain wide support from the public for such a measure.

In July 1862, Lincoln informed his cabinet that he would issue an emancipation proclamation but that it would exempt the so-called border states, which had slaveholders but remained loyal to the Union. His cabinet persuaded him not to make the announcement until after a Union victory. Lincoln's opportunity came following the Union win at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862. On September 22, the president announced that slaves in areas still in rebellion within 100 days would be free...

After the Emancipation Proclamation, backing the Confederacy was seen as favoring slavery. It became impossible for anti-slavery nations such as Great Britain and France, who had been friendly to the Confederacy, to get involved on behalf of the South. The proclamation also unified and strengthened Lincoln's party, the Republicans, helping them stay in power for the next two decades."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-issues-emancipation-proclamation

Lincoln walked a tight rope. He needed the border states to win the war and needed to keep Europe out of the war. He also wanted black troops. History is never as black and white as conservatives see it.

This conservative brand of black and white thinking reminds me of the build up to the Iraq invasion. Remember a few yrs ago if you were against the war you were un-American? Remember when 'support the troops' meant supporting the neo con vision of middle east domination? Remember 'you're either for us or against us'? Narrow minded black and white thinking leads to extremes which is why the U.S. is in the mess it's in now. Free your mind your ass will follow.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the slaves were simply political tools to Lincoln. If whole sale slaughter of them would preserve the union I have no doubt in my mind Lincoln would kill them all himself.
 
Crashk said:
Narrow minded black and white thinking leads to extremes which is why the U.S. is in the mess it's in now.
Click to expand...

now how in the hell do you figure that, since we've done nothing BUT have politicians play both sides of the political fence to obtain specific policy objectives. where is the black and white thinking and why ARE we in this mess? me thinks you've been drinking too much kool aid.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
While I agree with your sentiments (wall of text or not), like wise the founders created the 10th amendment for a reason as well. A federal government can, and in our case has, become fundementally disconnected with the complexity and multitude of different problems that each state may face. Of course the doctorine of states rights has been used by those interested only in surpressing our rights, but the same can be said for the doctorines of federal supremecy. Its why freedom requires constant vigilance.
Click to expand...
I can't help notice that the lefties here refuse to argue against this point, and instead go off on a tangent to bash Lincoln. This thread is not about Lincoln. It is about the concept of State's Rights.

Soc ignores the fact that the federal government has enumerated powers, and all those powers not so granted are the property of the People or of the States. For example:

The feds have no jurisdiction over regulating privilege licenses. It's up to states to do this.

The fed has no right to regulate education. Again, its up to the States, or for those willing to home school, the People.

Although its clearly a fed jurisdiction, they have fallen down on the job of protecting the national borders. States therefore have the right to protect the national borders that are in their states.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
Exactly, the slaves were simply political tools to Lincoln. If whole sale slaughter of them would preserve the union I have no doubt in my mind Lincoln would kill them all himself.
Click to expand...

It seems that many people prefer the Reader's Digest version of history, anything more requires a few brain cells.
 
DamnYankee said:
I can't help notice that the lefties here refuse to argue against this point, and instead go off on a tangent to bash Lincoln. This thread is not about Lincoln. It is about the concept of State's Rights.

Soc ignores the fact that the federal government has enumerated powers, and all those powers not so granted are the property of the People or of the States. For example:

The feds have no jurisdiction over regulating privilege licenses. It's up to states to do this.

The fed has no right to regulate education. Again, its up to the States, or for those willing to home school, the People.

Although its clearly a fed jurisdiction, they have fallen down on the job of protecting the national borders. States therefore have the right to protect the national borders that are in their states.
Click to expand...

with all that in mind though, it's important to remember that the state is limited by their own constitution as well, every bit as much as the feds are.
 
DamnYankee said:
That should go without saying.
Click to expand...

so things/issues like gay marriage in vermont or massachussetts shouldn't bother you at all down there in north carolina, right? or say drivers licenses and insurance....unless a state has some constitutional authority to regulate the means of travel a person is allowed, they shouldnt be able to require a person to pay for the privilege, right?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
so things/issues like gay marriage in vermont or massachussetts shouldn't bother you at all down there in north carolina, right? or say drivers licenses and insurance....unless a state has some constitutional authority to regulate the means of travel a person is allowed, they shouldnt be able to require a person to pay for the privilege, right?
Click to expand...
As long as the laws of one state don't impact the other states I have no problem whatsoever. This was the Founder's intent, after all, where progressive states would be "incubators" for new and groovy ideas while conservative states would remain bastions of freedom where freedom loving people could flee too. This explains my flight first from Massachusetts, then from New York and then to North Carolina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top