|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 31, 2011 3:38:07 GMT -5
I'm here referring to the rightist ideology broadly held by the corporate prostitutes of the Libertarian Party. Left-libertarianism/anarchy is a different story. States don't have rights, they have jobs. The libertarian view of Corporate/property rights standing in contrast to human rights- the right to equal or fair treatment, to vote, to speak, to live and so on- is morally indefensible. It would probably be more accurate if you clarified as to which kind of libertarians you were talking about. Also, did you read my entire quote? I said it myself that the individual's rights come first.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 31, 2011 11:55:58 GMT -5
I really don't understand the rationale behind state's rights being so important. Why not just admit we are one country and act like it or split up into 50 independent nations? As far as I can see, state's rights does more to promote cultural divides and allow for abuse than it does promote any benefit. After all, if state's rights were stronger we would have even more racial segregation in the south (which is already pretty bad). We also have huge disparities in education between different states (places like Massachusetts and Minnesota are awesome, Mississippi and Alabama-not so much). We can look at various indicators of well being and use those states as a model to form a strong federal government and a healthy nation. Take the public health policies of the states with the longest lifespans, the education policies of the states with the most high school graduates, the economic policies of the states with the highest wealth and lowest unemployment, and so forth. Granted, more detailed analysis will be needed to (one state may have longer life spans due not to public health policies, but because the air is cleaner due to less industrialization), but we have 50 different governing methods to look at, why not take the best from the lot? I really wonder about this as well. Especially in that I have never heard people talk about Counties' rights, or Cities' rights, even though they are also independent subsets of the political hierarchy. I mean, I understand the historical attempt to have States' rights, as it was part of the original attempt at governing what is now the US with a confederacy, but you'd think they'd realise how flawed it was since it utterly collapsed within a decade ultimately forcing the founders to remove States' rights just so that there could actually be a governmental system that wasn't going to immediately self immolate. Aside from that, which is actually a reason they shouldn't exist, I've never once seen an actual argument put forth on why States' rights should exist.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 31, 2011 12:32:35 GMT -5
I concur with WW. States have no "rights." They have responsibilities and are granted such powers by the people to fulfill those responsibilities. If the States fail to do so, those powers can and should be modified, reviewed, or outright revoked by the people. Likewise the Federal government has no "rights" either, only different (and sometimes overlapping) responsibilities.
Corporations also should have no "rights," either. The people who own and run those corporations have rights, but the non-human entity known as a "corporation" should have no "rights." The moment we start giving legal rights to non-human organizations, we absolve the people who run those organizations of responsibility for their actions. and that way lies disaster.
I understand that the whole "States Rights" argument revolves around the question of legislative supremacy. Who has the trump card in government, the Federal or the State level? But arguing this matter is like arguing whether or not LeBron James is a douchebag. The question has already been definitively settled. We fought a war over it. And the side that says the Federal government ultimately holds the trump card won. Today, those who study politics understand that in some matters the Fed holds supremacy, and in other matters the States do. It's all spelled out right there in the US Constitution. But, sadly, some people just insist on refighting old wars endlessly.
Here in Ohio, they passed legislation making Ohioans exempt from any Federal requirement to hold health insurance. Sigh. I would say it's unlikely that the asshats in the State House have never heard of the concept of "Nullification," but unfortunately, knowing who they are, it's probably true that they haven't. Basically the concept of Nullification is a settled issue. States can not override or exempt themselves from Federal legislation they do not like or happen to disagree with. This is a well-established political reality in the United States, and Ohio is headed for a nasty legal snafu over their attempt to do it.
Now you could argue that the Fed lacks the legislative power to require all citizens to hold health insurance. But that's not what Ohio is doing. Ohio is not disputing that the Fed can do this....they are claiming they have a "Get Out Of Legislation Free" card. Imagine the chaos if that were possible. How long would it take Texas to exempt themselves from Federal taxes and trade regulations? How long would it take Florida to exempt itself from estate taxes?
It's amazing how State's Rights advocates fail to know their history. We tried putting States first....it was called the Articles of Confederacy and it was a massive disaster.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 13:38:50 GMT -5
While this sounds pretty and flowery, it just is not true. When people talk about states' rights they are not talking about their individual powers, but about their right to assert full control of that power, as protected in Amendment X.
The Constitution gives several rights to states that in no way can be construed as "powers." They are not something the state does but rather something guaranteed to them as a matter of law. This is a "right."
For example, the states have the right to immunity from suits at law (called "sovereign immunity," deriving from Amendment XI). In other words, a state cannot be sued without its consent. The most highly protected right in the Constitution is the right of the states to equal suffrage in the Senate: it is the only portion of the Constitution that can never be amended.
|
|
|
Post by Tiberius on Dec 31, 2011 15:32:53 GMT -5
States don't have rights, they have jobs. The libertarian view of Corporate/property rights standing in contrast to human rights- the right to equal or fair treatment, to vote, to speak, to live and so on- is morally indefensible. It would probably be more accurate if you clarified as to which kind of libertarians you were talking about. Also, did you read my entire quote? I said it myself that the individual's rights come first. Yeah. Things often get confusing like that in politics, and you often have to judge from context. For example, I am an objectivist, in that I believe that the truth needs to be found, and is not relative (comes with the whole physics thing, I suppose), not a Randian Objectivist who believes that everyone should screw everyone else over at every given opportunity. Of course, specifying would be helpful, but it rarely happens.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 31, 2011 16:12:38 GMT -5
While this sounds pretty and flowery, it just is not true. When people talk about states' rights they are not talking about their individual powers, but about their right to assert full control of that power, as protected in Amendment X. The Constitution gives several rights to states that in no way can be construed as "powers." They are not something the state does but rather something guaranteed to them as a matter of law. This is a "right." For example, the states have the right to immunity from suits at law (called "sovereign immunity," deriving from Amendment XI). In other words, a state cannot be sued without its consent. The most highly protected right in the Constitution is the right of the states to equal suffrage in the Senate: it is the only portion of the Constitution that can never be amended. I think you misunderstood my point. I was speaking on the philosophy of governance, not the sloppy and bastardized version current US politics endorses. And since any "rights." so to speak, the States may be found to possess derive from the Constitution, which derives its authority from the consent of the governed, you have not actually disputed what I said. You are just arguing semantics. So you're a Tenther? And how do you justify the statement that equal suffrage in the Senate "can not be amended?" It's the only part of the Constitution that can never be amended? I may be having a senior moment, but I can't recall any part of the Constitution establishing that fact....and even if it did, all you would have to do is amend the part the prohibits amending equal suffrage. (The Constitution, despite the desperate screams of conservatives, is not a static document.) I assume you are talking about Artivle V ( ",no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate") but there is nothing preventing Article V itself from being amended.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 17:25:27 GMT -5
So are we in agreement then? The states have rights, but they obtain these rights from the people.
Well we haven't had an opportunity to test that theory yet. I don't think the Supreme Court would take too kindly to it as it would make the clause useless. The intent of the Founding Fathers is clear: they did not want the states to be able to gang-up on an unpopular state and deny its right to equal suffrage in the Senate. There are a few items listed in Article V that are specifically prohibited from being the object of amendment (all but the Senate provision have now expired); no other right guaranteed by the Constitution has this provision built into it. Whether or not it is possible to amend the entrenched clause doesn't nullify the fact that equal suffrage in the Senate is given at least some extra protection that no other right has.
And yes, I am a "Tenther." Although unlike most Tenthers, I recognize that not everything is a legitimate state power.
|
|
|
Post by the sandman on Dec 31, 2011 19:06:47 GMT -5
As for Article V, while it does prohibit amending away equal suffrage, there is nothing in it preventing Article V itself from being amended away. But that is an academic argument since I can't imagine any scenario where someone would ever try it in the first place.
Anyway, since you are a self-professed Tenther, our conversation is most likely over now. I'm going to be honest with you here. I have nothing but contempt for Tenthers.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 20:35:59 GMT -5
I understand what you're saying, but what would be the point of putting that clause in there if you can ratify the following amendment?
Section 1. The clause in Article V prohibiting amendment to the equal suffrage of states in the Senate is repealed. Section 2. Texas shall not be represented in the Senate.
I think that it can be demonstrably shown that the intent of the clause is that it is self-entrenching, otherwise it is meaningless and contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers.
As for your contempt of Tenthers, I'm not going to get upset over what some person on the Internet thinks of me, but I want to clarify that when I identify as a Tenther I do not at all subscribe to the ideology of what is commonly thought of as a "Tenther:" that is, people who think everything under the sun is a state power. For example, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying their citizens the equal protection of the law. This means gay marriage is not a states' rights issue: every state should be forced to perform and recognize equal marriage. On the other hand, I believe that contrary to current federal law and Supreme Court case law, if a state chooses to legalize marijuana, it should have that ability. Provided that the marijuana is grown, sold, and consumed within the borders of a state it should be considered purely intra-state commerce, not inter-state commerce, and thus outside the purview of Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 31, 2011 21:34:43 GMT -5
I disagree with making marijuana a state's rights issue because states aren't allowed to deprive someone of their property, even if that property is marijuana. The federal government's role is to protect the individuals from having their property and rights taken by states.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 21:47:07 GMT -5
States can deprive people of their property with "due process of law." So if they make possession of marijuana illegal (which they are entitled to do), and they take away someone's marijuana after charging them with that crime and following due process of law, then it is legal.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Dec 31, 2011 22:13:47 GMT -5
Alright, here's a question. Since the legal drinking age used to be determined by the different states but is now determined at the federal level, what does this mean for States' Rights?
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 22:30:49 GMT -5
States are fully in control of setting their own drinking age. It's just that if it's anything below 21 the federal government withholds 10% of federal highway funds from them. I highly disagree with this practice where the federal government coerces states into doing things the federal government couldn't legislate directly by holding financial carrots in front of their eyes.
The Supreme Court upheld this practice in South Dakota v. Dole, but I agree with the dissenting opinion in that case.
It's also worth noting that the federal government is not allowed to withhold such a quantity of funds that it essentially makes acceptance of their policy mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Dec 31, 2011 22:35:43 GMT -5
I still disagree with the notion that tyranny of the majority is okay as long as it takes place on the state level. A person's rights shouldn't depend on what arbitrary borders they fall into.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 31, 2011 22:44:53 GMT -5
The states do not have the authority to deny any person within its jurisdiction their life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the law.
|
|