DO STATES RIGHTS STILL EXIST

[cbseniour]

Do States Rights still exist?



What ever happened to “States Rights”? The 10th amendment to theconstitution states simply that “The Powers not delegated to the United Statesnor prohibited to the states by it are reserved to the States respectively or tothe people”.



Nowhere in this document does the constitution give the USthe power to control guns or ammunition. In fact as we all know today the 2ndamendment states that right shall not be infringed.



For that matter where does the constitution give the US theright to make seat belt laws, or tell us how to run schools and where and howto build roads?



The answer is not that complicated. In a word or two “incometaxes”. Taxes go to the US governmentand they in their great wisdom dole money out to the states (give back some ofwhat we the people pay in) but there are strings attached you see the Feds willwithhold money if the States don’t do with it as demanded. Just today I read that Indiana is going tolose $40M in federal highway funds because our drunken driving laws don’t meetfederal standards.



This is how we end up with laws or more often regulationsprohibiting the sale or consumption of raw milk etc., this is how the EPA andOSHA get by with totally ridiculous rules that any person with any common sensecan see to frugality and unreasonable cost.



Most of these laws and regulations over the years have beenpassed and justified under the “Interstate Commerce “provision of theconstitution which has been stretched past its breaking point for decades.



Perhaps the time has come for us to take back some of the“States Rights” that have been trampled by Washington. Maybe even sew up the“Interstate commerce:” clause so that it deals with what it should not whetheryou wear a seat belt or helmet.



I don’t have the answers only questions but I do know thatmore and more powerful central government is not the answer.

 

[AlphaSig112]

Unfortunately there are not many good answers to the dilemma you have brought up. It is up to the elected officials of the states to stand up and say enough is enough. As a people we are getting there but out officials seem to be afraid to anger the almighty .gov with disobedience.

 

[cobber]

Unfortunately there are not many good answers to the dilemma you have brought up. It is up to the elected officials of the states to stand up and say enough is enough. As a people we are getting there but out officials seem to be afraid to anger the almighty .gov with disobedience.

State officials should be more concerned with their own citizens, than the feudal overlords in DC.

 

[HoughMade]

States rights really hit the skids when a bunch of people decided it was a great idea to use the excuse of states right to maintain an economic system dependent on the unwilling subjugation of a race. Pretty hard to claim the moral high-ground on that.

As to the "stick and carrot" of federal money. Yes- it's a huge problem. States have given up control....willingly, for federal money. Yet the populace still clamors for all the things that come with that money. Rock and hard place. Politicians just don't want to tell their constituents that the roads won't be that good, schools may not get that new pool, etc., etc.

Chicken and egg- we send the people in the gvt. to Washington and Indy....they do what they think the people want and we even applaud whoever can bring the most pork home. Are politicians the problem? Government? The "people"?.....short answer- Yes.

 

[kiddchaos]

And on the other side of the coin.

I can do one thing in State A but it's illegal in State B.

 

[schhrdkncks]

The other excuse the feds use to trample on states rights is the misuse of the commerce clause.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

As to the "stick and carrot" of federal money. Yes- it's a huge problem. States have given up control....willingly, for federal money. Yet the populace still clamors for all the things that come with that money. Rock and hard place. Politicians just don't want to tell their constituents that the roads won't be that good, schools may not get that new pool, etc., etc.

Hmmm wonder where all that Federal money comes from? I think that over the years our politicians have left their gonads on the mantle!

 

[Liberty1911]

That question was pretty much resolved in 1865. The Federal government has been picking the bones of that carcass ever since.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

That question was pretty much resolved in 1865. The Federal government has been picking the bones of that carcass ever since.

Agreed being a Southerner, I have a complete different take on ole Abe and his Tyranny.

Now before this gets started the issue of slavery and Sandy Hook are synonomous as an impetus to strip the rights of Americans and invade the US Constitution.

Yes, slavery was wrong and despicable, but the reality is the War between the Americans and the Northern Agressors was not fought over slavery.

Slavery became the poster child for the slaughter of over 650 thousand Americans....... which resulted in unsurping the balance of power as enumerated by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution!

The struggle continues........

 

[Liberty1911]

Agreed being a Southerner, I have a complete different take on ole Abe and his Tyranny.

Now before this gets started the issue of slavery and Sandy Hook are synonomous as an impetus to strip the rights of Americans and invade the US Constitution.

Yes, slavery was wrong and despicable, but the reality is the War between the Americans and the Northern Agressors was not fought over slavery.

Slavery became the poster child for the slaughter of over 650 thousand Americans....... which resulted in unsurping the balance of power as enumerated by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution!

The struggle continues........

I'm a northerner obviously, but I think states had a legal right to secede. In fact, three states, VA, NY, and RI affirmed their right to secede in their Constitution ratification documents. Without that right, 10A is meaningless, as we have now seen.

That's why Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. He had a legal defense that the Federal government didn't want tested in court.

I think both north and south would have been better off peacefully divorcing.

 

[ghunter]

I think you'll see more states asserting themselves in coming years. Some states are joined at the hip to Fedzilla. Others are willing to at least try to decrease the omnipresent federal intervention in our day to day affairs.

 

[2ndAmendmentdefender]

I think you'll see more states asserting themselves in coming years. Some states are joined at the hip to Fedzilla. Others are willing to at least try to decrease the omnipresent federal intervention in our day to day affairs.

Seems like the mega city/states depend on the feds more than the more rural states. The problem comes when these socialists that run New York City, Chicago, LA and other cesspools of crime and viplence try to force their brand of rule on the others!

 

[IndyDave1776]

States rights really hit the skids when a bunch of people decided it was a great idea to use the excuse of states right to maintain an economic system dependent on the unwilling subjugation of a race. Pretty hard to claim the moral high-ground on that.

I could turn this argument right back around. You may recall the tariffs designed to benefit northern industries (which generally treated their employees worse that the South treated its slaves) at the expense of the agrarian south by reducing the buying power of the South's income by denying access to more economical goods generally from Britain. It is also significant to keep in mind that secession itself (and the economic implications) was the issue, not slavery, which, while stoking northern emotions, did not become an issue in the war until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which strangely for a claim to the moral high ground did NOT free slaves in the slave states which remained with the union). The primary impact of this proclamation was to sway Britain to stop supporting the south. The leaders in Britain naturally favored the south as it was still an integral part of its economic system while the north was a competitor. Conversely, Jack on the street tended to be a strongly abolitionist fellow and was motivated to increase pressure to stop supporting the slave-keeping south.

In the end, we have the north subjugating the south, which in turn subjugated slaves. Plenty of wrong to go around here. Also interesting is that Virginia came close to abolishing slavery before the war but changed direction in response to the tariff issue and general northern vitriol.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I suspect we're experiencing the inevitable result of the confluence of citizens becoming indifferent to politics, the loss of new frontiers to bleed off the disaffected, the tendency of democracies to vote themselves "bread and circuses" to the detriment of their society, the tendency of humans to build empires to further their own ambitions, and the coming-to-fruition of a long-term plan by the Communists to infiltrate us and destroy us from within. I consider it possible - but unlikely - that the current Second Amendment flap and the unfunded mandates associated with ObamaCare will push many state governments to push back against the overweening Feds.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I suspect we're experiencing the inevitable result of the confluence of citizens becoming indifferent to politics, the loss of new frontiers to bleed off the disaffected, the tendency of democracies to vote themselves "bread and circuses" to the detriment of their society, the tendency of humans to build empires to further their own ambitions, and the coming-to-fruition of a long-term plan by the Communists to infiltrate us and destroy us from within. I consider it possible - but unlikely - that the current Second Amendment flap and the unfunded mandates associated with ObamaCare will push many state governments to push back against the overweening Feds.

I suppose we could invade Detroit?

 

[Tim Enyeart]

I must politely disagree with IndyDave's assessment over the cause of CW. For the North it was preserving the Union which Lincoln was willing to do keeping slavery. And for the South without expansion of new slavery states, it was a just a matter of time before they were in the minority. The South viewed, with the election of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, the handwriting was on the wall. To say northern workers had it worse than slaves is disgustingly wrong.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I must politely disagree with IndyDave's assessment over the cause of CW. For the North it was preserving the Union which Lincoln was willing to do keeping slavery. And for the South without expansion of new slavery states, it was a just a matter of time before they were in the minority. The South viewed, with the election of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, the handwriting was on the wall. To say northern workers had it worse than slaves is disgustingly wrong.

I would say that it was a tradeoff. Make no mistake, I have no sympathy with the institution of slavery. I also have no sympathy with sweatshops much like those in Asia that now enjoy so much of our righteous hostility. In a way, it reminds me of the difference between socialism and capitalism. The northern factory worker had more freedom but the slave had the advantage that his owner had a vested interest in his health and well-being even if for selfish reasons. If an employee dies, you simply hire a new one at no loss to yourself. My point was not to defend slavery, but rather to address the notion that the war was that of the Holy Righteous North against the Benighted South. I will stand by the assertion that without the tariffs designed to benefit the north at the expense of the south, the war never would have happened.

 

[Liberty1911]

I must politely disagree with IndyDave's assessment over the cause of CW. For the North it was preserving the Union which Lincoln was willing to do keeping slavery. And for the South without expansion of new slavery states, it was a just a matter of time before they were in the minority. The South viewed, with the election of Lincoln and a Republican Congress, the handwriting was on the wall. To say northern workers had it worse than slaves is disgustingly wrong.

Someone years ago used the analogy of the causes of the Civil War as a wagon wheel.

States rights is the hub, things like tarrifs etc are the spokes, and slavery is the rim. It wasn't the central issue, but it's what gave it traction.

 

[cosermann]

The states CREATED the federal government with certain limited powers, not the other way around. Sure, states rights have been out of style since 1865, but that doesn't mean that we didn't function successfully that way for almost one-hundred years. Do they still exist? Sure, the Constitution says so. You know, that old, irrelevant document no one reads or cares about that is the supposed source of all federal law.

And just like gun control isn't about crime, safety, etc. (psst. - it's about control).

And just like gov't health care isn't about health or care. (psst. - it's about control).

And just like immigration reform, isn't about immigration, etc.

The Civil War wasn't really just about slavery (I'd even argue there were other more fundamental causes). That was just plausible political cover and is an easy answer for school children to write on tests in the blank for the question, "what caused the civil war?" It was far more complicated than that.

Guns and the government | Fox News

 

[johnny45]

Agreed being a Southerner, I have a complete different take on ole Abe and his Tyranny.

Now before this gets started the issue of slavery and Sandy Hook are synonomous as an impetus to strip the rights of Americans and invade the US Constitution.

Yes, slavery was wrong and despicable, but the reality is the War between the Americans and the Northern Agressors was not fought over slavery.

Slavery became the poster child for the slaughter of over 650 thousand Americans....... which resulted in unsurping the balance of power as enumerated by our Founding Fathers and the Constitution!

The struggle continues........

I could turn this argument right back around. You may recall the tariffs designed to benefit northern industries (which generally treated their employees worse that the South treated its slaves) at the expense of the agrarian south by reducing the buying power of the South's income by denying access to more economical goods generally from Britain. It is also significant to keep in mind that secession itself (and the economic implications) was the issue, not slavery, which, while stoking northern emotions, did not become an issue in the war until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which strangely for a claim to the moral high ground did NOT free slaves in the slave states which remained with the union). The primary impact of this proclamation was to sway Britain to stop supporting the south. The leaders in Britain naturally favored the south as it was still an integral part of its economic system while the north was a competitor. Conversely, Jack on the street tended to be a strongly abolitionist fellow and was motivated to increase pressure to stop supporting the slave-keeping south.

In the end, we have the north subjugating the south, which in turn subjugated slaves. Plenty of wrong to go around here. Also interesting is that Virginia came close to abolishing slavery before the war but changed direction in response to the tariff issue and general northern vitriol.

Some folks are doing their homework and exercising some critical thinking skills!