State's Rights, and my opinion. (Yours welcome too!)

[Rasputin747]

We as students of the second amendment know, the states have rights that cannot be barged upon by the federal government. Though everyday I hear and see something new that wishes to take a state's rights case and turn it nation wide. Issues such as guns, abortion, gay marriage, etc. are all prime examples.

I am a firm believer in our U.S. Constitution. Sure, it can be ammended, but there are so many ways to make an informal amendmant. And to see politicians who disregard our very own U.S. Constitution to do party politics and their own agendas is just disgusting. It seems as if no one, save Ron Paul, took the time to look at our founding fathers and how they felt.

A very good example is their 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads as "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." See that? We have a right to own firearms to protect us from tyranny and unfair government.

The South used their second amendment to the most it can go to: secession. Now I do not support racism or any such thing, but they had the right idea. They saw the government as unfair, and when no one would listen, they tailed it out. No where in the Constitution does it say that a state may not seceed.

And what is happening today? The state's are losing their rights faster than
a fat kid chasing a kid who stole his cake. Another amendment protects their rights, the Tenth: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

So there we have it, Congress is getting away with robbing the Constitution. They are regulating firearms, and spending too much time and effort into issues which are reserved to the states. Good job, Congress.

Though the American people are part way to blame. We haven't been keeping tabs on if they are doing their job or not. All we want to know is if they are having sex and with who. I say we keep a better check and make sure they do their job given to them in the Constitution: Make law, not talk.

Please feel free to add your two cents.

 

[Outlaw Man]

Nullification and secession are the two most powerful tools a state has to protect itself from unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately, I doubt any state would be willing to use those to their best effect.

 

[ArmedBear]

While I think that most Confederate soldiers and supporters in the Civil War were fighting simply because they were defending their homes and families, I also think that we have the Confederacy to blame for much of this.

States' Rights died in 1865, primarily because the South used States' Rights to attempt to preserve the institution of slavery.

Slavery is so morally repugnant and so anti-individual-rights that some technical argument like "States' Rights" could not defend it. "Rights" and "slavery" in the same thought are, of course, ridiculous.

By and large, the South was right. Why couldn't states secede? What was so sacred about Lincoln's objective of "preserving the Union" at all costs?

But the South was wrong about something enormous: slavery.

So, we are living with the results.

Those who wish to control us have used the situation as a way for the Federal government to sieze power, over and over. In the short term, we have them to blame. In the long term, this is still a result of slavery, and all the cynical "compromises" made in the 18th and 19th Centuries, at the expense of so many individual lives.

 

[Rasputin747]

That is what I don't understand about a lot of people. Some people also don't think that a State Legislature even exists. All they know about is the Governor. It is really sad times in the States.

 

[azredhawk44]

Armed Bear, you hit the nail right on the head. You put it much more eloquently than I think I ever could have.

+1 to you, sir.

To the OP: I think that the concept of secession is officially played out and will not be brought out again in the United States.

Think Arizona, New Mexico and Texas: they could secede from the union effectively. Texas provides a sea coast, grazing land, farm land. Arizona and New Mexico provide significant mineral deposits and forest reserves. There's a great country right there.

All 3 states have huge problems with illegal immigrants.

But, were they to secede, the .gov would be on them like stink on ****, crying "racism", "fascism", or "slavery" (not quite sure how they would justify it, but they make good soundbites).

 

[Rasputin747]

Of course secession won't be tried again. Last people who did got their asses whooped. But the Federal government is over-stepping it's constitutional boundaries, and few see it happening.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Just so that there is no confusion about the purpose of the [sic] civil war.....

http://www.geocities.com/ghostamendment/

Ghost Amendment:
The Thirteenth Amendment that Never Was
"No Amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any state, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." --Joint Resolution of Congress, Adopted March 2, 1861

There is stored in some Lincoln Library somewhere (I saw it on the news) a personal letter, signed by the First Dictator of the United States, (Lincoln) a letter to a state legislature requesting that they ratify the 13th amendment.

Ratification got interrupted by the 2nd War of American Independence, (The one we lost).

That war was not about slavery until his weaselness, Mr. Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation (only affected rebellious states) and only because he feared that England would come into the war on the side of the South.

A little historical perspective is prudent.

 

[ArmedBear]

That war was not about slavery until his weaselness, Mr. Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation (only affected rebellious states) and only because he feared that England would come into the war on the side of the South.

I agree. The war was about "preserving the Union", in Lincoln's own words. This is hardly justification for the war. Lincoln was not a friend of government of, by and for the people as he claimed at Gettysburg.

...but slaves are also people...

Had the South abolished slavery itself when the Confederacy was formed, there would have been no moral ground the Union could stand upon. There would be no justification for the United States forcing states to remain in the Union against the will of their inhabitants.

HOWEVER, since the South did not abolish slavery, there would be no way to say that the will of the populations of the southern states was reflected in their decisions to secede. Slaves didn't vote, and they surely didn't vote for secession.

That's why we have the South to blame, not secession itself, which they had the right to do IMO.

The United States has never had any qualms about military action against a government that does not share our basic values about human rights, and the Confederacy did not. I have little doubt that, absent slavery, the South would have been able to secure England's support in 1861, right away.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

...but slaves are also people...

So are Indians. Pray tell why, even in the 14th amendement, they make reference to the citizens of the U.S. (Except for Indians, not taxed)?

Those were different times.

Wounded Knee?

Did the South do that?

 

[ArmedBear]

Wait...

I have written over and over that the Union was wrong in many ways. It was wrong at Wounded Knee, too. Of course, Indians weren't always treated so well in the South, either.

The fact remains that, were the Confederacy to have been identified with some common factor besides slavery, history might well look different.

Times were different. But most of the western world had decided that slavery was immoral. The states of the Confederacy were the holdouts. Had they abolished slavery, there would have been no justification, however fabricated after the fact, for the Civil War.

Democrats in 1864 wanted to end the war and leave the South alone. Most Northerners, apart from avid abolitionists, didn't want to fight and die to "preserve the Union" for Lincoln. It could have happened. The Confederacy could still exist.

But slavery was the major factor that shifted the balance, whether you like it or not.

I am well aware that the war wasn't fought to end slavery. I gave a report on that in the 5th Grade, 30 years ago.

The Civil War was not morally simple in any way. Slavery just tipped the balance, and it tipped the balance in a way that hurts all of us, particularly with the demise of real States' Rights.

 

[Rasputin747]

Amen, ArmedBear. I doubt the Bonnie Blue Flag will ever fly in true form again.

 

[Speer]

But slavery was the major factor that shifted the balance, whether you like it or not.

Right. It certianly killed the CSU's chance of getting military back up from Europe.

 

[george29]

Ignore the content, focus on the reaction.

I am flabbergasted. I usually quick read the news on msn & yahoo, and then read the posts here. I was wondering if I needed to create a thread on this matter but you guys beat me to it, hats off!

Here are a few excerpts from news stories of today (01/18/07), and tell me that you still feel secure? God Bless AmeriKa

"Manual to allow executions based on hearsay" (AP)
Updated: 12:52 p.m. MT Jan 18, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drafted a manual for upcoming detainee trials that would allow suspected terrorists to be convicted on hearsay evidence and coerced testimony and imprisoned or put to death.


"Medical marijuana clinics raided in L.A." (AP)
Federal raids reflect disparity with state law that allows prescription use
LOS ANGELES - Federal drug agents raided nearly a dozen medical marijuana clinics in California, seizing several thousand pounds of processed marijuana, along with weapons and money, authorities said.

Several people were detained, although no arrests were made after five dispensaries in West Hollywood and six others in Venice, Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley were searched Wednesday, said Sarah Pullen, a spokeswoman with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.

The raids highlighted a conflict between a California state law and the federal drug agency........




Please, snide remarks like "they deserve it" or "they brought it on themselves" is transparently understood by most of us here.

I have been on other forums but this one seems to harbor more intelligent people, tell me I am not paranoid and that Government has lost the fear of it's own laws and Constitution.

If we allow "hearsay" as enough proof to execute terrorists, when will it be good enough to be used as proof against murder suspects? Then say Drug Dealers? Then let's say Rapists, Pedophiles, Tax Evaders, Mail Fraud, all the way until it will become law and will be used against everyone, perhaps focussing on Gun Owners, because we all know that the first step to population control is gun control.

The second news article deals NOT with Marijuanna, but the legallity of the Constitution itself, read on:

........California voters in 1996 approved the Compassionate Use Act, which makes marijuana available by prescription for medicinal uses. The DEA, which does not recognize California laws legalizing medical marijuana use, has recently increased its enforcement.

Under seal
Pullen declined to provide details of the latest investigation, saying the search warrants remained under seal.

"But obviously we are looking for marijuana and other illegal drugs, marijuana edibles and evidence of ongoing criminal activity and anything from paperwork to documents — you name it," Pullen said.

City officials in West Hollywood said they were surprised by the action, learning of the raid as it was happening. City spokeswoman Helen Goss said West Hollywood has a "long-standing commitment" to the use of medical marijuana for people suffering from illnesses like HIV and AIDS.

Agents in bulletproof vests, gloves and face masks left a West Hollywood storefront with boxes and trash bags filled, as about 50 protesters booed and shouted "states' rights."

At one dispensary, The Farmacy on Santa Monica Boulevard, amateur videographers and others mobbed officers filling three cars with evidence.

"Today's enforcement operations show that these establishments are nothing more than drug-trafficking organizations bringing criminal activities to our neighborhoods and drugs near our children and schools," said Ralph W. Partridge, head of the DEA in Los Angeles.


Is this Ralph W. Partridge Mike Nifong in disguise?

 

[Rasputin747]

I think george is right. If California wants it, by God let them have it. It is their decision, and NO WHERE in the Constitution does it say the Feds can regulate such things.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Before we go any further with this, those of you who keep saying "States Rights", put your heads up close to the screen and scroll down:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
[size=+10]WHAP !
.
.
WHAP !
.
.
WHAP ![/size]
.
Now, that I've cleared your heads, PLEASE remember that states don't have rights! States only have powers we the people grant to them just like the powers we grant to the Union. Fight the battle over the usurped powers of either the states or the Union. Those are the things outlined in the constitutions of the several states and the Constitution for the United States. Otherwise, it's only academic.

Talk in terms of usurpation of power and infringement of rights. That addresses the Constitution right on its face.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[shield20]

How does 'state laws vs. the gov't' deal with this?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So tell me how any state can pass any gun law more restrictive then a federal one; since the 2nd protects the RKBA - i.e. it shall not be infringed. CA and NY and others are more strict, yet not found unconstitutional.

Be careful what you wish for. Right now I am more worried about NYS then US.


Other things:
The process of nullification may refer to:
The legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory is based on a view that the sovereign States formed the Union, and as creators of the compact hold final authority regarding the limits of the power of the central government.


preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that the Constitution and other federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land". Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law trumps – or "preempts" – the state law. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities.
...
The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.

 

[NukemJim]

So tell me how any state can pass any gun law more restrictive then a federal one; since the 2nd protects the RKBA - i.e. it shall not be infringed. CA and NY and others are more strict, yet not found unconstitutional.

Incorporation.

The 2nd ammendment has not been incorporated.

Now I have no idea what the, uhm... erh..(remember Art's Grandma? ) tarnation that means I have absolutely, positively, certain no idea what so every except:

A) only certain "important", "basic" or"fundemental" ammendments have been "Incorporated".

B) Back when I took civics ( a long time ago ) all the ammendments to the consititution were valid and applied equally everywhere.

C) when I ask people about the conflict posed by A and B above they get all funny talking, mumbling, and saying things like " a work in progress".

If anybody can give me a "Dummies guide to Incorporation" I would be very gratefull.

Thank you

NukemJim

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

preemption generally refers to the displacing effect that federal law will have on a conflicting or inconsistent state law. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, section 2) of the United States Constitution states that the Constitution and other federal laws are the "supreme Law of the Land". Thus, when there is a conflict between a state law and federal law, the federal law trumps – or "preempts" – the state law. The term is also sometimes used to refer to the displacing effect state laws might have on ordinances enacted by municipalities.
...
The federal law, in this case, may be a minimum standard, while the state enacts a law to be more strict. State law, therefore, would not be preempted. Preemption would only occur if the federal and state laws were mutually exclusive.

You mention the Supremacy Clause but are missing one significant point having to do with the federal law and the supremacy of the Constitution over federal law- especially where the Second Amendment protects our RKBA. Those federal laws are in themselves unconstitutional. So, that puts those state laws WAAAAAAYYYYYYYYY out there on the limb!

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[gc70]

"Today's enforcement operations show that these establishments are nothing more than drug-trafficking organizations bringing criminal activities to our neighborhoods and drugs near our children and schools," said Ralph W. Partridge, head of the DEA in Los Angeles.

When you read a statement that is so devoid of rational content, it can only be viewed as propaganda or disinformation.

 

[hugh damright]

Slavery is so morally repugnant and so anti-individual-rights that some technical argument like "States' Rights" could not defend it.

It doesn't seem technical to me. It just seems like constitutionalism and rule of law ... the US Constitution protected the States' right to slavery, and yankees decided they were above the US Constitution.

If anybody can give me a "Dummies guide to Incorporation" I would be very gratefull.

I think it has to do with the difference between a national government and a federal government ... if all the USBOR were fully incorporated then rights would not vary from State to State, the States would be consolidated into one sovereignty, and the US would be a national government ... the SCOTUS acted to prevent such a thing, they acted to preserve the federal foundation of our US Constitution, by only incorporating certain rights ... when it comes to the individual RKBA, this is considered to be a right that precedes government, and is thus beyond the reach of a limited federal government.

 

[george29]

".....when it comes to the individual RKBA, this is considered to be a right that precedes government, and is thus beyond the reach of a limited federal government."


Let's just hope that those that wish to turn the "c" in America to a "k" understand this too.

 

[rhubarb]

". . . when all government . . . in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." - Thomas Jefferson (1821)

 

[george29]

Thomas Jefferson must have had extraordinary vision, I am amazed at all of his quotes. Either that, or we face those same challenges and factors that the Revolutionary Counsul faced against Britain and his quotes just are in keeping with current events as they were then, the same evil tyranny we apparently have now. Unfortunately, Paul Revere's great-great-great-great grandson is busy playing nintendo or getting his schlong pierced.

 

[ArmedBear]

It doesn't seem technical to me. It just seems like constitutionalism and rule of law ... the US Constitution protected the States' right to slavery, and yankees decided they were above the US Constitution.

Had slaves been allowed to vote in their states, and had they voted to keep the institution of slavery, you'd have a strong argument.

But they didn't.

 

[hugh damright]

Had slaves been allowed to vote in their states, and had they voted to keep the institution of slavery, you'd have a strong argument.

But they didn't.

If the Constitution hadn't protected the States right to slavery, if it instead required that each State let slaves vote, then you would have an argument.

Where does the Constitution fit into your view?