Whatever happened to "States' Rights"?

Post Reply New Topic

Just for the info,this is a good site to keep tabs on our eroding civil rights,
www.aclu.org/national-security/document ... cal-groups

It is very interesting.
In Tibet Vultures are considered sacred because they eat no living thing,hence they cause no suffering.The last act of great merit one can do is after death your body is chopped up,bones pulverized and remains are placed on a mountain for the vultures to eat,the last kind act one can do is to offer your useless body to the benefit of other beings.It is called a sky burial or funeral.It would be my choice but I doubt I could have one in America.

Well, there was a dispute called the civil war.

The Republican lead government under Bush conducted raids on medical marijuana clinics before Bush got into office, and the federal government took precedence over state's rights after the Civil War.

I think now that Obama has been re-elected it's important for progressives to hold his feet to the fire. There should be a march on the mall to protest the excesses of the "war on drugs".

Yeah and does the federal government want another one? suppose it doesn't matter to them its not like the very wealthy and powerful would be sending their pampered children into battle. Mind you I hardly mean to start any conflict, but if the federal government continues disregarding states right I don't think its entirely unlikely that another civil war or civil war like situation could occur. I'd prefer it doesn't, honestly I will peacefully protest federal intervention on the marijuana laws in my state, and only get 'violent' if my life or someones life I care about is threatened.

Every federal nation runs headlong into the division of powers between central and subordinate governments.

No constitutional document can ever prescriptively estabslish every single head of jurisdiction. Furthermore there are many areas in which both levels of government have legitimate interests.

So what to do when two different levels of government have set out two different laws--each constitutionally valid--but which contradict each other? This is the pith and marrow of federal constitutional jurisprudence, with no easy answers to these questions. This is precisely the reason that the courts exist, to resolve these conflicts.

Governments do NOT have rights. They have Powers. Only flesh and blood individual humans have rights.

ruveyn

You guys seem to forget that governments are made up of human beings too. You often act as though government is controlled by aliens.

What happened to "states' rights" was that the Nixon era Republican party turned it into a code-word for Jim Crow laws and such as a way to woo disaffected southern Democrats without alienating their then northern base, thus tainting the term into the current era. Which is a shame, as states' rights are an important issue these days that needs discussing outside of the association with an old political dog whistle.

The individuals in government have their (natural and legal) individual rights. The organization they participate in does not.

Can you differentiated between the individual and the organization or institution?

ruveyn

The government should be afraid of its people, people should not be afraid of their government. Basically in the sense as soon as the citizens give up all their power to the government then they have nothing stopping them from full oppression. I know we've had our disagreements in the pst but I cannot help noticing you do make some fair points I can't help agreeing with.

Then again maybe what I've said here is not even close to what you were expressing, just seemed relevent since your point seems to be its the people with the power and governments don't have rights against the people or something to that effect.

If you have not seen the move "V for Vendetta" do see it. I am sure you will enjoy it.

ruveyn

The comic was better, though its premise of nuclear war was a little unresearched (a fact Alan Moore admits to).