PDA

View Full Version : State constitutions?




H Roark
05-23-2008, 03:18 AM
Besides being subservient to the federal constitution what other restrictions, limitations or mandates are common to all state constitutions? I mean, how massive could state government get without violating the federal constitution?

"...states have had multiple constitutions and since each state drafts its own, there is great diversity between them, though all have some basic concepts in common." (Wikipedia)

qaxn
05-23-2008, 03:26 AM
Republican form of government as guaranteed by the US Constitution. They're mostly fashioned after the US one, with bicameral legistlatures (with the exception of Nebraska), governers, and courts.

Historically states have been the perpetrators of the nastiest violations of civil rights, so being wary is definitely a good idea. There's always the caveat that localising power means that the interests are more provincial.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-23-2008, 12:22 PM
Besides being subservient to the federal constitution what other restrictions, limitations or mandates are common to all state constitutions? I mean, how massive could state government get without violating the federal constitution?

"...states have had multiple constitutions and since each state drafts its own, there is great diversity between them, though all have some basic concepts in common." (Wikipedia)

The Texas Constitution divides its administrative branch into 5 parts with a Governor, a Lt. Governor, a Land Commissioner, an Attorney General and a State Comptroller. Each individual executive is seperated in powers while each answers seperately to only the state legislature and the court. While the Lt. Governor at times welds more power than the Governor, the State Comptroller has real teeth in that he or she can declare government spending unconstitutional. The Land Commissioner was necessary because Texas got to keep its territory after the Republic became part of the Union by treaty.
The Judicial branch of Texas state government has 2 distinctive supreme courts to divide up the legal from the civil issues.
The Legislative brance only meets on a part time basis to do business and depends on special sessions called by the governor to take care of unfinished business.

Acala
05-23-2008, 03:59 PM
State constitutions are very interesting. For example, take a look at what the state constitutions have along the lines of a First Amendment. Arizona's constitution is more broad and explicit in its limitations on government involvement in religion. It prohibits any expenditure of any government resource on behalf of any religion. Other states are more tolerant of state-supported religion.

The biggest difference, in theory, between State governments and the Federal government is that state governments have plenary power. They can legislate in any area and exercise any power unless it is specifically prohibited by the State version of a bill of rights (or by federal law). The Federal government, on the other hand, is supposed to be one of enumerated powers. It should only be able to legislate in areas that are enumerated in Article II Section 8. But, as we know, the Federal government has usurped plenary power. Grrrrr!!!!

nate895
05-23-2008, 04:05 PM
Besides being subservient to the federal constitution what other restrictions, limitations or mandates are common to all state constitutions? I mean, how massive could state government get without violating the federal constitution?

"...states have had multiple constitutions and since each state drafts its own, there is great diversity between them, though all have some basic concepts in common." (Wikipedia)

I believe all state constitutions have a bill of rights, and they are generally much broader than the federal one. The only thing you'd have to watch out for is universal health care and the like coming from the states, though plenty of states would refuse such steps and you can just move there.

crazyfingers
05-23-2008, 04:07 PM
AFAIK the big difference is fiscal...state's must balance their budgets every year while that's obviously not true of the federal government.

Kludge
05-23-2008, 04:07 PM
States are their own independent territory. They are supposed to have the right to break ties with the federal Union (and it's Constitution) any time they want. So, any law that doesn't affect the laws of other states is a state issue, and definitely should NOT be handled by a more inefficient federal government.

(Fuck you, Abe Lincoln.)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-23-2008, 04:59 PM
States are their own independent territory. They are supposed to have the right to break ties with the federal Union (and it's Constitution) any time they want. So, any law that doesn't affect the laws of other states is a state issue, and definitely should NOT be handled by a more inefficient federal government.

(Fuck you, Abe Lincoln.)

We can't allow people to challenge the right power of the self evident, inalienable truths with that of the wrong power of tyranny. Tyranny is not taught but is eroded to.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
05-23-2008, 06:00 PM
AFAIK the big difference is fiscal...state's must balance their budgets every year while that's obviously not true of the federal government.

The King (the master class) can seperate himself from the untouchable (the slave class) by using unlimited funds. So, in its efforts to bind the king to the dinner table, the Federal government can't be fiscally limited. Eventually, a showdown is going to take place between the civil wealth in the U.S. Constitution and the legal counterfeit debt set up outside of it.