States Rights vs. Bill of Rights

[Gentleman Skeleton]

Ron Paul has spoken vociferously in the name of states rights, and is the author of the We the People act( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110nK8pUx:: ) which takes away the Supreme Court's check on the constitutionality of the actions of states. Given the conflict between the federal Constitution and the state Constitutions(in instances such as the state constitution of texas which requires the belief in a supreme being: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-000400.html ) how does Ron Paul propose that the rights granted us in the Bill of Rights be protected? Mightn't there be a conflict of interest here between his Christian social-conservative values, which would certainly benefit from the states not having to act constitutionally?

[Minuteman]

Federal trumps State.

[TurtleBurger]

The Bill of Rights was intended only to apply to the federal government; for example, the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." (nothing about the states). It would be the responsibility of the people of each state to make sure their state constitution also included a Bill of Rights.

[Gentleman Skeleton]

The Bill of Rights was intended only to apply to the federal government; for example, the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." (nothing about the states). It would be the responsibility of the people of each state to make sure their state constitution also included a Bill of Rights.

If the people are clearly failing to live up to this duty, why put it in their hands? And why even bothering have a bill of rights to protect the liberties of the people when states will usurp power that the federal government can't? I don't care whether it's coming from a state or not, that's oppression.

[FreeTraveler]

The Bill of Rights was intended only to apply to the federal government; for example, the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." (nothing about the states). It would be the responsibility of the people of each state to make sure their state constitution also included a Bill of Rights.


See Article VI of the Constitution:

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.

[noxagol]

Sans 14th amendment, the only part of the bill of rights that does not apply to the states is the 1st, because is specifies which part of government cannot do something. All the rest apply to EVERY government in America, because they do not specify which it applies to.

[bbachtung]

The Bill of Rights does NOT give us any rights; this misperception is why some of the founders opposed the adoption of a Bill of Rights. ALL of our rights save those ceded to the federal government are retained by the people (or the states if the people have further ceded rights to their state governments). The federal government should not be in the business of protecting us from our state governments.

[bbachtung]

Oh, and the interesting thing about the Texas Constitution is that it was adopted AFTER the U.S. Constitution and Texas was admitted into the Union without the federal government requiring its modification or repeal. How is that for protection?