Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 95

Thread: Can states lawfully violate your constitutional rights?

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    *shrug* All I know is what its in the history books. Perhaps the next time you insert yourself into a conversation of mine, you will be better prepared.
    All I know is what I read in the Constitution, you should try reading it.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    So a government, state or otherwise, can lawfully and morally do whatever the majority of its citizens decide. And if the individual (the minority) isnt ok with what the majority decides, they should get up and move, is that your position?
    Yes. That is the essence of American federalism. You seem to have this idea that all of the colonists/Founders were the same and defined liberty the exact same way. That is simply not true. The reason they designed a federal republic to begin with is that they had to somehow bind very different cultures together. The only way they could successfully do that was through a loose confederation of States. Each State could run their affairs in a way that there were already accustomed to and in a way that mirrors the culture of that State. If Massachusetts wanted to ban the practice of Quakerism (as many localities did in the colonial period), then they can. The results? Quakers simply stayed out of Massachusetts. No harm, no foul.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Youre not going to convince me that the FFs didnt GAF about individual liberties on the state level.
    I'm not trying to. I'm arguing that the various cultural groups within American defined liberty differently. What one group thought was liberty (freedom of religion in Virginia, for example) was not a liberty for another group (freedom of religion in Massachusetts, as noted above).

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    The powers that the FFs were referring to was establishing a Department of Education if a state thought it appropriate. Not depriving someone of due process or the right of the state militias (the people) to bear arms, be protected from unlawful seizures etc.
    Do you have citations for that? I'm curious to read their arguments.


    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Did Thomas Paine at some point get possessed by an IRS agent because the quotes that I'm reading sure dont sound like someone whos a fan of taxes.
    I assume you just Googled Thomas Paine for some quotes without understanding context. Some of those quotes are from his series of pamphlets The American Crisis. He wrote those prior to living in France and experiencing the French Revolution. They were an argument against monarchy and a defense of a republican form of government. On the Other hand, Rights of Man was a defense of the French Revolution and written years later in a different phase of his life.

    I also assume that you have not read Rights of Man. It could have been written by any of the French Jacobins of the time. It is a leftist manifesto. He argues against a class-based society. I have the book sitting right here on my desk. He has entire sections on breaking up family property and creating what amounts to a welfare state. Its all right there.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    All I know is what I read in the Constitution, you should try reading it.
    Welcome back to the conversation!

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    That is how the 14th Amendment should be applied. States do not have rights. People have rights.
    You are correct. States do not have rights. They have sovereignty granted by their inhabitants.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    And if a state government violates rights then the federal government should intervene and force those states to not violate rights. For example laws against contraception or sodomy are illegitimate. The 14th Amendment should be used to limit state abuse.
    That is a valid argument to make, but it is the antithesis of the Founders/Framers vision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    And the 14th Amendment was, and should be in the future, used far more expansively than the courts have used it recently. Laws against drugs and prostitution, minimum wage laws, affirmative action, most regulations, and special protections for unions should be dismantled using the 14th Amendment.
    Arguing against a federal republic and arguing for a centralized and nationalized state is certainly an argument one can make. I prefer the Founder's vision.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    The 14th Amendment was originally used as an aggressive tool for liberty. New York had a law that limited the hours bakery employees worked. The court ruled in 1905 the New York law violated the freedom of contract implicit in the 14th Amendment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_v._New_York The right judges should reassert Lochner.
    I cannot in good conscious argue that the general government has not interfered enough in the lives of Americans. The idea that an ever-increasingly powerful central state is better at protecting liberty than a federal republic with 50 individual members is bizarre.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    That is a valid argument to make, but it is the antithesis of the Founders/Framers vision.
    The Founders/Framers vision was affected by the 14th Amendment, was it not?

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The idea that an ever-increasingly powerful central state is better at protecting liberty than a federal republic with 50 individual members is bizarre.
    Is it really that bizzare? If a pro-liberty ruling based on the 14th Amendment is applied nationwide via the 14th Amendment's incorporation of the BOR, is that necessarily worse than allowing each state to make its own determination with the result that some states will rule against liberty? Must federalism always trump liberty?

    I suggest that the greatest increase of federal power has been achieved via an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not the incorporation of the BOR.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Founders/Framers vision was affected by the 14th Amendment, was it not?
    Only if you are a nationalist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Is it really that bizzare? If a pro-liberty ruling based on the 14th Amendment is applied nationwide via the 14th Amendment's incorporation of the BOR, is that necessarily worse than allowing each state to make its own determination with the result that some states will rule against liberty? Must federalism always trump liberty?
    The general government being the enforcer of a document that was intended to hamper the power of the general government is indeed a bizarre concept. Its also a strange idea that the most powerful government in world history can protect liberty better than a State, city or county.

    Can 9 unelected justices protect the liberty of 350 million people, when each person has their own idea of what liberty means?

    Can 535 politicians in Congress protect the liberty of 350 million people better than 253 politicians in Pennsylvania protect the liberty of 12 million people?

    Federalism is liberty because it enables a marketplace of ideas and a respect for the different cultural groups within the country. The majority of people in Alabama may see the banning of abortion as liberty. Meanwhile, the majority in California may see a free-for-all on abortions as liberty. With a federal republic, both can have their cultures respect and both can foster their own ideas of what liberty means. What I reject is the cultural imperialism advocated by nationalists who want a one-sized-fits all approach to policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I suggest that the greatest increase of federal power has been achieved via an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, not the incorporation of the BOR.
    Hm, interesting. I disagree, but I respect your opinion. Its an embarrassment that the Court has permitted unconstitutional use of the Commerce Clause.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Only if you are a nationalist.
    One needn't be a nationalist to believe that the 14th Amendment was intended to, and does, limit what States can do. The same can be said of the 13th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments, all of which depart from the oriogional design. Whether the 14th necessarily incorporates the BOR is a differnt issue, but it was a clear departure from the Founders' intent and an understandable response to the Civil War.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    With a federal republic, both can have their cultures respect and both can foster their own ideas of what liberty means. What I reject is the cultural imperialism advocated by nationalists who want a one-sized-fits all approach to policy.
    I suggest that the plain language of the 14th does in fact mandate a one-size-fits-all for certain things, since it explicitly authorizes Congress to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation. What those things are can be debatable, but unless you're going to completely ignore the Amendment there must be some things that the States can't do.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  10. #68
    Most people voluntarily give up their constitutional rights via entering voluntary contracts with the State, such as asking for a driver's license. So no, a State can't lawfully violate your rights but a State can legally get you to give up your rights, therefore it is not violating your rights if it does something that is contrary to the Constitution. Stop entering their voluntary contracts if you want to be protected by inherent rights.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    The entire internet is the domain of paid shills and bots. If you don't know this by now....

    Israel, under control of the Crown and, ultimately, the Vatican, own the USA. If you don't know this by now....

    Talk to people about liberty. You won't find it on websites, you won't find it in politicians.

    But now you can't talk to people because of "social distancing"....brought to you by shills and politicians.

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    One needn't be a nationalist to believe that the 14th Amendment was intended to, and does, limit what States can do.
    1) I would argue the 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and is thus null and void. However, I live in reality where its accepted that an unconstitutional Amendment is used throughout US law. Therefore 2) I still would argue there is no basis to use the 14th Amendment to incorporate. There was not a consensus among the framers for such action and there is no evidence that "due process" means anything other than procedural. "Privileges and Immunities" is a throwback to the Articles of Confederation and means something very specific. These arguments are all well documented in the book I mentioned in a previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I suggest that the plain language of the 14th does in fact mandate a one-size-fits-all for certain things, since it explicitly authorizes Congress to enforce the Amendment by appropriate legislation. What those things are can be debatable, but unless you're going to completely ignore the Amendment there must be some things that the States can't do.
    Again, the mental gymnastics it takes to defend the notion that Congress is limited by the Bill of Rights, but Congress is also in charge of enforcing the Bill of Rights is enough to make your brain implode into a black hole. Congress and the rest of the general government were created by the States. It exists at the pleasure of the States. They existed before the Constitution and the general government. The idea that the States are now subservient to Congress is absurd.

    There are things the States cannot do. They are listed in Article 1, Section 10.

    In the end, it is indefensible to think that the general government can protect the liberty of 350 million better than an individual State can for their population.
    Last edited by familydog; 02-25-2020 at 04:32 AM.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Again, the mental gymnastics it takes to defend the notion that Congress is limited by the Bill of Rights, but Congress is also in charge of enforcing the Bill of Rights is enough to make your brain implode into a black hole. Congress and the rest of the general government were created by the States. It exists at the pleasure of the States. They existed before the Constitution and the general government. The idea that the States are now subservient to Congress is absurd.
    That so-called absurdity was built in to the Constitution, which the States ratified -- in other words, they agreed to be subservient in certain respects. It was reflected in the Supremacy Clause, under which federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution trump any state laws to the contrary.

    It was also reflected in the establishment of the federal judiciary, under which federal courts have the power to determine when a State has done something that oversteps constitutional restrictions.

    It's interesting you didn't mention the 14th's Equal Protection Clause. I would argue that it would violate equal protection if a State were to establish an official religion and prohibit the practice of any other. Or take a less draconian example: what if a State were to grant exemption from state taxes to Catholic churches but deny them to other churches. Do you really think there's no equal protection issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    In the end, it is indefensible to think that the general government can protect the liberty of 350 million better than an individual State can for their population.
    Well, it depends on how you define "liberty", doesn't it? And it seems to me that you view the term as completely relativistic -- i.e., whatever the citizens of a State wish to call it. Might that include the "liberty" to own slaves? After all, if the 14th Amendment wasn't legally ratified, does the 13th suffer from the same infirmity?
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Yes. That is the essence of American federalism. You seem to have this idea that all of the colonists/Founders were the same and defined liberty the exact same way. That is simply not true. The reason they designed a federal republic to begin with is that they had to somehow bind very different cultures together. The only way they could successfully do that was through a loose confederation of States. Each State could run their affairs in a way that there were already accustomed to and in a way that mirrors the culture of that State. If Massachusetts wanted to ban the practice of Quakerism (as many localities did in the colonial period), then they can. The results? Quakers simply stayed out of Massachusetts. No harm, no foul.

    I'm not trying to. I'm arguing that the various cultural groups within American defined liberty differently. What one group thought was liberty (freedom of religion in Virginia, for example) was not a liberty for another group (freedom of religion in Massachusetts, as noted above).

    Do you have citations for that? I'm curious to read their arguments.

    I assume you just Googled Thomas Paine for some quotes without understanding context. Some of those quotes are from his series of pamphlets The American Crisis. He wrote those prior to living in France and experiencing the French Revolution. They were an argument against monarchy and a defense of a republican form of government. On the Other hand, Rights of Man was a defense of the French Revolution and written years later in a different phase of his life.

    I also assume that you have not read Rights of Man. It could have been written by any of the French Jacobins of the time. It is a leftist manifesto. He argues against a class-based society. I have the book sitting right here on my desk. He has entire sections on breaking up family property and creating what amounts to a welfare state. Its all right there.
    Not federalism. Majority or mob rule, a democracy.

    Which is why they formed a republic.

    While youre perfectly ok with the majority enforcing their will on the minority, the FFs were not.

    They put their names to the Declaration of Independence and Constitution (Thomas Paine signed neither). While they may have disagreed on some ideals, these are the principles on which they came to a consensus.

    Information isnt any less valid because it was "googled". Its simple text which can be read and understood by anyone.

    Early Thomas Paine sounded like a tax and government hating libertarian.

    Late TP sounded like a socialist.

    Which is the real TP? How would you or anyone else know what he really stood for. You dont.

    All of it from the revolution to the creation of the United States is based on the idea of individual liberties, rights and freedom which occur naturally or come from God. And no one, especially not a government, has the authority to infringe on those rights.

    I would imagine that in other parts of the world, their laws (if they have any), allow the government to do whatever it wants without regard to individual liberties but that type of system contradicts everything about the founding of this country.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    That so-called absurdity was built in to the Constitution, which the States ratified -- in other words, they agreed to be subservient in certain respects.
    Article 1, Section 10. That is all the States agreed to. If you have evidence that the States would have ratified the Constitution if they would have been tied to the Bill of Rights, I am curious to see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It was reflected in the Supremacy Clause, under which federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution trump any state laws to the contrary.
    The Supremacy Clause does not prohibit nullification by the States. Jefferson argued that the States are duty bound to not abide by laws they deem unconstitutional and nullification has been successfully used by States in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It was also reflected in the establishment of the federal judiciary, under which federal courts have the power to determine when a State has done something that oversteps constitutional restrictions.
    Virtually all power of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary can be stripped by Congress. In fact, Congress has the power to abolish every federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. This is all outlined in Article III. There is nothing inherent to the Constitution that states the federal judiciary is a check on the States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It's interesting you didn't mention the 14th's Equal Protection Clause. I would argue that it would violate equal protection if a State were to establish an official religion and prohibit the practice of any other. Or take a less draconian example: what if a State were to grant exemption from state taxes to Catholic churches but deny them to other churches. Do you really think there's no equal protection issue?
    I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you asking of my opinion on the Equal Protection Clause as it applies to the States? Or as you asking if I think its fair if those draconian examples of yours play out?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Well, it depends on how you define "liberty", doesn't it? And it seems to me that you view the term as completely relativistic -- i.e., whatever the citizens of a State wish to call it. Might that include the "liberty" to own slaves? After all, if the 14th Amendment wasn't legally ratified, does the 13th suffer from the same infirmity?
    Basically what you're telling me if that only your idea of liberty ought to be respect and followed and you expect 350 million other people to abide by it.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    While youre perfectly ok with the majority enforcing their will on the minority, the FFs were not.
    In 5th grade history, we learn that the Founders were concerned about tyranny of the majority. Meanwhile, what they leave out is that none of that applied to the States. It was only argued by Federalists in support of the Constitution that they viewed was a good check on democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    Information isnt any less valid because it was "googled". Its simple text which can be read and understood by anyone.

    Early Thomas Paine sounded like a tax and government hating libertarian.

    Late TP sounded like a socialist.
    Not quite. Thomas Paine always had progressive tendencies. I would encourage you to actually read Common Sense instead of finding out of context quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    All of it from the revolution to the creation of the United States is based on the idea of individual liberties, rights and freedom which occur naturally or come from God. And no one, especially not a government, has the authority to infringe on those rights.
    I agree. It's too bad not everyone shares your view on what liberty is or rights are.

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Article 1, Section 10. That is all the States agreed to. If you have evidence that the States would have ratified the Constitution if they would have been tied to the Bill of Rights, I am curious to see it.
    They also agreed to the 13th-15th Amendments. Of course, if you don't think those were properly ratified, it follows that a State (acting through its citizens) has the right to allow slavery, deny due process and equal protection, and provide that only white male landowners can vote, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The Supremacy Clause does not prohibit nullification by the States. Jefferson argued that the States are duty bound to not abide by laws they deem unconstitutional and nullification has been successfully used by States in the past.
    It depends on how you define "successful". It certainly wasn't for Orval Faubus or George Wallace. How ironic -- you criticize the idea of the federal government being the judge of the extent of its own powers, yet you think each of the States should be free to judge not only the extent of its own powers but that of the federal government as well. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of requiring only 75% of the States to ratify a constitutional amendment instead of 100%, doesn't it? Or is the solution to allow a State to secede? How did that work out?

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Virtually all power of the Supreme Court and federal judiciary can be stripped by Congress. In fact, Congress has the power to abolish every federal court in the country except the Supreme Court. This is all outlined in Article III. There is nothing inherent to the Constitution that states the federal judiciary is a check on the States.
    The issue's not the power of congress v. the federal judiciary, but the power of the States v. the federal judiciary. Congress, not the States, determines the extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and the original juirisdiction of the inferior courts.

    The Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution or federal law (among other things), which necessarily includes the authority to determine whether a state law violates the Constitution or federal law. See Martin v. Hunter's Lesse, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Basically what you're telling me if that only your idea of liberty ought to be respect and followed and you expect 350 million other people to abide by it.
    No, I'm saying that the word doesn't necesssarily mean whatever a majority of the citizens of a State says it means. It's asinine to think that if a State chose to allow slavery it would simply be acknowledging the "liberty" to own another human being, or that if Utah made it a crime for anyone to deviate from or criticize Mormon othodoxy it would simply be exercising the "liberty" of its citizens to live in a theocracy. You can call it extreme federalism or a State exercising its sovereignty given to it by a majority of its citizens, but liberty it ain't.
    Last edited by Sonny Tufts; 02-25-2020 at 04:00 PM.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Of course, if you don't think those were properly ratified, it follows that a State (acting through its citizens) has the right to allow slavery, deny due process and equal protection, and provide that only white male landowners can vote, right?
    That is correct. The only shield against abuses of liberty would be the State constitutions. People think of the progressive era as containing major victories at the general government level. However, the banishment of child labor, women suffrage, etc. all successfully came at the State level first by amending constitutions. Funny enough, progressives view a ban on child labor as protecting liberty, but I view it as a restriction on liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It depends on how you define "successful". It certainly wasn't for Orval Faubus or George Wallace.
    Nullification worked very well for Northern States who passed personal liberty laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act. Of course, those States would be required to comply by your assessment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    How ironic -- you criticize the idea of the federal government being the judge of the extent of its own powers, yet you think each of the States should be free to judge not only the extent of its own powers but that of the federal government as well. Kinda defeats the whole purpose of requiring only 75% of the States to ratify a constitutional amendment instead of 100%, doesn't it?
    It is not ironic. The States existed prior to the general government. The States created the general government and it exists at the pleasure of the States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    Or is the solution to allow a State to secede? How did that work out?
    The Constitution does not prohibit secession. Just saying something like "the war ended that idea" is not good enough. America was created by an act of secession. Jefferson advocated that States who no longer wish to be part of the country can leave. He also advocated that a State can be forcibly removed from the country by the rest. Did you know that the first notable proposal of secession came in 1794? Northern Senators Rufus King and Oliver Ellsworth proposed a North/South split, because they would never agree upon how the general government ought to operate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The Constitution gives the federal courts jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution or federal law (among other things), which necessarily includes the authority to determine whether a state law violates the Constitution or federal law. See Martin v. Hunter's Lesse, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816).
    I'm also aware that the Judiciary Act of 1789 allows State court decisions to be appealed to the federal level. It was a mistake and is the antithesis of a federal republic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    No, I'm saying that the word doesn't necesssarily mean whatever a majority of the citizens of a State says it means. It's asinine to think that if a State chose to allow slavery it would simply be acknowledging the "liberty" to own another human being, or that if Utah made it a crime for anyone to deviate from or criticize Mormon othodoxy it would simply be exercising the "liberty" of its citizens to live in a theocracy. You can call it extreme federalism or a State exercising its sovereignty given to it by a majority of its citizens, but liberty it ain't.
    You have yet to introduce a definition of liberty that 350 million people can agree upon. Bernie Sanders' view of liberty is vastly different than Ron Paul's view. I suppose we just let whomever temporarily controls the general government gets to decide that definition.

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    It is not ironic. The States existed prior to the general government. The States created the general government and it exists at the pleasure of the States.
    The point is that the States, by ratifying the Constitution, put in place a system under which federal law (if constitutional) would trump state law. The system also provided that 75% of the States could amend the Constitution in a way that would be binding on the other 25%.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    The Constitution does not prohibit secession. Just saying something like "the war ended that idea" is not good enough.
    It's good enough to point out the ineffectiveness of such a strategy and the improbability of its ever succeeding in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    America was created by an act of secession. Jefferson advocated that States who no longer wish to be part of the country can leave. He also advocated that a State can be forcibly removed from the country by the rest. Did you know that the first notable proposal of secession came in 1794? Northern Senators Rufus King and Oliver Ellsworth proposed a North/South split, because they would never agree upon how the general government ought to operate.
    America was created by a war. How many States are ready to conduct one against the rest of the country? Moreover, none of Jefferson's, King's, or Ellsworth's propolsals made it into the Constitution, so the fact that there's no specific reference to secession doesn't mean it's permitted. What is mentioned in the Constitution is the intent to form a more perfect union; given that the union established by the Articles of Confederation provided for perpetual existence unless all of the States agreed otherwise, and given that a nonperpetual union would hardly be more perfect than the one under the AOC, the implication is that secession is legally and practically successful only if one wins a war.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You have yet to introduce a definition of liberty that 350 million people can agree upon.
    There probably isn't one. But the point is that the word "liberty" connotes, if not denotes, the freedom from external restraint, usually governmental restraint. The eternal tension in any society is that between personal liberty and the need for security and safety of persons and property. That's why I would never refer to slavery, theocracy, or any other restraint as examples of liberty.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The point is that the States, by ratifying the Constitution, put in place a system under which federal law (if constitutional) would trump state law. The system also provided that 75% of the States could amend the Constitution in a way that would be binding on the other 25%.
    Have you read Federalist #33? Hamilton explains that the Supremacy Clause means that federal laws hold supremacy only over delegated powers. It does not mean that any law passed by Congress supersedes any law passed by a State.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    It's good enough to point out the ineffectiveness of such a strategy and the improbability of its ever succeeding in the future.
    Whether nullification is an effective strategy or not is irrelevant. Nullification is a tool that exists for the States and has been used successfully in the past and is still used today in various forms. The States have the right to interpret the Constitution just as much as the general government. In fact, America's independence from Great Britain started out as a series of nullifications against Parliament and finally ended in secession. To pretend that these concepts just evaporated after 1789 is specious at best.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    America was created by a war. How many States are ready to conduct one against the rest of the country? Moreover, none of Jefferson's, King's, or Ellsworth's propolsals made it into the Constitution, so the fact that there's no specific reference to secession doesn't mean it's permitted. What is mentioned in the Constitution is the intent to form a more perfect union; given that the union established by the Articles of Confederation provided for perpetual existence unless all of the States agreed otherwise, and given that a nonperpetual union would hardly be more perfect than the one under the AOC, the implication is that secession is legally and practically successful only if one wins a war.
    Correct. A war started from secession.

    Can you please share with me the clause in the Constitution which explicitly forbids a State from leaving? It is not in Article 1, Section 10.

    Basically, what you are arguing is that the Constitution is like Hotel California. Once you are in, you can never leave. I'm not so sure the Founders would agree with that.

    And for the record, the South wanted to peacefully leave. However, Lincoln wanted war. He was warned by his advisors that provisioning Fort Sumter would trigger war. He knew what he was doing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    There probably isn't one. But the point is that the word "liberty" connotes, if not denotes, the freedom from external restraint, usually governmental restraint. The eternal tension in any society is that between personal liberty and the need for security and safety of persons and property. That's why I would never refer to slavery, theocracy, or any other restraint as examples of liberty.
    Liberty is relative to culture. America was founded by four distinct cultures. That is why the Founders designed a federal republic. It is the only system where different cultures and their views on liberty can be respected. When you take away State sovereignty, you take away cultural identity. What you are arguing for is cultural imperialism and nationalism. Your view of liberty must be projected onto populations that may not agree with it.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Have you read Federalist #33? Hamilton explains that the Supremacy Clause means that federal laws hold supremacy only over delegated powers. It does not mean that any law passed by Congress supersedes any law passed by a State.
    That's why I said "federal law (if constitutional)".

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Whether nullification is an effective strategy or not is irrelevant.
    I was referring to secession, not nullification. As far as nullification is concerned, it's effective only so long as the federal government chooses not to enforce federal law, as is the case currently with respect to states that have legalized marijuana. It certainly wasn't an effective strategy (at least in the long run) for the southern states that resisted desegregation of their public schools and the civil rights laws enacted in the 60's.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    When you take away State sovereignty, you take away cultural identity. What you are arguing for is cultural imperialism and nationalism. Your view of liberty must be projected onto populations that may not agree with it.
    But that's the point of constitutional amendments that limit what States can do. The 19th Amendment imposed the "imperialism" that allowed women to vote, thereby overruling the desires of any culture that thought they shouldn't be able to (incidentally, before the amendment only 15 of the 48 states had full suffrage for women).

    You and I don't agree on whether the 14th Amendment was ratified, but at least you recognize that the courts are going to rule based on the assumption that it was. Moreover, they are going to rule in accordance with the Supreme Court's decisions that have interpreted the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause as having incorporated most, but not all, of the first eight amendments. You disagree with these decisions; I do as well with respect to their rationale, but not necessarily with their results. Like the late Justice Scalia, I think the term "substantive due process" is an oxymoron, although it, like the validity of the 14th Amendment, is embedded in the law and isn't going to be changed anytime soon. We will just have to agree to disagree on whether this state of affairs is a good thing.

    My main beef is with the Court's expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which stretches its reach beyond any discernable limits (with the possible exception of the recent Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision). But it's not going away anytime soon, either.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    That's why I said "federal law (if constitutional)".
    Remind me again why you even brought up the Supremacy Clause?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I was referring to secession, not nullification. As far as nullification is concerned, it's effective only so long as the federal government chooses not to enforce federal law, as is the case currently with respect to states that have legalized marijuana. It certainly wasn't an effective strategy (at least in the long run) for the southern states that resisted desegregation of their public schools and the civil rights laws enacted in the 60's.
    The general government is powerless to stop States from legalizing marijuana. That is why they "choose" not to do anything about it. You are bending over backwards not to credit nullification with any successes and its quite astounding. I think you're just being stubborn at this point.

    Again, whether nullification is an effective strategy or not is irrelevant. States ignoring a higher authority goes back to the 17th century. No amount of nationalism is going to change that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But that's the point of constitutional amendments that limit what States can do. The 19th Amendment imposed the "imperialism" that allowed women to vote, thereby overruling the desires of any culture that thought they shouldn't be able to (incidentally, before the amendment only 15 of the 48 states had full suffrage for women).
    Obviously the Framers had a mechanism in place to amend the Constitution. My point is that cultural imperialism is the opposite of liberty and the Founders understood that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You and I don't agree on whether the 14th Amendment was ratified, but at least you recognize that the courts are going to rule based on the assumption that it was.
    Yes. I realize that the general government will side with itself and against the States in who gets controls the balance of power. I get the impression that you think that the courts have some sort of interest in maintaining any form of State sovereignty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    My main beef is with the Court's expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which stretches its reach beyond any discernable limits (with the possible exception of the recent Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision). But it's not going away anytime soon, either.
    You see the problem here, right? Congress passes laws outside of their delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8. The States sue and the Supreme Court grants these extra-Constitutional powers to Congress under the Commerce Clause. Congress is now emboldened to pass even more unconstitutional law. It is a vicious cycle.

    So, under your preferred system, the States are powerless to stop Congress and the Courts from acting unconstitutionally. That is the exact opposite of the Founders intention and is the antithesis of liberty.
    Last edited by familydog; 02-29-2020 at 06:17 PM.

  23. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Remind me again why you even brought up the Supremacy Clause?
    To remind you that in ratifying the Constitution the States put in place a system in which federal law would trump state law in certain areas. Compared to the Articles of Confederation the federal government has much more power.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You are bending over backwards not to credit nullification with any successes and its quite astounding. I think you're just being stubborn at this point.
    Not at all. I applaud the states that have legalized pot. In fact, the only way pot will ever get removed from Schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances list is if more states legalize it, because the members of Congress are too cowardly to take the initiative. At some point a critical mass of states will have legalized pot and Congress will feel less political heat. But compare the ineffective nullification of desegregation by the southern States.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Obviously the Framers had a mechanism in place to amend the Constitution. My point is that cultural imperialism is the opposite of liberty and the Founders understood that.
    You seem to equate "cultural imperialism" with the federal government (specifically the courts) providing more individual liberty. It appears that who gets to determine how much liberty individuals get is more important to you than whether they get any at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    I get the impression that you think that the courts have some sort of interest in maintaining any form of State sovereignty.
    I'm not sure what you mean here.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    You see the problem here, right? Congress passes laws outside of their delegated powers in Article 1, Section 8. The States sue and the Supreme Court grants these extra-Constitutional powers to Congress under the Commerce Clause. Congress is now emboldened to pass even more unconstitutional law. It is a vicious cycle.
    In almost all cases it's a private individual, company, or association that sues to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law passed in reliance on the Commerce Clause.

    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    So, under your preferred system, the States are powerless to stop Congress and the Courts from acting unconstitutionally. That is the exact opposite of the Founders intention and is the antithesis of liberty.
    In the short term, the citizens of the States can elect congressmen who will repeal allegedly unconstitutional statutes. The state legislatures have the authority to force Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution (which admittedly has never been done). The people can vote in representatives and senators who will propose amendments that if passed can be ratified by the state legislatures (this has happened 4 times to overrule Supreme Court decisions and once to repeal an unpopular amendment). They can also vote in senators and presidents who can appoint Supreme Court justices who may overturn prior decisions.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    To remind you that in ratifying the Constitution the States put in place a system in which federal law would trump state law in certain areas. Compared to the Articles of Confederation the federal government has much more power.
    We agree that the States existed before the general government and before the Constitution. We agree that the states created the general government. However, the States are still subservient to their own creation?

    But yes, Congress has supremacy over the States for powers delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    But compare the ineffective nullification of desegregation by the southern States.
    I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    You seem to equate "cultural imperialism" with the federal government (specifically the courts) providing more individual liberty. It appears that who gets to determine how much liberty individuals get is more important to you than whether they get any at all.
    Liberty for you is not necessarily liberty for your neighbor. The vast majority of Vermont residents want government largess and socialism. That is a value system that they cultivate and admire. However, the vast majority of New Hampshire residents want economic and financial freedom from government. Why should either group have outsiders undermine their values? You either believe in self-determination or you do not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    In almost all cases it's a private individual, company, or association that sues to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law passed in reliance on the Commerce Clause.
    My point stands.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    In the short term, the citizens of the States can elect congressmen who will repeal allegedly unconstitutional statutes.
    How many times has this actually happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The state legislatures have the authority to force Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution (which admittedly has never been done).
    They are also not prohibited by the Constitution from dissolving the general government and starting anew.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    They can also vote in senators and presidents who can appoint Supreme Court justices who may overturn prior decisions.
    Or they may not. Like they more often than not do.

    Again, Congress, the executive branch and SCOTUS have zero incentive to decrease their own power and hand it back over to the States or to the people.

  26. #82
    The idea that the states are bound by the Constitution in this way is a fundamentally progressive notion. Not only that, but the 14th Amendment kicked off a judicial interpretivist arms race that continues to this day. The left constantly finding new and very "modern" Constitutional powers to buttress their social engineering designs. Such a phenomenon would have been largely curtailed had the states been allowed the kind of sovereignty they were supposed to have.

    The truth is that even most ultra-conservative people living today have very progressive interpretations of The Constitution.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    The idea that the states are bound by the Constitution in this way is a fundamentally progressive notion. Not only that, but the 14th Amendment kicked off a judicial interpretivist arms race that continues to this day. The left constantly finding new and very "modern" Constitutional powers to buttress their social engineering designs.
    It's not so much that new constitutional powers are being discovered; the 14th Amendment explicitly gives Congress the authority to enforce its provisions. The real issue is the courts' interpretation of "due process" and "equal protection" that have resulted in curtailing state sovereignty in certain areas (e.g., school desegregation and gay marriage). But it should be recalled that the very purpose of the 14th was to curtail state power.

    It should also be recalled that there was a period in which the 14th was interpreted in a non-progressive manner -- in the so-called Lochner era (roughly 1897 to 1937) state and federal laws regulating economic matters were struck down because the Supreme Court held they violated economic liberty and private contract rights. The legal theory the court used was "substantive due process", which is an oxymoron when you think about it.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    The idea that the states are bound by the Constitution in this way is a fundamentally progressive notion. Not only that, but the 14th Amendment kicked off a judicial interpretivist arms race that continues to this day. The left constantly finding new and very "modern" Constitutional powers to buttress their social engineering designs. Such a phenomenon would have been largely curtailed had the states been allowed the kind of sovereignty they were supposed to have.

    The truth is that even most ultra-conservative people living today have very progressive interpretations of The Constitution.
    When the progress is towards the protection of individual rights I'm a proud "progressive".
    And the words of the original Constitution and BoR are clearly on the side of requiring states to protect the rights of the citizens plus the later amendments were enacted to expand the protection.

  29. #85
    Interesting discussion. It sounds like it's not about defending rights, it's about limiting tyrannical power to the state vs giving that power to the feds. The lessor of 2 evils.

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by unknown View Post
    People saying that the rights protected by the constitution dont apply to states.

    States can violate whatever rights they want.

    wtf?
    Nope. Because the bill of rights are just an enumeration of natural rights that exist without the state. Now technically both the states and the federal government violate these rights all the freaking time, so to quote Obama "Yes they can" but "no they should not." People point to the 10th amendment to support "states rights" without understanding what it actually says. To understand the 10th you must understand the 9th.

    [Ninth Amendment] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    [Tenth Amendment] 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.

    See? We have rights independent of so called "states rights." They rights not enumerated are reserved "to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE!"

    Prior to the civil war, even Southern states understood this. Read the case Nunn v Georgia. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the state of Georgia from enacting gun control.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

    What changed? Well....the civil war and the freeing of the slaves. In 1876 in the case U.S. v Cruikshank, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the 2nd amendment does not apply to states or to individual actors. In that case a mostly black militia which was defending the rights of blacks to vote were overwhelmed and massacred by the local KKK. The blacks were actually following the "militia clause" of the 2nd amendment. But "might makes right" and they were outmanned and outgunned. (The KKK bought a cannon to a gun fight.)

    Fast forward to 2020. KKK affiliated democrats in Virginia are again assaulting gun rights. (The current democratic governor of Virginia once posed for a medical school yearbook picture as either a member of the KKK or in blackface). Some counties are resisting by declaring themselves "sanctuary counties." If "states rights" were so sacrosanct and some people in the liberty movement claim, then people in Virginia should either 1) "vote harder", 2) "roll over and take it" or 3) "vote with their feet." But instead many have chosen to do option 4) nullify an unjust and unconstitutional state law that violates their natural rights.

    At the end of the day counties, states, and countries are artificial constructs through which we project our individual and collective wills. No sane person would say "Well I don't like the idea of being lynched, but the my state says it okay and/or the federal government says its okay so I guess I have no choice but to go along with it." The idea of federalism is that you have more channels through which to resist tyranny.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    The idea that the states are bound by the Constitution in this way is a fundamentally progressive notion. Not only that, but the 14th Amendment kicked off a judicial interpretivist arms race that continues to this day. The left constantly finding new and very "modern" Constitutional powers to buttress their social engineering designs. Such a phenomenon would have been largely curtailed had the states been allowed the kind of sovereignty they were supposed to have.

    The truth is that even most ultra-conservative people living today have very progressive interpretations of The Constitution.
    The George Supreme Court didn't think so in 1846. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Most people voluntarily give up their constitutional rights via entering voluntary contracts with the State, such as asking for a driver's license. So no, a State can't lawfully violate your rights but a State can legally get you to give up your rights, therefore it is not violating your rights if it does something that is contrary to the Constitution. Stop entering their voluntary contracts if you want to be protected by inherent rights.
    BINGO and a + REP

    Such as CCW, burning permits, building/remodel permits, pet licenses, etc.

    However the communist-nationalists do not see it that way, nor will they advocate individuality. They balk at folks like you and me.
    “The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.”

    Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3)



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    Most people voluntarily give up their constitutional rights via entering voluntary contracts with the State, such as asking for a driver's license. So no, a State can't lawfully violate your rights but a State can legally get you to give up your rights, therefore it is not violating your rights if it does something that is contrary to the Constitution. Stop entering their voluntary contracts if you want to be protected by inherent rights.
    This guy is trying to assert that the FFs didnt care about, nor do constitutional protections extend to individuals, regardless of the state in which they reside.

    The constitution only restricts the federal government's ability to infringe on your rights.

    According to him, the original intent of the FFs was that states are free to violate whatever rights they wish as long as their state constitution allows it.

    And if you as an individual dont like it, you can either move to a different state or overthrow the state government as the FFs did with Britain...
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    Congress and the rest of the general government were created by the States. It exists at the pleasure of the States.
    I would agree with this.


    Quote Originally Posted by familydog View Post
    They existed before the Constitution and the general government. The idea that the States are now subservient to Congress is absurd.
    Not congress. Congress is not allowed to pass laws which violate the constitution (lol).

    "Subservient" in that states are also prevented from infringing on constitutionally protected rights so long as a state chooses to remain a part of the union.

    They can secede at any time and then proceed to infringe on whatever rights they want.

    Article 1 Section 10 refers to establishing various agencies (for example), most of which are unlawful on the federal level.

    The worst that the FFs could be accused of is not being specific enough.

    Your premise, that the original intent of the FFs was that a state can lawfully violate the BOR. And if the individuals in that state object to it, they can move to a different state and ultimately move to a different country if all of the states turn tyrannical.

    Or overthrow the state government as the FFs did with Britain.

    The FFs should have just moved.
    Last edited by unknown; 03-11-2020 at 01:19 PM.
    "An idea whose time has come cannot be stopped by any army or any government" - Ron Paul.

    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you arent allowed to criticize."

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-01-2017, 08:40 AM
  2. Did A&E violate section 7 of the Civil Rights Act?
    By torchbearer in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 12-25-2013, 03:53 AM
  3. Civil Liberties: Can states violate their citizen's constitutional rights in a Ron Paul world?
    By noxnoctum in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-12-2012, 09:48 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-01-2011, 11:57 AM
  5. Does Obama Care violate your rights?
    By Napoleon's Shadow in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 06:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •