Enough of the states rights nonsense

This nation tried it for about 80 years, it failed. The moment states wanted to leave this union, the 10th amendment went right out the window, and in fact the 14th pretty much says the federal government trumps states rights whenever it chooses. If you're one to think the south should of been allowed to secede and that it ends there you are mistaken. Had the south been allowed to leave the union many states would of followed suit the moment they had some grievance with the federal government and our country would be made up of about 10-30 countries right now give or take.

So cherish the wisdom of Lincoln to keep this nation intact (even at great cost), our country would be much different had "states rights" been allowed to prevail.

 

I agree states do not and should not have any say over the federal government. If thats the way they want it they can attempt and amendment. States rights is limited to local issues and local government. Not issues that could potentially affect the nation as a whole.

 

The Supreme Court already settled this issue.

 

The day authoritarian collectivists succeed in abolishing state sovereignty, is the day American individualists/tribal anarchists burn DC to the ground.

 

4-18-1865?

 

I think that the states should have final say in any situation that only effects one state. However if more than one are involved, the fed should have final say.. Also, if a state neess to use federal money for any reson the fed should have a say.

 

And wouldn't ya just know it!

The same states that wanted to preserve the right to hold slaves, and preserve Jim Crowe laws, and segregation....now are GOP state's rights folks.

plu ca change plus la meme chose......

 

If you don't like it, move too another nation.
State's right is a cornerstone of our constitution, which happens to be the law of the land.

You loose.

 

Under a proper government, a state may not violate the rights of the individual. Do you agree? Isn't a rights violation by a state a proper target for correction by the feds?

 

Actually, no.

We have a judicial branch to clear things up, if a citizen's rights are being violated.

 

Actually the Supreme Court has ruled that where a State and Federal law differ, the State loses to the the Federal Government.

That actually is the Law of the Land.

 

Strict constructionism is a nice philosophy. The problem for many libertarians and conservatives is the Supreme Court favors loose constructionism, and their precedent trumps what is one of the most morally correct ways of constitutional interpretation.

 

Actually, you've refuted nothing I said. Good job.

 

Yes I did. I refuted your claim that State's rights were the Law of the Land. That is incorrect.

 

The feds have a judicial branch. Are you suggesting only state run courts may dispense any justice in this particular context?

 

This ignores both the content and the context. Imagine a Federal law that violates the Constitution but the courts disagree anyway. Then a state moves to liberate it's citizens from the statist measure and the feds move to strike that down. Now you have a huge problem.

 

The evolving precedent was established circa 1819 (McCulloch v. Maryland).

 

If a federal law is unconstitutional, and the courts disagree with it, they should rule it unconstitutional. In this case, the double negative is amplified, not rendered null and void.

 

Not at all. If there is a Federal Law that is claimed to violate the Constitution than the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if it does or not. Not the State.

If the Supreme Court says it does not violate the Constitution then its a constitutional law. If the States act against the Supreme Court than they will be held accountable.

No problem whatsoever.

 

Then we'll see no protest from you if the Court rules in favor of Obamacare? Apparently errors are not possible.

 

Correct. We are not living in pre-Marbury vs. Madison America or pre-Kentucky and Virginia resolutions America. Nullification nor strict constructionism are widely accepted jurisprudential methods. Judicial review, stare decisis, and federal supremacy are the norms. People need to get used to it.

 

If the Court declares Obamacare constitutional then that's the end of it. They have the final word and us conservatives will move on or try to fight it with other options available to us.

Their decision will be accepted though.

 

There should be no rights, especially individual rights. Article X, Section Z of the World Constitution says that the international corporatists who own the world should decide the final ruling of every issue. If they say that you need to be exterminated, then it shall be.

 

I hate to say it but states can leave the union if they choose. fail

 

And how'd that work out the first and only* time it was tried?

*no offense Todd Palin, several oddballs in Texas, and the freeman of Montana, but you guys don't speak for the states you actively try to have secede