Would you support this new states rights amendment?

Section 1- The Judicial authority of the federal government of the United States shall not extend to the domestic legislation or policy of any state except where the explicit text prohibits the states from enacting such policies.

Section 2- This amendment strikes down the incorporation doctrine.

 

Just as broad and vague as what is currently on the books. Thumbs down.

 

Interesting, if you could, link some info on the subject please.. But if it's giving States more authority to govern withing and federal less to interfere, then I'd be all for it..

Sorry ment for the OP @Sackeshi

 

How is it vague?

 

I don't have any links but its basically the pre civil war structure.

 

Break it down a wee bit, back story if you can, thanks!

 

The states were practically independent nations prior to the 14th amendment, the federal government and the supreme court were hesitant to strike down any laws, basically in 1833 the supreme court ruled that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government.

After the 14th amendment they started ruling that the restrictions on the federal government applied to the states. Which has lead to judicial over reach,

 

This may help, lemme skim through it.. Thank though, interesting post!

Understanding States' Rights and the 10th Amendment (thoughtco.com)

 

Ya I like that idea, in fact, Wyoming functions a lot like that now. Recent examples would be water rights, mask and vacs mandates and gun laws

 

So, you want a confederacy?

Not to mention, it would violate Article 4, Section 2.

 

The Bill of Rights ARE restrictions on the states, too.

 

Repealing the incorporation doctrine repeals the Bill of Rights as they apply to state law. So California could totally ban guns, and also shut down newspapers and ban websites and books in the state they didn't like.

Curious that a lefty would support this, although I admit, ultimately, something like this may be the only way to hold this country together.

 

Basically, it would mean that the states could ignore the Constitution nearly outright.

 

I don't see how creating a confederacy would hold the United States together.

 

Could work as an advantage in some regards, but I get it! Best left as is

 

No state can pass any law that violates the US Constitution.

 

The bad far outweighs the good.

 

It wouldn't create a confederacy, merely role back many federal powers to the pre-civil war era. This way provides an escape valve, to turn their own states into hellholes (or paradises in their view) without any interference from people wanting their "rights" like the1st and 2nd Amendment.

 

I want it gone so I could get gun ban and eliminate private property rights (for housing) in my state without having to pay them via the 5th amendment.

 

OK well I'm not going to get into the incorporation doctrine here. You can read about it and draw your own conclusions.

 

Well there ya go!

 

It’s literally in The Constitution. This is middle school Civics.


The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land", and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

 

I read it, didn't understand it, and just moved on.

 

OK this isn't about the supremacy of federal laws vs state laws, it's about what level of government the Bill of Rights was originally applied to, and that was the Federal government, not State governments. After the passage of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court used that to "incorporate" Bill of Rights protections down to the State level.

 

It might prevent outright secession. Though it seems the problem is less state vs state and more region vs region (or just urban vs rural), which creating a confederacy of states doesn't really solve, and may end up creating a precedent for regional secession from one state to another, which could be just as messy a problem as states rights vs federal rights. But then again, that might be inevitable anyway...