How much do you care about states rights?

[Cant trust em]

To me, state's rights vs. federal authority is a pretty worthless divide. Decisions should be based on the merit of the policy, not the power of the authority.

That's a pretty broad guideline, but that's the general idea.

Any thoughts?

[pipoman]

1. The complete bastardization of

the commerce clause will, IMHO, be rebelled against to the point of repeal of whole series of federal mandates in the not so distant future. It is already beginning with drug laws, marriage laws, and now maybe health care....It may be good to depoliticize some issues by bringing them closer to the people.

[provis99]

2. States don't have any rights. They are not people.

Whether you view the Constitution as providing negative rights of freedom or positive rights of claims on government, these rights are for people against the government. Government has no rights.

[paulsby]

3. very much so

it is one of the unique aspects of governance here in the US

in most countries, for example, criminal law is set on the federal level.

whereas in the US, we leave it (mostly) to the states, despite the bastardization of the commerce clause that, for example, gives the feds authority to harass medical MJ clinics in the states (feds should have authority over the importation of drugs across state borders, etc. and the regulation of pharmaceuticals that cross state borders).

it's a nation of states, united by a common constitution, which set a MINIMUM level of recognized rights, but any state can (and most do) recognize ADDITIONAL more expansive rights. WA state for example recognizes an explicit right to privacy, vs the federal constitution that never mentions same. this is why, for example, DUI checkpoints, and many police searches that would be legal on the federal level and in other states, are illegal here.

states' rights are VERY important. i CHOSE my state, partially because i like the set of rights it recognizes.

[Cant trust em]

4. How does national health care reform fit within that view?

What aspects should be struck down because it encroaches too radically on state's rights?

[paulsby]

5. i' m not sure either way

if any aspects of it encroach, at least in a constitutional law sense

i've read a fair bit of analysis at scotusblog and volokh and at best i can say ... i'm not sure.

the majority of analysts (from all sides of the political spectrum) seem to think two things

1) it is most likely constitutional
2) it is most likely that the scotus will rule it constitutional

i think it VERY important that it IS being challenged, since it's part of seperation of powers, due process, and rule of law that there be judicial review of such a radical plan. and it IS radical, in the respect of requiring citizens to pay money to private companies.

but again, i consider myself pretty well versed in const. law and this stuff, but on THIS issue, i plead " i don't know" and want to watch the process unfold

god knows i am not hesitant to express opinions on stuff, but i try never to do so when i don't understand the underlying issues enough.

[Cant trust em]

6. I agree that it's good to hear that it's being challenged. This is separation of powers, IMO.

Here's a subquestion. Is there a difference between states vs. federal authority and scope of work done by the federal government? Some people would argue that the federal government doesn't have the authority to run a public insurance program. To me, this would be different than saying that the federal governmetn doesn't have the authority to tell the states that they must implement a law.

BTW, it's really refreshing to hear someone on DU say that they don't know something.

[Statistical]

10. Delegated vs. Reserved powers.

The federal Constitution is very limiting. Anything the federal govt wants to do, it must do with delegated power from the Constitution. If that power doesn't exist the Constitution must be amended. The federal govt had no power to collect income tax prior to 16th amendment for example.

Any power not delegated to federal govt is reserved by the States.

My personal opinion (likely not supported by SCOTUS) is that the federal govt does have the authority to run a public insurance program but doesn't have the authority to mandate private purchases.

It may seem a trivial distinction but it is real. If govt can mandate you purchase health insurance they can mandate you purchase anything.

[Cant trust em]

13. I don't think Article I, section 8 gives teh fedearl govt't the authority to run a PO.

Seems like we'd need a constitutional amendment for that one too.

I'm willing to work within whatever frame I'm given or whatever argument I'm able to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

[Statistical]

14. Various Constitutional challenges have been made against Medicare and they have failed.

There is ample precedent that Medicare is Constitutional. Any public option would simply be an expansion of that if created and funded the same way (payroll taxes to a single risk pool providing shared coverage/risk).

Section 8: The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Collecting payroll taxes for the establishment of a program that provides for common welfare of United States would certainly fall within Reserved Powers.

[Cant trust em]

16. I agree with you, but I think that putting it in the frame of...

"only things delegated by the Constitution" that implies a more specific interpretation. When we talk about the general welfare clause, it practically contradicts all of the enumerated powers because "general welfare" is such a broadly defined term that it could pretty much include anything. That could include the insurance mandate too.

Also, I'd say that collecting taxes is much different than actually administering a program.

[Statistical]

17. The wording is important.

The taxes in mandates are a fine/punitive action. They do nothing to provide for general welfare. If everyone paid the tax the system would be just as bad off the govt would simply be richer than it expects.

The Clause clearly indicates Congress can collect taxes FOR the general welfare. It doesn't say it can mandate private purchases for the general welfare.

Once again just my opinion

Medicare = Constitutional
Single Payer = Constitutional
Public Option = Constitutional (depending on structure)
Mandate for private for profit goods (any goods or services including Healthcare) = Not Constitutional

Of course the people wearing Black Robes in Washington likely don't agree with me.

[paulsby]

33. there's certainly a difference

between state and federal authorities.

for example, the feds (generally speaking) don't have the authority or the duty to provide a general policing function, whereas state and local govt. does.

the feds have both duty and authority to do such things as border protection, currency etc.

[Birthmark]

7. States' Rights died at Appamattox

You could look it up. :)

[Statistical]

11. Strange there are numerous Supreme Court precedent "post-Appamattox"

that ruled Federal govt overstepped the bounds of its delegated power.

Maybe a hundred or so years of Supreme Court Justices never got the memo?

[Birthmark]

15. Are there?

Trot them out here and let's have a look at these unicorns!

[Statistical]

18. Unicorns really? How about United States v. Lopez

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

Courts ruled that United States govt has no Constitutional power to enact a ban on guns near schools. The Federal govt has no delegated power to criminalize this activity. Govt tried to do an end run around that by arguing the gun ban fell under Commerce Clause of United States. The court disagreed stating that:

Section 922(q) is a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to do with “commerce” or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one might define those terms. Section 922(q) is not an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated. It cannot, therefore, be sustained under our cases upholding regulations of activities that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction, which viewed in the aggregate, substantially affects interstate commerce.

Note: 922(q) is Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990.

Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity.

The act was Unconstitutional because with the Commerce Clause argument dead the federal govt has no delegated power which gives them the authority to enact this legislation. State can (and many have) the power to criminalize this activity (depending on State Constitutions, under some Constitutions powers could be prohibited by the state).

States have no rights but neither does federal govt. The "States right" term is a false one. The issue is seperation of powers. Delegated powers of federal govt vs. Reserved powers of the states.

[Birthmark]

20. I agree with you about power.

However, your cited case is pretty specific, isn't it? And it's a hot-button issue at that.

Let's look at other post-civil war USSC pro-states-rights decisions and you tell me how they fared:

United States v. Cruikshank - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)"Separate but Equal"

Yeah, States' Rights is terrific, ain't it?

That's the kind of shit that led to the 17th Amendment -a firm nail in the coffin of States' Rights.

States' Rights died at Appomattox. It's reanimated corpse is trotted out every now and again, usually in an attempt to justify some denial of rights to individuals. Sometimes with positive, though thankfully temporary results; sometimes, again thankfully it fails.

It is a concept that doesn't work in real life if you want to have a single country.

[Statistical]

22. First of all you can't say you agree on Powers but not on so called "States Rights"...

There is NO SUCH THING as States Rights. States have no rights. Absolutely none. However neither does the Federal govt. People have rights. Governments have powers. The word rights does appear once in connection with any form of government.

States Rights is simply a bastardization of the proper term "Delegated Powers vs. Reserved Powers".

Powers are either:

a) delegated to the Federal govt
b) prohibited from the states

OR

c) everything else is reserved by the States and the people.

[Birthmark]

25. Yes, states rights is the common terminology...

...for "delegated State powers." To all but philosophers, they mean the same thing. I'm not a philosopher. (Hey, you gotta eat, you know?) If you object to the terminology...well, that doesn't sound like my problem. Nor is it terribly germane to the topic.

What is germane is that since the US Civil War, those delegated powers, or states rights, have been used largely as an argument to support abuse of Individual Rights. And even the rulings that have granted such powers to the States have been subsequently overturned or legislated away.

Seriously, states' rights are bullshit. They were a misguided notion of classically educated idealists who thought it was worth a try. Maybe it was...at the time. But in practice it's been a failure. We have pretty much scraped our shoes and moved on, though the smell still lingers somewhat. Even that will dissipate over time.

[LanternWaste]

24. delete

delete

[ljm2002]

8. I don't think it's worthless at all...

...I think it is the best way to preserve the ideal of being able to experiment with governance, try out things, see what works and what doesn't.

We must temper state's rights with the Constitution -- i.e., the Constitution supersedes all other laws, whether at the state or federal level. So there is still a mechanism in place to correct abuses.

During the Civil Rights Movement, the call of State's Rights was used to try and shield states from scrutiny of their Jim Crow laws. That was overturned by the Supreme Court and rightly so. But largely because of that misuse of the doctrine of State's Rights, the liberals and Democrats have been afraid to use the doctrine to their own benefit. They simply shy away from the phrase altogether, thinking it synonymous with regressive policies.

Well that's how I see it, anyway. I think it's a legitimate and valuable doctrine. Seems to me the medical marijuana movement, for one, is somewhat based on a state's rights platform.

I do not claim to have a legal understanding, and it may be that state's rights is not in effect anymore, as some claim. Still I think the notion is sound.

[Statistical]

9. No such thing as states rights (or federal rights). States & Feds have powers.

Delegated vs. Reserved powers is an important distinction.

The federal govt as never intended to have unlimited and all reaching power.

Division of power has allowed things like some States to be proactive on issues (marriage equality, healthcare, progressive taxation, marijuana usage, etc).

Without division of power for example there would be no same-sex marriage today anywhere in the country. There would be no medicinal marijuana usage. No progressive legislation to protect climate, set tighter emission limits, or fight global warming.

Progressive causes tend to start small and the division of power favors that. People for example seeing medical marijuana didn't result in end of world in CA likely has a lot to do with rising support for decriminlization around the country.

[Ozymanithrax]

12. I support the separation of power as defined in the Cosntitution...

States rights is the call of secessionists who want to rip the U.S. apart in a bloody war.

[Maru Kitteh]

19. "states rights" is a crock of crap used almost purely to codify discrimination.

[Green_Lantern]

21. state's rights is nothing but a crutch...

For conservatives to fall back on when public opinion goes against their right-wing ideology.

The federal govt. sets basic policy guidelines on interstate issues and allows state's the ability to institute those policies.

The 10th Amendment keeps one state's policies from interfering with other states' policies and assures they choose how policies are implimented in their state.

[Statistical]

23. That is not what the 10th amendment does or states.

The federal govt via interstate commerce clause prevents one States Policies from interfering in another State.

The 10th amendment means exactly what it states.

The federal govt has delegated powers.
The Constitution also prohibits States from certain powers.

The 10th states than anything NOT delegated or prohibited are RESERVED to the States. Thus the federal govt has some power and some other powers are prohibited from the States (even if not used by Feds) everything else is a State Power.

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. - 10th Amendment

[underpants]

31. It is also code for the grand ooooold C.S.A.

couple in the Brown v. Board allusion

[Posteritatis]

26. As a Canadian I find the state's rights issue/debate fascinating

If just because it shows a lot of how different our systems can get, and what happens when your foresight isn't foresighted enough.

Our system started getting set up in the wake of the American Civil War, which pretty strongly shaped the way we were going to organize our own political structures. There was discussion about something vaguely similar to the US in terms of provincial versus federal powers, but after the neighbors spent four years running around being on fire the concensus is that that wasn't really appealing anymore.

So we decided to set up our system in a way that was generally the opposite of how the US system - prior to the Civil War, at least - was established, by giving the federal government the bulk of the power and leaving the provinces with the rest. How'd we do that? The short version is that a list of things were laid out that were federal responsibilities, and a list of things were laid out that were provincial responsibilities. (New things have shown up over time, obviously, that weren't on either list; those tend to get hammered out in an ad-hoc fashion as they appear. In the present, the more interesting political squabbles up here tend to be turf wars over which branch of government has a say in the gray areas.)

So, for instance, the federal government has the final say in diplomacy and national defense (duh), transportation useful on a federal scale - highways, railways, telegraphy and its descendants, shipping routes, and so on - and a substantial part of the banking system and (weirdly) the secular aspects of marriage. Sounds like the underpinnings of a strong federal government, right?

Of course, in the wake of that they decided to give the provinces things that weren't considered so important. You know, trivialities like administration of justice, or education, or health care, or property law, or administration and management of natural resources. Nothing that would confer any disproportionate power to a provincial government in the 1860s, seeing how local, small-scale and minimally-influential any of those things were.

Fast forward a century and a bit. That sound you heard is the Fathers of Confederation's foreheads colliding with their desks in a ringing chorus.

I just find it kind of interesting how you guys decided to start your run with a minimalist federal government and powerful states, only to get the reverse of that in the end in many ways - while we wound up trying the exact opposite and more or less got the same result.

[Statistical]

29. Interesting. Thanks for that. n/t

[ProgressiveProfessor]

27. Really mixed minds. Without Federal law. separate but equal would be allowed. WIthout states laws

there would be no gay marriage anywhere in the US.

[proteus_lives]

32. +1

[guitar man]

28. It depends

If my state were to legalize pot, I might care an awful lot about states rights in that case :evilgrin:

[cynatnite]

30. not much. n/t