States' Rights vs. Federal Law

[Greenday]

Which is more important? It's a big debate on another board I'm on. Granted that most of the people on there is about as dumb as a stump, I'm curious as to what you guys think is more important. Should the federal laws be able to overrule anything the states come up with? Or should the states be able to do whatever they want? I mean, this is basically what the Civil War was all about but that was never really solved. Texas has made some veiled threats recently about breaking away. Let's say that a state put it to a vote that murder was legal. And the results of the vote were 90% of the state believes murder should be legal. So the state legalizes murder. Since that's what the vast majority wants, should they be allowed to make that decision themselves? Or should the federal government be able to step in and be like "Look, we know you really want this, but even if 90% think it's ok, we don't so you can't." (There's another example I'd rather use that's more along today's issues, but I think we are all on the same level as cold-blooded murder).

[daleduke17]

The way I've heard and read, the states can make laws stricter than federal laws (as long as it doesn't violate the Constitution) but cannot make laws that override the Constitution (such as making murder legal).

Say smoking was legal at the Federal level by anyone of any age. Illinois wants to make it to where only 20+ can smoke. Illinois can according to my interpretation.

Now say the Federal law states you have to be 21+ to drive. Nebraska can't make it to where Nebraskans only have to be 14 to drive.

That's how I read it.

[Greenday]

It's kinda weird how it works. The state can make laws more strict in instances like that, but they can't make laws looser. Like California legalizing weed. Federal law overrides that and federal law > state law.

[anriana]

I'm not well versed in international politics. How many other countries have fragmented rulership?

[Slytovhand]

Well, Australia does. Slightly different laws regarding the use of marijuana as one example.. well, it's a class 1 prohibited across the country, but what you get for a punishment is different.

I think.. the Federal government should control some things, and the state and locals control other things... and none of them should cross.

That'd probably just make things easy though

For example, driving... licensing laws should be same across the country. Same with drug laws... otherwise you get what's happening - someone goes across a border to get what they want. If you think this is weird, then why is 21 the drinking age across the whole of the US? Of all things to make across the board... not age of consent, not drug laws, not gun laws... but alcohol consumption! Bah! In a similar vein (and definitely along the lines of what GD was thinking) - death penalty...

[daleduke17]

If you think this is weird, then why is 21 the drinking age across the whole of the US?

Because the federal government saw a "problem" and since they couldn't make a law at their level, they told states to change the age or the states would not receive any federal highway money.

[Pedersen]

In theory, the line (in the US, at least) is that the federal government is only allowed to control two things: federal property/resources, and interstate commerce. Anything that does not fall into one of those two categories is supposed to be relegated to the states.

This is why some federal crimes are hard to prosecute. For example, kidnapping. If someone is kidnapped and taken to another portion of the same state, then there is no federal jurisdiction over the crime. As such, it falls to whatever the state's laws regarding this are. This doesn't mean that the federal government won't get involved, or won't try to find a way to prosecute, but they're not supposed to be able to.

The federal government has found a way to make things happen their way, though: Money. By taking as much money as possible out of the pockets of the citizens, they limit how much money the state can take. In turn, this limits the state budgets. The federal government then turns around and says "Hey, we got a ton of money. All you have to do is implement the laws we tell you to, and we'll give you some of it." Since the states are desparate to collect some of the money, they do so.

This is why people tend to campaign at the federal level to get things done. The federal government has the money, the states want it, get the fed to pass a law to hand out money when certain conditions are met. It's pretty horrid.

This explains why we had a 55mph speed limit for three or four decades, a drinking age of 21, etc.

For the most part, the line is a good one. The failure is in letting the federal government have too much money (and too much control over it). If we could fix that, then the power would return to the state level, which is where it belongs.

[Greenday]

What about...human rights? That doesn't involve federal property/resources or money. Does the federal government have the right to tell states what are and aren't human rights?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's important to remember that the Feds are empowered to do anything that is deemed reasonable and necessary for the good of the nation. It's also important to remember that the federal government has a lot of more specific powers I'm not going to bother listing, and each has the potential to go places that don't seem right from the general standpoint.

But as far as I'm concerned, the most important thing to remember is that there are times we are a nation, and times when we are 50 states. Want to ban BB Guns? fine, that's just dandy. Want to reinstate the Jim Crow laws? Hell no! We called the BS on those as a nation.

Not to mention the fact that the Articles were very state's rights oriented and failed miserably...

[Tanasi]

The 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." say it all. It's too bad Mr. Lincoln and cronies basically rendered it moot.
In my state there is legislation challenging the authority of the federal government regarding the manufacturing of products within the state that is not intended for sale outside the state, specifically firearms and ammo. I believe Montana passed a similar law but our law will take effect before Montana's. So far BATFE has said anythng regarding this but it will be interesting to see what happens.
The commerace clause of the constitution is for regulation of interstate trade not intrastate. Unfortunatly the courts can't make up their minds of how to interupt this clause either very narrowly or very loosely.
In regards to the Mr. Lincoln's war depending upon which side's reasons you read states rights was the reason the war was fought, for others the reason was slavery. Frankly in my opinion it was just out-right thievery.

[anriana]

The 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." say it all. It's too bad Mr. Lincoln and cronies basically rendered it moot.
In my state there is legislation challenging the authority of the federal government regarding the manufacturing of products within the state that is not intended for sale outside the state, specifically firearms and ammo. I believe Montana passed a similar law but our law will take effect before Montana's. So far BATFE has said anythng regarding this but it will be interesting to see what happens.
The commerace clause of the constitution is for regulation of interstate trade not intrastate. Unfortunatly the courts can't make up their minds of how to interupt this clause either very narrowly or very loosely.
In regards to the Mr. Lincoln's war depending upon which side's reasons you read states rights was the reason the war was fought, for others the reason was slavery. Frankly in my opinion it was just out-right thievery.

Are you seriously arguing against the civil war?

[Pedersen]

Are you seriously arguing against the civil war?

I don't know if Tanasi is, but I know that I can argue against it.

The southern states had joined the Union about 80 years earlier. When the laws of one portion of the Union became unbearable to the southern states, they (legally!) held votes, and decided to secede from the Union. Abraham Lincoln turned around and told them he would not accept such an action, and forced them to stay in the Union, and accept the laws abolishing slavery.

He did what he did for the right reason: Slavery is a hideous institution, and needs to be completely eradicated. Such institutionalized slavery as was being practiced in the South needed to end.

What he did had a downside, though. Prior to the Civil War, the Federal government was weak, with individual states holding more power over what happened within their borders. Since then, the Federal government has been steadily growing in power, and reducing the ability of individual states to actually govern their own citizens.

With the outright rejection of certain federal laws (Real ID comes to mind), we are starting to see a backlash. I'm thinking that, if the Federal government doesn't reel itself in soon, we're going to start seeing some very bad times within the next couple decades. The state governments are going to start refusing to allow federal laws to enter their state, the National Guard is gonna get called, and it's going to get ugly.

And I'm not going to try to guess which side will win. It could still go either way, especially if it's a border state and the state decides to join the neighboring country. If the neighboring country accepts, and even offers up defense, it will get very bad until the dust settles.

[AdminAssistant]

The southern states had joined the Union about 80 years earlier. When the laws of one portion of the Union became unbearable to the southern states, they (legally!) held votes, and decided to secede from the Union. Abraham Lincoln turned around and told them he would not accept such an action, and forced them to stay in the Union, and accept the laws abolishing slavery.

Not to mention that several states voted not to secede, until President Lincoln tried to institute a draft in those states. They held another vote after that.

It was done for the right reasons, but in the wrong way.

[Slytovhand]

It could still go either way, especially if it's a border state and the state decides to join the neighboring country. If the neighboring country accepts, and even offers up defense, it will get very bad until the dust settles.

So, you're suggestion either Canada or Mexico get involved in a US civil war??? Somehow, I'm not thinking that's too likely. (but then, depending on the term 'neighbouring'... and Alaska is 'neighbouring' Russia... )

[BroomJockey]

As to the seceding to Canada, I can tell you it'd be incredibly difficult. This whole "States Rights vs. Federal Law" thing doesn't really apply up here. The entire State government would get its legs kneecapped, since they don't get to make criminal law, period. The Criminal Code of Canada is the governing crim-law. That means they're limited right off the bat in what they can do. Most provinces don't even have their own police force. I can't see any State accepting the Canadian political system.