States' Rights

[Armenum]

I was recently watching a movie about American Civil War (it wasn't very good though). Anyways, I was interested with the idea of states' rights in America. I know in the beginning American states were very indepenent and much of the problems of the founding of the nation had to do with the scope of the federal government. However, these days it seems as if the Federal government has gotten very much powerful versus before. Of course this trend as followed in many other countries (ahmm, EU).

What are your thoughts about states' rights? Shouldn't state governments have more power (similar to Swiss states for example)? Or is this an irreversible trend?

In a larger context, is it best for unification and larger power, or power vested in smaller, and more distinct regions?

[Boyar Son]

you mean states being more independent? maybe someday they'd come into conflict with each other.

[RVFVS]

The U.S is a very contridictory nation. I love how they call themselves land of the free but they fought a war to force a group of states from seperating...sounds a bit like a revolution I heard about somewhere...

[43rdFoot]

States ought to assert a more powerful role in the government, but unfortunately the federal government exercises absolute control through the patronage of federal funding. Just try getting any state to raise its highway speeds, or lower the drinking age, etc.

The U.S is a very contridictory nation. I love how they call themselves land of the free but they fought a war to force a group of states from seperating...sounds a bit like a revolution I heard about somewhere...

Umm, no.

[RVFVS]

Interesting...so you're telling me a group of states fighting for freedom (albeit in a different situation and for different reasons) against a more powerful oppressor (level of opression varied) do not sound both like the American Rev War and the American Civ War?

[43rdFoot]

Yes. The Civil War was fought over much more than just a belief of superiority. It was fought over the belief that States had no right in overturning Federal legislation. The South refused to accept motions it observed as being threats to the institution of slavery, and decided it had the right to secede from the Union. It was a rebellion, not a revolution.

[RVFVS]

But the U.S was founded on the idea of each state being able to secede. Originally any could.

[43rdFoot]

But the U.S was founded on the idea of each state being able to secede. Originally any could.

Not in any way, shape, or form. Talk of secession was always grounds for accusations of treason. You've been reading some rather poor history.

[RVFVS]

Interesting, I guess so. Well that just confirms my belief America is a nation built on contridictions.

[Gelgoog]

joining the union is your choice....leaving...well not so much.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Of course the states have a right to secede. The states freely entered the Union, and they can freely leave. They are STATES (i.e. countries) after all, not administrative provinces. Or at least in theory. Since the Civil War its pretty obvious that the federal government will keep strong-arming the states around.

IMO the federal government should be concerned with only those things espoused in the Constitution. Basically work out problems that arise between states and their citizens, and provide for national defense.

[RVFVS]

Of course the states have a right to secede. The states freely entered the Union, and they can freely leave. They are STATES (i.e. countries) after all, not administrative provinces. Or at least in theory. Since the Civil War its pretty obvious that the federal government will keep strong-arming the states around.

IMO the federal government should be concerned with only those things espoused in the Constitution. Basically work out problems that arise between states and their citizens, and provide for national defense.

Thank you.

Republic of California...
Commonwealth of Massechusets

[Jabberwock]

double

[bushbush]

Thank you.

Republic of California...
Commonwealth of Massechusets

nowhere in the constitution it said they could leave.

and the whole state right crap in civil war was just en excuse to continue slavery and oppression against the constitution.

today it's used to appeal to the hidden racism of whites by the republicans as their southern strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Bob Herbert, a New York Times columnist, reported a 1981 interview with Lee Atwater, published in Southern Politics in the 1990s by Prof. Alexander P. Lamis, in which Lee Atwater discussed politics in the South:
You start out in 1954 by saying, ", , ." By 1968 you can't say ""—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ", ".[4]

[Gelgoog]

and the whole state right crap in civil war was just en excuse to continue slavery and oppression against the constitution.

This might have been true

today it's used to appeal to the hidden racism of whites by the republicans as their southern strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

But this is mostly false. As explained above, state's rights has re-emerged due to the ever expanding federal government and their strong arming on the rights of states by withholding federal funds. The states have no obligation to adopt federal laws, but the feds will punish you if you do not. State's rights is about limiting the power of the federal government. Considering that it was originally only intended to mediate disputes between states, and national defense.

[El Brujo]

It was a mistake to make the U.S. a single state. It is simply too large and geographically diverse for liberty to survive for long in a centralized system. The concentration of Federal power that we've seen throughout our history is a result of this. The Civil War itself is proof that the only way to keep such a huge nation together is through force of arms, which makes a sham of everything America stands for. Not that it matters, we will eventually dissolve into regional blocs anyway, probably gradually and peacefully.

[43rdFoot]

Of course the states have a right to secede. The states freely entered the Union, and they can freely leave. They are STATES (i.e. countries) after all, not administrative provinces. Or at least in theory. Since the Civil War its pretty obvious that the federal government will keep strong-arming the states around.

IMO the federal government should be concerned with only those things espoused in the Constitution. Basically work out problems that arise between states and their citizens, and provide for national defense.

In theory, they are subservient to the laws passed by Congress. While I have not personally investigated the subject, I'm sure there are laws that tie the States in the union permanently.

So therefore, no, they are not free to secede in theory.

[Jabberwock]

The advocation of states' rights during the civil war and possibly even up to today began with Jefferson, which is ironic. Jefferson's advocation of states' rights was part of his anti-slavery agenda. He believed this was most effective way of reducing the institution of slavery in the US. No doubt he rolled over in his grave when states' rights was being used to keep slavery.

Thank you.

Republic of California...
Commonwealth of Massechusets

No. The Republic of California only existed for a month. They just kept the name because it is a republic, all states are required to be so. Commonwealth means nothing, it's just the official name. A term that was used back then.

[xcorps]

However, these days it seems as if the Federal government has gotten very much powerful versus before.

2 words.

Interstate Commerce. The Supreme Court applied this in a heavy handed fashion on more than one occassion to give the federal gov't authority and jurisdiction I do not believe it was originally supposed to have. The Constitution was written to give AND limit the power of the federal government, but the limit portion gets overlooked by those who have a vested interest in overlooking it, namely the 3 branches.

See the 10th amendment.

Any power not granted to the Federal government in the Constitution was reserved to the states or the people. This has been pretty much forgotten.

It was a rebellion, not a revolution.

Agreed. The dissolution of the Union was not an acceptable outcome for either the North or the South. Unfortunately, the South didn't know it.

Of course the states have a right to secede.

No they didn't. There existed nowhere in the Constitution a procedure for secession. The addition of states is covered, but not the removal.

[MathiasOfAthens]

Its called a civil war because they failed. Had the CSA won it would have been a second revolution.