From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: State's Rights (Was: Re: Destruction of the U.S.)
Summary: Federal power, slaves, states
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:12:48 GMT

In article <C17vn6.6GL@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> >In article <C15pAD.AHF@cs.uiuc.edu>, zygote@cs.uiuc.edu (The seed of all life) writes:
> >> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >> 
> 
> >True - but if the Fed had stayed out of it - we'd still have it.
> >Slavery was not forced on the states by the fed.  it originated
> >in the states and was accepted by the fed as a compromise.
> 
> Do the words "Fugitive Slave Act" mean anything to you?

Yes, under the principle of "State's Rights", the Federal Governemnt
decided that it was up to the individual states to decide who was
human and who was property.  If a piece of property escaped from a
state it didn't not automatically become human again. That would
be violating the right of the State and it's owner.  Sort of
under the same law that says if your cow escapes from your farm
and onto your neighbor's farm it does not become "free" or his
property.  Isn't that the system you are advocating?  Surely you
didn't expect the Federal government to tell a state that it's
citizen's property could be taken away like that?

> 
> >You are looking at history 180 degrees around.  The states are more
> >likely - since they have a proven track record of discrimnation,
> >segregation, lynchings, religious discrimination.  Why would it
> >suddenly change around so the states were all good and the fed all
> >bad?
> 
> Because in our history, it wasn't until somewhat recently that the Fed
> acquired all the power it now enjoys and can abuse.
> 

It acquired that power to counteract the abuses of the states.  If
we took away all that Federal power, what is to prevent all the
abuses from coming back?

> >What is so self-limiting about majority rule?  What if they do not
> >choose to limit themselves?  Does the minority have NO rights at
> >all, no one to protect them?
> 
> You keep talking about THE majority and THE minority like they are
> monoliths.  Asking individuals to support minority rights becasue
> at some point they might be in a minority is really all we have to
> limit government.  Without concent of real live human beings, legal
> restrictions are just paper.
> 

It's a pretty lousy way to limit power.  From my experience, people
who are in the majority never think they will be in the minority.
It's arrogance but it's human nature.  Like Colonel Tom Parker, who
said "I don't have to be nice to people I meet on the way up.  I'm
not coming down."  It is human nature, in fact, to take advantage
of being in the majority to PREVENT winding up on the minority side.

> >> So the states can ignore any law they dislike?  GREAT, I WIN!!!!
> >> Are you really suggesting the states-rights doctrine of nullification?
> 
> >What exactly have you won?  I would like to see states ignore laws that
> >hurt their citizens.  But you have not shown me any that they have
> 
> And it is their decision what laws to ignore.  What if they decided
> to ignore the Voting Rights Act or some other law you like?
> 

Isn't that what YOU have been advocating?  That the states simply
ignore any Federal law they they feel limits their power?  You
want to play both sides of the fence. The states have unlimited
power unless they choose not to have it.  

> 
> >If the federal law is discriminatory and sets out to hurt a state citizen
> >I would like to see the state stand up and oppose it.  They do not have
> >the power to instantly nullify federal law, but they could try.  I would
> 
> So your 'balance' between the Fed and the states is that the states can
> try to do something you admit they are powerless to do.

Not powerless.  They may be in a losing position but they could at
least try.  As I said - the states have done nothing in their history
to stand up to this terrible power you claim the fed has.  Why?`
Because,in most cases, the fed is simply backing up the states in
discriminatory actions they have already taken (i.e. fugitive slaves,
internment of Japanese Americans, relocation of Native Americans).
In none of these cases did the state have the slightest inclination
to save the minority.

> >In this, rare, case the federal government violated someones rights,
> >but it grew out of the supremacy of the states.  To their view,
> 
> So even when the Fed did something wrong, it is evidence that it should be
> given more power and the states less.

No when the fed does something wrong, and it is shown that it is
merely supporting discriminatory and unconstitutional actions the
states have already begun, the concept of unlimited "States Rights"
is shown to be wrong.  If we merely took away the federal oversight,
then nothing would limit the states power.  The rule that any
state citizen is a United States citizen, and entitled to that
protection, must be upheld.


marc colten

Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc