From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Summary: States vs. Federal
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:02:18 GMT

In article <PA146008.646.727566833@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
> >> In article <1993Jan20.022513.20983@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
> >> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> 
> >But we've heard a lot about "putting God back in schools"
> >from the Religious Right.  As you saying that they would simply sit
> >back and shrug off the introduction of Islam, or Buddism, or Judaism,
> >or Santeria into a public school simply because it was in another state?
> >I doubt it.  let's be real here.  
> 
>        I'm curious why I (or you) have any more right to tell others what
> they can or can't teach in their schools than they have to tell you what
> *you* have to teach in your schools.  You're asking for a two-way street
> where you can ignore the "bad" decisions but force people to accept the
> "good" decisions.
> 

Didn't we just cover these paragraph in another message?  Okay,
to repeat, if a United States citizen - even a child - is forced
into religious practices of a majority religion because their
state thinks it's a good idea - it is wrong and a violation of
their rights and their parents rights.  They are United States
citizens and have the right to protection from such abuses.

> >I'll just throw in a point.
> >As I remember reading about it, Hawaii was first put in for statehood
> >in 1912, but didn't make it until 1960.  I ran across excerpts from the
> >congressional debate on the issue.  The main complaint against Hawaii
> >was that, if admitted, it would be the first and only state where the
> >majority of the citizens were not white Christians.  People were very
> >concerned at the time - even though it should have been "none of their
> >business" what happened in another state.  I think that in 1912 people
> >were a lot more interested in their own backyards than now, but there
> >they were, fighting the idea of a non-christian state.
> 
>        You're suggesting that the fact that people wer concerned about
> another state somehow invalidates another state's autonomy.

Exactly - if your theory is right, they should have shrugged it off
not matter what.  What right was it of theirs to worry about the
religion of another states population - and yet they did.

>        You seem to be suggesting that people are more concerned now about 
> what happens in other states, *therefore* they should be given authority to
> make their decisions stick in other states.

You keep trying to switch the arguments.  First we are arguing
Federal power (in which each state population has representation)
and then you make it sound as if the other states are forcing them
to do something.  It doesn't work like that.  The state legislators
do not pick the federal legislators and do not tell them what to do.
The federal legislators (the ones making the decisions you hate so
much) are picked by their people and concern themselves with issues
that affect the country as a whole - and it's people, even as
individuals.  If my rights are violated here in Georgia, I have
the right to appeal to the Fed for relief.

>        I'm sorry, but concern does not translate into power, nor should it.
> Just because I think you shouldn't eat fatty foods gives me no right to 
> prohibit you.

What if your state triples it's income while pouring polluted water
down into mine?  Or your police watch for Georgia plates and arrest
us for doing nothing and then whipping up on us.  Still nobodies
business but yours?

> 
> >I neither
> >support a total Federal Government with the power to micro-manage
> >everything right down to the installation of a local traffic light,
> >nor the supremacy of the state government including disenfranchising
> >citizens based on religion or race.  I mentioned a balance.  
> 
>        Yet the only defining point of the balance you've given is  
> subjective.  That such-and-such a state has done something the "majority"
> of the states feel is wrong, so they must be stopped.  The Constitution
> provides clear indications of what is and what is not a matter of national
> interest in State affairs.

It would be great if there were objective standards, but let's not
pretend that some state has it's own commandments carved in stone.
Look at the history of this country and you'll see that some things
that seemed like laws of nature 200 years ago seen hopelessly dated
today.  Other things didn't exist then.  Should Tenn have the right
to set up a radio transmitter and drown out all other signals in
border areas of neighboring states?  

> 
> >I'd
> >like to see local government handling things but with Federal checks
> >on abuse of authority.  
> 
>        Checks *where*?  Checks *how*.  What *limits*?  Should Congress just 
> be able to *grow* a power to remove a mayor or governor from office if they 
> feel he is doing a bad job?  Should Congress be able to simply invalidate 
> any state law which *offends* some other portion of the country?  Where
> are you going to draw the line.  *ARE* you going to a line?
> 
I don't pretend to have commandments in stone either.  But if the
line has to be drawn, it can hardly be drawn in advance.  Are you willing
to say that a state government can do ANYTHING it wants?  You make a
great deal of federal protections in the Constitution, and then complain
when they are used.  So if the fed can't override an oppressive state
law - won't the states just do what they want - hurt anyone they
want, and then, if and when the Fed complains, just say - "well that's
within our rights."  Yes the line has to be drawn, but you hold the
trial after the crime not before.

> >I would also like to see the States oppose
> >Federal Authority if it oversteps its bounds.
> 
>        How are the state's going to oppose federal authority.  Somehow you
> have to decide who has final authority over what, or you just end up with 
> everybody calling their troops in the field.  For schools, *who* gets to 
> decide what gets taught?  The state?  The feds?  (And if the feds, under 
> what authority?)  And if they differ, whose opinion wins.  And if one 
> doesn't like the other's opinion, how is the difference resolved?
> 
If the final authority was the state - we'd still have slavery and
other abuses.  From what I've seen in my lifetime, I can hardly
complain that the Fed has become the final authority.  Most state
problems dont' go the fed - they are handled in the state. If they
are tough enough for someone to want a highter authority, I'm glad
it's there.  That may be a prejudice on my part - but we all have
them - even you.  In a way I'm glad I get to argue them without
having to make those decisions, except for who I vote for.  Still,
over my lifetime I think many advances have been made, usually
with the help of Federal law.

> >>        Are you suggesting, then, that the legitmacy of state or
> >> federal power relies *solely* on whether or not a proposal is good
> >> or not?
> >
> >YES, what's wrong with that?  
> 
>        What's wrong with it is that it is hopelessly subjective.  What's to 
> stop Congress from saying, "Thus and such is a good idea, so by god we're 
> going to do it!" no matter what it is, be it infringement on speech or 
> conduct or deciding it's "just too much trouble" to have silly things like 
> public trials.  

And what is hopelessly objective about your theory?  Why can't the
state just decide that it's just too much trouble for public trials?
Are you really arguing that a state is so virtuous and the Fed
so evil that we can permit them anything?  As I mentioned before,
I've seen people who would allow a state to simply declare a religion
the "official State Religion".  What would be so objective about allowing
that?


>        The Constitution sets out specific powers and limits on the Federal 
> Government, and you can't pick and choose from it and expect your argument 
> to hold water.  Either you must accept the rules or deny them, and denying 
> them throws all those nifty on-paper protections completely out the window.
>        Who gets to decide what is a good idea?  You?  Me?  Congress?  The
> "majority?"  And what makes the 50% + 1 of 250 million people immune to
> stomping on minority rights that somehow doesn't apply to the 50% + 1 of
> the 2 million citizens of Arkansas?  
> 
Are you really suggesting that the Framers of the Constitution already
did all our thinking for us?  What a "good idea" is changes with time.
200 years ago, slavery was a good idea.  Did the 50% plus one people
of Arkansas decide it was a bad idea, or were they pushed?  If you
are so concerned about a majority of the states stomping on a states
rights - you should be more concerned with a majority of a state
population stomping on their minorities.  It has happened more often.

> >I doubt very much if anyone would 
> >willingly climb into the boxcar to a death camp saying "Well,
> >I feel that the state is wrong to do this to me, but I won't
> >oppose them since they have the right to make that determination."
> 
>        Exactly how is this relevant?  First it obviously *is* in
> my state.  Second it violates (if you are true to the reference) probably 
> half a dozen federal protections that the government is perfectly entitled 
> to enforce under the current rules.  You keep suggesting these horrible 
> situations that are already addresssed under the current set of rules.
> 
It is very relevant.  You regard the state authority as supreme,
good or bad. After all, if one state decides to pass a bad law, who
does it hurt, except their own citizens?  Perhaps you don't see yourself
as potential boxcar material and I do.  But I'm not willing to shrug
off other abuses, perhaps more minor, as valid to the state.  Perhaps
wholesale genocide is protected against (we won't really know until
someone tries), but a great many other abuses have been tried and
gotten away with over the years.

> >>        That presents a situation ripe for abuse, because both sides
> >> *always* argue that they are in the right;  that *they're* plan
> >> is the best plan.  One way or the other, there must be a consistant,
> >> definate line where the powers are delagated and to whom.
> >
> >Not a bad thing to have they push and pull, give and take.  
> 
>        With push and pull only works when both sides are consitantly equal 
> and capable of opposing each other over long periods of time.  This does
> not apply in any way to the Federal Government vs. a single state government.
> 
I think the power of the Fed grew in response to many of the state
abuses.  If the state abuses had not been so great, perhaps the
Federal power would not have grown so great.  We can't rerun history
and find out.  The civil war was one of the defining reasons.  I've
known people, not southerners incidentally, who felt that the Union had
no right to oppose Secession.  If they had not, States like Arkansas
would be free of them now, and probably still have slavery.  The
Confederacy would have been much looser than the Union (if it 
survived at all) and states like yours would be free to do as they
wish, with appeals ending at the state level.  Maybe you'd like that,
but I doubt if it would have automatically been beneficial to those
in the minority.

> >At
> >least people will be in their slugging for their rights.  
> 
>        What, exactly, prevents you from slugging away for your rights at the
> state level that isn't present at the Federal level.  Certainly not 
> proximity.  Perhaps it is simply people over-look their state government.  
> Most people I know can't even name their State rep.  But whose fault is that?
> You can't protect people who won't at least protect themselves.
> 
As I've said - It think in many ways States are too small and it's
citizens share too many common concerns and fears.  Many states thought
that the elimination of slavery or the allowing of inter-racial
marriages would end civilization.  What chance would you have to
"slug it out" at the state level?

> >Sometimes
> >you win, sometimes you lose, but it's better than simply hoping
> >for the best with no recourse.
> 
>        Eventually you always hit a wall.  What recourse is there at the 
> Federal level that doesn't exist at the state level?  A court system?  No, 
> got one of those.  Elections?  No, they come around pretty regularly.  
> Basically, what you want is to be able, when you state does something you 
> disapprove of, go out and recruit people to oppose it no matter where they 
> are.  What *point* is there in electing local representatives if my choices 
> can simply be over-ruled by the larger majority in California?
> 
There is no further recourse at the federal level than the Supreme
Court.  for some people this is bad. However, I hardly see how removing
a tier of appeal will make the situation better. Then you hit the
wall lower, at the state level. Why is that better.  As for you
election local representatives - you are not electing them to be God
just legislators. Other people - perhaps in a smaller group, voted as
well.  Maybe their guy lost.  Does that mean they have no rights?
No appeal past that one guy?

> >
> >Are you saying that 49 state full of people should sit back and let
> >Colorado do what it wants without protesting?  
> 
>        Are they?  Opposition does not always entail Federal involvement.
> The Federal Big Stick is not the only (or the best) to solve a state 
> problem.
> 

Name another one.  The "boycott" against colorado may fail (besides
isn't that one state interfering with another, which you hate?) and
will embolden certain people there.  Do you really believe that the
current law is the last one?  What if gays are forbidden by state
law to teach?  To work in State government?  what is they don't
stop at gays. Are you willing to write off the rights of American
citizens?

> >What if they carried
> >it further?  Gays couldn't work in State Goverenment.  Gays couldn't
> >vote.  Gays couldn't own property.
> 
>        Aha, you run into that equal protection clause again.  You can still
> follow the rules without destroying state autonomy.
> 
If I've run into the "equal protection" clause - why did the proposition
pass and was allowed to stand?  Exactly wehre will this "protection"
begin without violating what you call state autonomy?

> >I've lived in New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey and now Georgia.  I have
> >no idea how "a State" likes or dislikes anything.  I've never lived in
> >a state with uniform opinions among it's people.
> 
>        Then explain how a "country" does any better at the Federal level.
> No, you aren't going to have a single, unified opinion.  We *have*, though
> accepted a system by which decisions are made, and these vary from state to 
> state.  I elect my representative, and he, with the help of others, makes 
> decisions for Tennessee within the bounds of the State and Federal 
> Constitutions.  That is how decisions are made.  Are you suggesting that 
> becuase Congress can't ensure 100% approval it has no legitimate 
> decision-making power?

No, I'm suggesting that what seems like a life and death issue to
a state government and well worth the price of a few peoples rights,
may not seem so urgent to the Federal congress.  You seem to accept
that they must be within the limits of the constitution.  So I'll
ask you again - do you really believe that people like Jefferson
and Madison hav already made all the decision, or do we get to
make some ourselves?

> 
> >Someone has got to define whether your rights are being violated.
> 
>        Based on fairly clear text.  Not based on subjective concepts of
> "Well, this is a good idea."  
>        Which is more likely to be abused?  A protection of the freedom of 
> speech?  Or protections against "bad" laws?

The text is not that clear.  Remember it allowed slavery and did nothing
to get women the vote.  If we abided solely by that text - we'd
still be back there.  I really haven't seen that many major decisions
that are the way some people characterize them (that is drawn out
of the air as a good idea).  More are current interpretations - such
as "All men ..." includes black people and women.

> 
> >If the state has taken away your rights (whether or not Jefferson
> >thought about that right in 1789) I think the Fed has got to look
> >into it.  
> 
>        Sure, go wild.  As long as you accept there are limits on what the
> Feds may over-rule beyond simply "Well, okay, we agree with it."  There
> are some State functions and powers which are, and should remain, totally
> beyond the veto power of the Federal government.  That isn't the deal 
> Tennessee signed off on.
> 
Just checked my almanac - Tenn was 16th, so it was not an original
state.  - perhaps just a semantic point - but the deal Tenn signed
on to at the time  allowed such state functions as slavery.  Do
wish it was still there?

> >The world has changed and some things will not be found
> >in a 200 year old document.
> 
>        Fine.  Argue that the Constitution has no force, which also, by the 
> way, destroys any *legal* legitmacy behind the Federal government beyond "We
> have the biggest army."  Currently they like to pretend they still play by
> the 200 year old rules, so I don't feel at all bad about demanding they do 
> so.

The constitution has plenty of force.  You just won't find the word
Radio in there.  Sometimes the rules just don't fit the document.
New times makes decisions necessary.

>        The 200 year old document is not unchangeable.  If it doesn't fit
> the changing times, try and change it.  But you can't ignore the 
> Constitution and then pretend the Federal government has any legitimate 
> power over the States beyond "We can pound you into rubble."

So what is the difference between a federal law, or decision of
changing the constitution?  How can you support amendments if you
are against increases in federal power?

>        By the way, given this view, does the Federal government have less of 
> a duty to protect Canadians or Mexicans (or others) if we find their forms 
> of government or the way they do things objectionable.  They haven't agreed 
> to abide by this "We know better" system of government any more than the 
> States have.

Canada and Mexico are not part of the US so the Fed has no authority.
That may be good or bad for them, depending on their situation.  

> >>        There's already rumblings in Washington about a "right to safety"
> >> and similar nonsense, the abuses of which are almost limitless.
> >
> >Perhaps.  But on the other hand you may not get as much relief from
> >a state legislature if you work in a dangerous steel mill or near
> >a toxic waste dump.  The company in that state has a lot more influence
> >on the State senator than on all those Federal Legislators.
> 
>        And I have zero influence on my Senators and microscopic
> influence on my Rep.  Great change of venue.  Effectively other states
> get more say in my local government than I do.  I better be careful I don't
> do something to offend their sensibilities.
> 
You have the same influence as any other citizen.  If the cloud of
toxic steam that comes over you drifted in from Georgia you might
be glad that there was a fed to complain to. Why should they listen
to your representatives.  As for your use of the word "offend" and
"sensibilities" - the problems this country has had have been pretty
major - and not as trivial as you suggest.

> >"No matter how objectionable" - see my comment above about climbing
> >into the box car to the death camp.  You have to have checks on abuses.
> 
>        Look at the protections in the Federal Constitution.  If some State 
> starts loading people up without trial and carting them off to camps (kind 
> of like the Feds did in WWII) there are several *Constitutional* protections 
> that Feds can legitimately enforce.  And even if there isn't, if it creates 
> such an outrage, pass an amendment.  But you must either work within the 
> rules or discard any real, legitimate source of power the Federal government 
> has over the states, which throws the rules of law to the winds.  Bad as
> things can get, I prefer the rule of law.
> 

I hope they pass such an amendment faster than the rest.  How long
would it take a boxcar to reach a death camp?  American citizens
are entitled to the protection of their government. If the state
will not do it - the fed must.

> >If your opinion is a bad one - yes it's good to lose it among millions.
> 
>        Then let it be heard and *then* discarded, not simply lost among the 
> shouting.  It can be heard far better at the local than the Federal level.
> You seem to feel that simply because I'm local to me, my opinion of what is 
> going on here is less valid than others who have never even visited.
> 
The voice of the majority will be heard at the local level, not the
minority.

> >If 1000 people in a legislative district think that the religion of
> >200 of their neighbors should be outlawed, it might be a very good thing
> >to lose that opinion in a bigger group that may not care that much.
> 
>        You want opinions, which you can't know whether they are good or bad 
> until they've been heard, *lost* before they are ever heard?
> 
I assume they will be heard, and then shouted down at the local level.
A thousand voices can't always get heard at the state level - but one
voice can be heard at the Supreme Court. That is what it is there for.

>        How is the majority of the nation less likely to enforce its will 
> unfairly on the minority  than the state majority?  Is there some magic 
> point between one million and ten million where democracy suddenly "works"
> where it didn't before?

Apparently, since that is the level it took to end slavery, ban 
discriminatory laws and get people their rights.

>        You seem to be very worried about the States enforcing a religion on 
> you.  Yet there are adequate protections already in the federal Constitution
> which can be used without ignoring it entirely.  And if you ignore it, that
> leaves you without any written rules, allowing the government to simply
> do whatever it can get a majority to agree with at any one time.
> 
If the protections are there at the federal level, why were they not
enforced when I was a kid?  And why are there people right now who
say there are no such protections?

> >>        Good laws can be copied, and other towns and states can learn
> >> from bad laws at the local level.  At the Federal level, good
> >> or bad, we're all stuck.
> >
> >Bad laws can be copied as well.  
> 
>        But you have claimed that *other* States will see the bad law and get 
> the Federal Government to do something about it.  Why on earth would they 
> copy it?

Some will copy the bad laws, some won't.  But under your scheme, those
who live in the states with the bad laws will suffer with no recourse.
Why is that a good idea?
> 
> >At the Federal level we are not stuck,
> >we have input through our congressman, and senators.
> 
>        Input that we *don't* have at the state level?  I'm sorry, but that's 
> silly.  Except for size, most state legislatures directly parallel the 
> Federal system.  You talk about protecting the minority, yet you seem afraid 
> that the minority will do something and the majority will have to step in.  
> How are you going to differentiate between what is good and what is bad?

It's not simply a matter of minority vs majority. At the local level
the majority can stamp all over you.  The federal protections are
not necessarily the voice of the majority of the states.  It's more
of a common voice using the constitution as a guide - whether you 
agree with that or not - and overriding the state majority to protect
the rights of the states minority.

>        You appear very concerned about the "Religous Right."  Let me ask you 
> how you'd like living in a country were they gained control of the Federal 
> government and could over-rule the States?  What you're asking for is a 
> tyranny of the majority, simply on a different level, hoping that by sheer 
> numbers they will always come up with the right decisions.
> 
Since this kind of thing has happened over and over again at the state
level, but NOT at the federal level I am less worried about it.  It
could happen, but by then the vast majority of every state would be
against the minority religions. Then we'd have lost on all levels.
Unlike you I don't regard the federal government as an evil alien
entity.

> >>        And once again you run afoul of that nasty equal protection with
> >> would *authorize* federal involvement.
> >
> >What is so nasty about equal protection?  You'd be surprised how many
> >people think that not everyone deserves equal protection.
> 
>        Nasty in that it keeps dogging every example you bring up.  You
> keep providing examples which would violate it, and then suggesting the
> Federal Government could reasonably, under the current rules, not be allowed 
> to get involved.

Not at all.  I am suggesting things that some people I've debated
would see as legitimate state functions, no matter who was hurt,
and that I see as valid rights issues.

>        I didn't claim I felt it was wrong, but you have consistantly seemed 
> intent on ascribing the very worst aspects of humanity to anyone who argues
> that the State's should not exist and function solely at the whim of the
> Federal government, trying to make it synonamous with support of slavery, 
> segregation, and Nazi death camps.
>  
Slavery, segregation, lynchings (and worse) all happened at the state
level.  I believe the worst aspects of humanity do come out at the
smaller and smaller levels.  Why else would groups like the Aryan
Nations and Posse Comitatus want nothing bigger than county level
government?

> >That's true.  But in as far as that power is used to protect individuals
> >who may not be in the majority in their state - it's a good power.  
> 
>        "Insofar."  You are a very trusting soul, but not a very consistant
> one.  You expect States to abuse their power, but seem to have no fears
> at all that the same thing could happen at the federal government.  It is
> an unlawful attempt to usurp state power.

I'm not trusting at all. But in my lifetime I've seen tons of state
abuse, and I've seen the fed put an end to it.  Based on my experience
why would I prefer that former to the latter?

>        But when it doesn't protect individuals, it's a bad power?  Exactly 
> how can you tell?  Do you have a list of "good things" and "bad things" to 
> check all proposed laws against?  I have seen far to much twisting of solid, 
> conrete writing to be comfortable letting the government, or the majority, 
> loose with nothing in the way of rules beyond, "Only do what's right."
> 
Trying to do what's right, even if you have to actually think about
it - is not the worst way to live a life or run a governemnt.  I
find it far prefereble to "It's written in stone, and I hate it
but hey, it's the states' business not mine".  I've grown very tired
of arguments like "Hey, I didn't make the rules.  It's in the
constitution/bible/whatever".

> >If 
> >the Fed tells a state to oppress their minorities - let the state stand
> >up to the them - consequences or not.  
> 
>        You seem to be arguing for a government whose only rules are that 
> they must do what is *in their opinion* right at the time.  Exaclty how do 
> you tell the difference between someone who really does want to do right, 
> and someone who is simply abusing the system?
> 
When someone is denied the rights that their neighbors have, because
of something that makes them different, it's abusing the system. When
someone stands up to the abuser - it's right.  Not a perfect definition
but a good staring point.

> >Might not hurt to have a little
> >Moral Courage at the state level.
> 
>        Yet you consistantly refuse to allow them any power to assert their 
> moral courage.  Consistantly you have given the impression that the Federal 
> Government should have final veto authority over anything.  *HOW* do you 
> oppose that?  Ignore the Federal Government?  And what should the Federal 
> Government do if you do?  Call out the army?  It's like dumping somebody in 
> front of an armed army platoon in their underwear and then telling them to 
> stand up for themselves.

If you think we're living in Nazi Germany, yes.  Otherwise, I think
a state could stand up to the fed and not get invaded.  If the fed
tried to invade a state because they refuse to put yellow lights
between red and green in their traffic lights, I think they find
themselves opposed and losing.  What state would not stand up in
the congress and oppose that?  If they fight a state becuase they
are denying citizens the rights that other enjoy - would would
oppose them?

> >>        You've got a bad habit of calling people hypocrites without
> >> cause.
> >
> >I never all people hypocrites without cause.  
> 
>        I beg your pardon.  You apparently have plenty of cause.  What you
> are doing is calling them hypocrites without evidence.  You basically told 
> them that you believe they would be inconsistant in another situation 
> (wholly without any evidence so far as I can see) and then gotten high and
> mighty and blasted them for a decision they made solely in your own mind.

Where did I do that?  I said that other people, who really believe
that they are acting consistently, would find themselves reverseing
if things went the other way, such as on abortion. In one message
I gave an example of Ed Meese spending years pushing states rights
and then threatening Alaskans citizens with state authority if
they allow themselves the right to grow marijuana.

> 
> >But just to settle my
> >mind - answer one question.  If 50 states legalized abortion and 
> >made sure that protestors could not close down the clinics, would
> >you resist the power of the Fed to ban abortion and close down the
> >clinics.  
> 
>        As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a state issue until a Federal 
> amendment says otherwise.  Yes, I would oppose such a move on the Federal 
> government, because they haven't the authority.  I would oppose most laws at 
> the State level, for different reasons.

I applaud your right to defend abortions against federal bans. 

> 
> >How far away does an american citizen have to be that I wouldn't worry
> >that their rights were being abused?  
> 
>        I am not asking you not to worry about it.  I'mm asking you to 
> accept that beyond "We have bigger guns and that's why you're going to do it
> our way," your State has authority at all over another state outside the 
> Federal Constitution.  If you want to affect another state via the 
> government, you either have to live with those limits or operate under the 
> "might makes right" principle of government.

If a state chooses to deny another citizen their rights because they
happen to live within their state borders - isn't that "might makes
right"?  To me if the fed opposes that kind of brutality - that
is enforcing the constitution.

>        Laws can't mean anything if they're only followed when convenient or
> when you decide they are useful.  Either we're going to have the laws, and 
> currently the nation accepts the Constitution as the source of those laws, 
> or you throw the laws out the window and the Federal government continues to 
> run the show because they've got a big army and some element of social 
> intertia.
> 
If the federal moves in and over turns a state law, who decides
whether it is constitutional or just the "big army" element?  

> >What conditions would a person have
> >to live under that I would shrug off their religion banned or their vote
> >taken away?
> 
>        Have you read the Federal Constitution?  
> 
Yes I have - and 200 years of such state level abuses existed under it.  So
what's your point?

> >If it's a legal matter - fight it in the courts.  
> 
>        In the courts created by the document you have already argued should 
> be abolished and replaced with a "We feel this law is good," system?  And 
> where, exactly, will these courts get the law to base their decisions on?   
> When confronted with a differening state and federal law, which takes 
> precedence?  The one the judge likes best?  

I am supporting the rule of law.  If the law cannot be appealed to
the federal level, then why have the constitution at all?  The judge
makes the ruling.  IF they are a good judge, they base it on the
constitution.

>        Courts cannot operate without some form of guidelines.  For any 
> consistancy they must operate on a fairly difficult to change set of 
> standards, be they traditional or codified.  You're arguing we have none at 
> all besides, "We feel this works better," leaving the judges with nothing to 
> do about it but make personal value judgements.
> 
No I am allowing the constitution to be interpreted in the light of
20th century rules, not the way it was thought of when slavery
existed an dthere were no airplanes or radios. Times change, the law
has to change with it.

> >But as I said, they
> >don't.  Did California take the fed to court to prevent the internment
> >of Japanese Americans?  
> 
>        So, that Federal government should have unlimited lattitude to step 
> on the States, because the states don't stand up to them?  And you are 
> content to give the Feds more power, because the State's can oppose them,
> except you're sure they won't.

Try reading what I said.  You are painting this picture fo the big
bad fed trampling on the rights of the states, and the best you can
come up with is the Japanes Americans - not a good example.  I
told you why in my last message.

> 
> >They can
> >simply refuse to take action. Perhaps they would lose, but I think they
> >would pick up support if they were in the right.  
> 
>        You can't base a government solely on a subjective point of view
> and then hope that "majority opinion" prevents abuses.  There were reasons,
> good ones, that direct democracy (which is what your advocating at a national
> level, effectively) were rejected originally, because sometimes the 
> simple majority is simply wrong.  You accept this at the state level, but
> seem to discard it at the Federal level.

And why is a simple majority of a state right?  History has shown
how often they are wrong.  The direct democracy was rejected for 
more complicated reasons then the fact that the majority was wrong.
The people who wrote the document didn't trust people who weren't
as educated and cultured as themselves.  

> 
> >When the Fed moved
> >in on school desegregation, the states opposed them and lost.  
> 
>        A segregation system that was originally okayed by the Supreme
> Court.  I don't like the idea of subjective rights at the whims of an
> institution known for reversing it's own opinions regularly.
> 
Approved by the Supreme Court, but not developed by the fed. That
was your system, not mine. The state wanted segregation and the
fed decided that it was their business and no one elses.  A 
clear example of why your ideas are wrong.

> >If the 
> >positions were reversed and the Fed was forcing states to segregate
> >their schools, I think the state would have found a lot more support
> >than they did.
> 
>         Yet the decision by the Supreme Court that "seperate but equal"
> produced no riots or major electoral defeats.  The situation changed because
> attitudes changed, which would have led to school desgregation anyway.  
> Probably have taken longer, but it would have happened, and probably far
> more smoothly.

It led to no riots or electoral defeats since it pandered to the
state majority that wanted it in the first place.  And I've heard
about how "attitudes" would have changed and everything would have
worked out in the end.  How many generations of people were you
willing to sacrifice waiting for bigotry to be bred out of the
species?

> 
>       I've already listed a dozen abuses by the Federal government.  We 
> could add, more, add the terrible things done to the Native Americans 
> (who were solely the province the Federal government.  Further, segregation 
> was not simply "gone along with," but made into the law of the land.  
> The Federal government has routinely, over the years, violated privacy of 
> citizens, from J. Edgar Hoover on, keeping tabs on dissidents.  There was 
> our favority the Red Scare.  Don't forget the RICO laws, where you don't 
> even have to be charged to have your property confiscated.  The Federal 
> Government has confiscated hundreds of millions of dollars (perhaps 
> billions) from people they never charged based on warrants where they will 
> refuse to divulge the identity of the accuser.  
> 

you listed two - the japanese american and Dred Scott, both
bad examples since it was your system - the fed allowing the
the states to run things.  As for the rest - J. Edgar Hoover
ran his own operation - one paranoid guy.  The others - yes,
some bad ideas - red scares, rico, but as I've said where is
the state outcry to protect it's citizens.  Even while I oppose
these abuses, they hardly point to such an abuse of power 
compared to the 200 years of state abuses.

> >If the States
> >were doing good and the Fed made them do bad things they would find their
> >sledgehammer not all that big.
> 
>        Are you suggesting that the majority *never* supports bad things at
> the Federal level?  That if the Fed were actually doing these horrible 
> things that magically they'd decide that all of a sudden the Feds no longer 
> have real power, when they've been taught all their lives that the Feds 
> always are above the states?

If the majority supports these abuses at the federal level, wouldn't
they support them at the state level?  So where is the benefit?
With total state power you have recourse.

>        And even if the majority thinks those bad things are good, what about 
> those minorities you were worried about?
> 
I'm still worried about them.  as I've said, it's been my experience
that the fed has opposed many state abuses, while the states have
done very little to oppose federal abuses.  Many federal abuses
(such as against the Japanese american or native americans) were
in support of state policies.

> >
> >I don't live in that state - so I would have no voice in your scheme.  
> 
>        Help finance their court battle.  Speak out.  Organize a boycott or 
> something.  I'm not going to sit here and go through all the possible ways 
> you might help somebody out.  Hell, *move* there and start voting if it's 
> something you simply can't live with.  The raw power to order somebody to
> conform to your views is not the only way of doing things.  It's the 
> easiest, but not the only.
> 

All pointless if I am supporting an oppressed minority.  As for
moving there and joining them, how would that help unless I got
a million people to move there as well. Not very practical.

> 
>        If something is so terrible, support a Constitutional amendment.
> The Federal government doesn't allow more democracy (or even more action)
> it allowd a bigger democracy.  It allows you to reduce a minority you
> don't like to a sufficiently small number that its rights may be violated in 
> the name of "democracy."  All you've done is try and change the venue so you 
> are in the majority and somebody else is in the minority.

As I've said, again and again, what is the difference from  your
point of view between federal action and a majority of the states
passing a new amendment.

> 
> >> >> And it was the Fed supreme court which said 'separate but equal' was
> >> >> just hunkey dorey.
> >> >
> >
> >But the state originated the violation, not the Fed.  
> 
>        Again, so?  The Federal government accepted it as valid and imposed 
> it so on other states.  Besides, segregation lasted for years.  Hardly a 
> responsive protector of rights anyway.

It did not impose it on other states - it allowed them to do it.  No
one said that they had to break up integrated schools into segregated
ones.  Once again, your rules - the states makes a decision and
the fed goes along.  It took years because the states wanted to keep
it, no matter who got hurt. I'm glad it's gone.

> 
> >If one state says
> >that it can deny children an education because of race, and the fed
> >goes along, that does not follow that every state MUST segregate, only
> >that they can if they wish.  
> 
>         Yet opponents in those states can't argue that it should not be 
> allowed, because supporters can say, "See, the Supreme Court says we're
> right!"  But the Supreme Court could also just as easily have said, "All
> schools must be segregated.  We believe this is the 'good' thing to do."

Not even remotely the same thing.  The supreme court didn't say it
was the law, just not a violation of the constitution. If they had
not even been asked to pass on the law (as you desire) what would
have been the difference, except that we'd still have segreagation.

> 	Basically you have just argued that state autonomy is good, but
> only when the autonomously accept your way.  You can't have it both ways.
> You can't have the State's decision when the States are "right" and the
> Feds decision when the States are "wrong."  There's simply no way of 
> defining good and bad so that will work.
> 
State autonomy is good until they start violating rights.  It's no
different really than at the personal level.  You have the right to
do waht you want - go where you want, do what you want.  Until you
start breaking and entering or shooting someone.

> >IF they do not wish to - they won't, but
> >then the issue would never have come up at all.  If the fed makes it
> >"the law of the land" it is no worse then if they allowed the states
> >to do what they want in any case.
> 
>        Operating under the assumption the law doesn't order something to 
> happen.  You may make that assumption, I am not prepared to.
> 
It allows something to happen.  Seperate but equal allowed abuses
it didn't mandate them.

> >> >How
> >> >they must have howled when the Federal Government MADE them
> >> >segregate their happily integrated schools.
> >> 
> >>        Personally, a Federal Government "protecting" me by reversing
> >> its own opinions on rights inside of fifty years doesn't fill me
> >> with confidence.
> >

Maybe not - but at least they are not stuck in stone with bad decisions.
Besides - people change as well.  Let's not pretend that the fed
is an immortal brain in  a jar.

> >But if they hadn't gotten involved at all, we'd still have slavery,
> >segreated schools, women wouldn't have the vote.  
> 
>        *HOW* were slavery, womens voting rights, and segregated schools
> dealt with?  By following the rules and enacting Constitutional amendments.

Isn't that against your theory - the fed making new rules for states
that didn't want them?

> I am not arguing the Federal Government has no business getting involved.
> But they must play by the rules or there *are* no rules.  The feds didn't 
> create those rights out of thin air and enforce them.  The did what they 
> shod have.  Changed the rules.

How is changing the rules allowed in your system?  If they change the
rules, aren't they violating the rights of states that joined when
the rules were different?

> 
> >Look at the current
> >supreme court. 
> 
>        I'd almost rather not.

Your choice.

> 
> >Both Sandra Day O'Conner and Clarence Thomas put forward
> >by conservatives who expect(ed) them to support States rights.  A scheme
> >under which O'Conner wouldn't have the vote and Thomas might have been
> >born a slave.
> 
>        Look, how many times do I have to repeat this?  The States have 
> agreed to abide, not by the Federal Will, but by the Federal Constitution.
> READ IT.  It specifically outlaws slavery (amendment 13) and protects a 
> woman's right to vote (amendment 19).  You're asking that the Federal
> government should be able to ignore the Consitution when it is "right" and
> keep accusing me of saying the States should be able to ignore the
> Constitution.  

Neither of those amendments were in the constitution when Tenn joined
and for all I know Tenn didn't vote for them.  So why do you allow
for them, when they are clearly changes in the rules under which
Tenn joined the union?

>        I haven't said that.  I have *never* said that.  
>        I don't know what others have claimed, but I see no inconsistancy 
> between states's rights (meaning the States have authority where the Feds 
> don't, as per amendment 10) and Federal protections, so long as those
> protections operate, like the states, within the bounds set in the 
> Constitutn.  If something isn't there that should be, add it.
> 

But if you add it - how is that differnet from interpreting existing
rules (such as "all men ..." means women too)?

> >But if California doesn't want to oppress it's citizen, Federal approval
> >of Georgia's law does not force them to do so.  
> 
>        It does if the courts decide to order them to.  You are again relying
> on someone to always do the "right" thing in the absence of any other rules.
> 

I'm not relying on it - I'm voting that way.  Otherwise - who will
stop my state if they decide not to do the right thing?

> >It allows them to do so,
> >but a federal "hands off" policy would allow them to do that and much more.
> 
>        In the segregation case, yes.  But in plenty of other cases things 
> ha gone a different way, with the Federal courts imposing various things on 
> e states.  You are arguing that *in this case* the policy was hands off, not 
> that in every case it has been.  What will you do if another case isn't
> nearly so hands off?

Examples of ways in which the fed forced the states (agains their
will - please no Japanese americans again) to oppress their citizens.


marc colten


PS : Jeez  - 950 lines - took me an hour to get through this.
     Why dont' we just write a book each and let the public
     decide?

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:70475 alt.sex:43484 talk.religion.misc:27816 soc.college:6084 alt.peeves:19786