From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 05:39:44 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.013405.7357@cbfsb.cb.att.com>
colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>You [PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)] wrote:
>
>>>>>To what extent do you "let the state population do it"?
>>        Do one of two things:  Either show me where I advocated pure
>>democracy at the *any* level of government or please quit accusing me
>>of it.
>>
>You have advocated the majority of a State passing laws that it
>wishes. That may not be pure democracy, but it is still leaving
>the minority with no recourse.

      I advocate allowing the majority of a State making laws
within their Constitution and the Federal Constitution.  *All*
I advocate is requiring the Federal government to abide by the
rules it has agreed, to and all its offices swear to abide by.
      Recourse may be found at any level, including the Federal
level.

>>        Fine, you don't like democracy.  All well and good.  But how do
>>you protect these liberties you're concerned about in a democracy?
>
>I have more respect for Democracy then the people who wrote the
>Constitution - they were afraid of it.

       You bet they were, and so am I.  Unrestrained democracy *is*
rule by the majority with no recourse by the minority.  Which is
why the rules and the law are so important.


>>        Answer:  You can't.  That's why we have a written Constitution,
>>a Federalist system, and written rules regarding those liberties.  And
>>why we should follow those rules.
>
>As I said above - no system will protect you from the Majority if
>they turn evil. Since they can rewrite the rules or just ignore them.

      That's life.  Which is why law and respect for it is so important.

>>>To your "congresscritter"
>>>you are just another citizen, no more or less important than any
>>>other.  You assume the Senator hates you without cause, and your
>>>councilman loves all his constituents.  I think the reverse is
>>>more likely.
>>
>>       I don't suggest my senator (the new one, anyway, I had my doubts
>>about Gore) hates me, simply that my position is pretty much irrelevent to
>>him.  In Tennessee, the more populous Democratic Western end of the state
>>(Nashville and Memphis) elects the Senators.   As a result, the less
>>populous Republican Eastern end of the state usually gets screwed *and
>>ignored*.   Essentially, because this end of the state consistantly votes
>>against our Reps, our opinions are pretty much irrelevant to them.
>>        This is good?
>
>You wanted a republic didn't you?  You get to vote for Senator the
>same as the other guys.

     True, but the Senator *I* voted for had considerably less power
than they actually exercised.  I can live with the situation even
considering Mr. Gore never bothered to answer my mail, if he had
restricted himself to Constitutional powers.
       Yes, I wanted a Republic, and yes that sometimes mean my voice
is not heard.  But a Republic also runs by rules, and I want those
rules followed.

>You must have representatives at your end of the state who
>are elected solely by you.  If they get outvoted in congress, you
>should get more of them elected. If you can't, maybe you should
>look at why their position is so unpopular.

       I have one Rep.  Tennessee in general has nine.  California
has 52.  Without a doubt Californians look at things differently than
even East Tennesseans.  Like that income tax, thing.

>Still you get the
>same chance as the rest of us.  You vote and you take your chances.

       So, basically, you're telling me that *poof* the legal system
is changed and I might as well get used to it?  That *these* are
the new rules, tough?

>Look, I lived under Reagan for 12 years and Bush for 4.  I voted against
>them and my guys lost.  When I mentioned that to Republicans - either
>on the net or in person I got a lot of "Oh, boo hoo, tough luck."
>So what can I tell you?  Exactly what system would you prefer
>that would fix the problem you mentioned.

      I prefer the system in the Constitution, which isn't the one we have.
You got to live with Presidents who operated *far* outside their legal
authority.
      And don't throw other people's words at me as justification.  If
you'd asked me then I'd have told you they had over-stepped their bounds.

>>       See the Federal Constitution and the Bill of Rights and other
>>amendments.  You have advocated discarding the entire Federalist system.
>>Please describe a "trampling" that can't be dealth with within that system.
>>As near as I can tell what bothers you is that a simple national majority
>>isn't enough to violate the Constitution.
>
>Not at all.  Once again you are implying that I hold positions that
>I do not.  I accept the federalist system - but I interpret it
>differently than you.

      You appear to interpret it as the Federal government having final
veto power over the states.  That is *not* a Federalist system.

>I do not accept that violating my rights as
>an American is a valid state function.

       Fine, it isn't.  And can be dealt with within the current system.

>>       I think this is about as far as this dicussion is likely to go.
>>Please indicate where I have suggested states not be subject to the
>>Federal Constitution or stop using that as an arguing point.
>>
>
>You talk like you think that the States should be subject to the
>Federal Constitution but I haven't found an area that you think
>is within it.  You had no problem with unequal education,
>religious abuses or any other.

       I beg your pardon.  This is a gross distortion of what I
have said, and perhaps downright wrong.  I have replied to virtually
every one of your examples of minorities being singled out as probably
violating the equal protection clause of the *Federal* Constitution.
       As for unequal education, this *is* a state function until it
is made a Federal one.  Currently, the people in *my* state have
found recourse in the State courts.

>Give me an example of a State
>action that you feel the Federal Government was justified in
>taking action on - or should have if it didn't.

       The Federal Government was probably within its rights when
it forced integration of the schools.  It was also within its powers
(via an amendment) when it outlawed poll taxes.

>>       Spelled out:  States have agreed to abide by the Federal Constitution.
>>States have total authority where not overruled by the Federal Constitution.
>>Thus, changes in the Federal Constitution can alter what the States have total
>>authority.
>
>Even if they don't vote to ratify it?  As I said before, I find it
>hard to believe that you are sincere in advocating this position.  You
>are so worried about a lose of State power.

     You may find it hard to believe however much you like.  States did
not agree to only abide by the amendments they ratify, they agreed to
abide by the Constitution, of which amendments are a part whether or
not a particular state voted for it.

>>       If you want to protect a minority religion, fix the Constitution
>>so that they are protected.  It's a difficult beastie to change back.
>
>No more difficult than changing it forward.  About this change, though.
>Do we write one Amendment per religion - as they are denied their
>rights - or one who encompassing religion amendment?

        Something like "No person shall be denied their rights or equal
protection under the law for any reason based upon their religion, religous
teachings, morals, or religous leanings," much like other amendments

>>>This is a dodge I see all the time.  You fight change and then say
>>>you agree with what been done.
>>
>>       *I* fought change?  That is both absurdly untrue and personally
>>insulting.
>
>Corporate "you" - although I feel that you would be sympathetic to
>them.

       I do not appreciate the insinuation that I am either a racist
or a bigot, thank you very much.

>Still - as I said - your idea of "change" would have left things
>pretty much as they were 200 years ago.

       I have repeatedly said I support some ideas being incorporated
into the Federal Constitution.  I do not oppose changes *simply*
because they are changes.  In fact, if I had my way the rights listed
in the Constitution would be much broaded and damn near absolute.

>>       Why do you assume I wouldn't have thought those amendments a good
>>idea?  Becuase I favor following the Constitution?  A Constitution which
>>*allows* over-ruling the states?
>>
>
>Because generations of conservatives said exactly that.

       I am not generations of conservatives.  I am a single human being
with my own personal opinions and beliefs.  I differ from conservatism
in many, many areas.

>The
>constitution was to restrict the federal government while they
>did just about anything they wanted.  This kind of opposition
>continues today.

       That description is more accurate of the Articles of
Confederation.  The Constitution has considerably more teeth, but
teeth for only certain things.

>>       There is a difference between "The Constitution does not allow
>>interference here," and "The Constitution should not allow interference
>>here," *and* "The Constitution can't be made to allow interference here."
>
>What it really boils down to is "The Constitution was not meant to
>allow changes in areas I [Goldwater] don't care about."

        The Constitution can be changed.  Opinions on whether it
should be were varied and put aside to get something done.  The
point is that it can be done.  That's the law.

>>>So I ask you - since the constitution does not mention medical care -
>>>can a state simply deny a particular (tax paying) group access to tax
>>>supported hospitals?
>>
>>      Equal protection.  *AGAIN*.
>
>Segregated schools, again.

       I can't help you if the Federal Courts failed to enforce what was
written in the rules.  They don't generally agree with me either.  What
*do* you want?  *I* don't agree with segregated schools.  The Federal
government, which you want to be your avanue of recourse, *did*.  Yet
you lay it at my feet.
       That a protection was not enforced does not mean the system
was incapable of enforcing it.  It means the system chose not to.  And
all the Federal power in the universe wouldn't have changed that.

>>       Private airports, yes, by the owners.  State airports, no.
>
>They were denied access to state schools.

       And it was wrong and the Federal courts should have over-ruled
them.  They didn't.  I can't offer any better explanation than that.
For Federal protection to be worth any thing they must be prepared
to do something.

>>>It does not mention driver's licenses - can they be denied them?
>>
>>       It mentions that all citizens shall be provided equal protection
>>under the law.
>
>And yet for 200 years the state's claimed that they could give
>unequal protection under the law.

       For about eighty they were right, then the fourteenth amendment
was passed.  (Actually the Constitution proper was probably enough,
but redundancy in these areas isn't a bad idea.)  Today they are wrong.

>>       Then the Federal Government should step in *when the Federal
>>Constitution is being violated*.  There seems to have been some problems
>>in that area, though.  It doesn't appear to want to.
>
>Which is what they have done - and you seemed to have a problem with
>that.

       I have a problem where they take state powers from the states.
The Federal Government has done an adequete job (with notable acceptions)
of stepping in when rights are violated.  But they have, at the same
time, over stepped their bounds as far as powers go.  While there may
be a legitimate Federal interest in integrating schools, funding and
other regulations are not.

>>>No - you are allowing virtually unlimited state power within areas
>>>that are undefined (merely "reserved" to the states).  I am
>>>advocatings limits to that to preserve the rights of citizens.
>>
>>       It is unlimited where undefined.  But there are plenty of
>>protective definitions in the Constition.
>
>And yet they are not defined, just reserved.  Where in those undefined
>unreserved areas - like education, health care and such are the
>protections?

        There are definitions, such as voting rights.  As far as the
Federal government is concerned, education and health care are not
addressed.  The Federal Government can't order the states to provide
for your health care of education.  Such things are for the State
and it's population to decide.

>>>[Re: Japanese internments...] If the states are always as good as you
>>>think - why didn't they raise a peep?
>>
>>      Neither did the national majority, on whom you hinge your hopes of
>>protections.  In fact, in the end it was the national mechanism not
>>the States which acted.  If one state had tried, they could simply have
>>moved elsewhere, if the Federal Government chose not to step in, which
>>it could have done in that instance.  When the Feds were involved, though,
>>there was nowhere to go.
>
>As I pointed out (more then a few times) this does not fit with your
>view of federalism.

       I beg your pardon?  Are you actually *telling* me what my
view of Federalism is?  I think perhaps you are taking what others
have said and generalizing it to me.

>>       Finally, I've never suggested the States are "so good," merely that
>>I prefer power to be as close to home as possible, where the politicians
>>are more directly responsible to the people they affect.
>
>That is really the problem.  The opinions of the local majority is
>life and death to them.  How would I feel living in an area where
>we were .000000000002% of the population. That equals zero
>representation where emotions could, and have, run high.

       Basically, you are hoping that others, elsewhere, will be
concerned for your welfare as an abstract concept.  I'm sorry, but
that doesn't fit what I know about human nature.

>>       That's the the contract that was signed.  Within the boundry of
>>a state, for most injuries, the State has jurisdiction.  I get the impression
>>you want the Federal Government to be able to *take* jurisdiction whenever
>>it doesn't like the outcome.
>
>I want the federal government to protect the rights of the individual
>whether they are being oppressed by someone in their state or another.

       All well and good, I suppose, but you've just opened the door
to incredible government abuse.  (And the government *is* capable
of abuse.)  Essentially, for it to do this, it must have power
*everywhere* with no restrictions.

>>       Yes, and if I was even advocating unlimited state power you might
>>have a point.  The states are always subject to the Federal Constitution.
>
>Do you agree that they had the right to force integrated schools -
>despite what Goldwater said?

      You brought up Goldwater.  I agree that there was a legitimate
case for Federal intervention under the fourteenth amendment.  I can't
be any clearer than that.

>>>Yes there is no higher appeal from the Supreme Court - but that allows
>>>citizens several levels of appeal that you would deny them.
>>
>>       There is always a final level of appeal to the Feds, through the
>>amendment process.
>
>Again with the Amendment process?  That's not much of an appeal, at
>least not in the victims lifetime.

       Amendments do take years, but not lifetimes.  Two or three is
generally the average.  But you can always propose an amendment now
to change the amendment process while there's time.

>>      To a great extent, Britain has basically an unlimited legislature.
>>I am perfectly willing to let the legislature make laws, but a *limited*
>>legislature.  A legislature which has no power in an area can't violate
>>rights in that area.
>
>Unfortunately, according to your scheme of things, this kind of
>restriction only applies to the Federal legislature.  We've almost
>agreed that the states seem to make their own limitations.

       Which vary from state to state, yes.  There are restrictions
on what my state legislature can do.

>>        The Republic is defined by the Constitution.  You are not helpless.
>>You may vote.  You may advocate for your position.  You may take your state
>>to court.  Finally, you may petition the Congress to propose an amendment,
>>which if enough states agree with you can stop your states in they're
>>tracks.  I *am* advocating a looser union than we have no, but *not*
>>a looser one that the Constitution provides for.
>
>As I have said many times before (and yes this *is* getting monotonous)
>The degree of union is subject to interpretation.

       I don't know how you can possibly "interpret" the tenth amendment
any other way but reserving unmentioned power to the states.  Explain this
logic to me.

>>>Pollution is not mentioned in the Constitution, and
>>>neither is waste management - sounds like issues reserved to the
>>>states.
>>
>>        Bingo.  Although I wouldn't scream too much if the Feds wanted
>>to pass an amendment giving them some power in that area.
>
>How long would it take to pass a specific amendment allowing the
>federal government power to stop the poisoning of your water table?

       If the states were interested in seeing it happen, five years,
tops.  Considering the past, not a high price to pay for a government
which obeys the law.

>>       You mean I *don't* have a right to consent to taxation?  You mean
>>I *don't* have a right to have a say in my government?
>
>You have the same right as anyone else.  I vote for politicians and
>wind up as taxed as you do.  But my concerns are for people who
>have, and could again, lose their rights.  Why do you have no
>concern in that area?

       Your repeatedly stating that I am an uncaring monster does not
make it so.  I advocate the rule of law.  When the law sucks, then we
must change the law, not pretend it says something else.  All else leads
to what we have now for a system:  chaos and uncertainty as to who has
jurisdiction.

>>       The national majority is not an evil beast any more than the State
>>majority is.  However people are more likely to pass onerous laws on people
>>they have no contact with.  There must be a check and a limit on what the
>>national majority may do, just like there must be a limit on what the
>>local majority may do.  Which is what we have a Constitution.
>
>I disagree.  It is the minority close by that is usually oppressed.
>As I said in the section you deleted, they are the ones who seem
>like the great threat to your "way of life".

       Tell me, Marc, what exactly *is* my "way of life" that I would
grind others under my heel to protect?

>>       Don't make my decisions for me and then condemn me for them.  The
>>Congress has every right to over-rule state voting criteria (within the
>>Constitution) and I would not suggest that their use of power was out of
>>line depending on what they actually did I might object, if for instance,
>>the decided to make it illegal for one group to vote or another to be
>>placed on the ballot.
>
>And yet you have yet to find a situtation where you have agreed
>with federal action.

       Right there.  Voting rights.   Both in the case of applicable
Federal laws and the three or four amendments on the issue.

>What if the election was a state election -
>does the federal government have the right to ensure local voting
>rights.

       Yes, under the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments in the cases of
race, gender, and age.

>>>Would you have agreed with view (widely held in the 1930's and 1940's)?
>>
>>       No, but Germany was not, nor is it, subject to the United States
>>Constitution.  The Federal Government and the States are.
>>
>I'm not concerned with the German law. I as speaking of the
>United States which, at that time, was nativistic and had
>a lot of people who more or less agreed with the German program.

       A lot of people *today* agree with the German program.  Fortunately
they law prohibits such things as summary execuations.  ("due process of
law" and all that.)

>>       It offers less and less the less seriusly people take the Constitution.
>>A list of protections that is ignored provides no protection.
>
>The people at the State Level thought that federal protections assured
>them to do whatever they wanted.  They took that very seriously.

       In some cases they were wrong.  Just like the Federal government
is often wrong about granted powers.  Which is why we must be prepared
to tell them both when they are wrong.

>>>I wondered how long it would take to get to your private agenda.
>>
>>       My private agenda?
>>
>	1) The national majority is predominantly Christian

       Factually correct.

>	2) Past two presidents wanted prayer in schools

       Also factually correct.

>	3) Your sneering at the laws that pushed Christianity
>	   at the expense of non-christians

       I have "sneered" at no such laws.  That was another poster,
the one with the username zygote@.

>	4) Your insistence that your State legislators have a
>	   lock on "ethical and moral" behavior

       You have interpreted incorrectly what I said.  I suggested that
they make ethical and moral decisions, not that they had a monopoly on
the subject.

>>      Things have gotten bad with a written list of protections.  You have
>>advocated the only protections being those the national government
>>feels like enforcing.  Yes, you are entitled to your rights.  But what
>>exactly *are* your rights, and how do you convince the Federal Government
>>to agree with you?
>
>Are things all that bad?  I really think all your doom and gloom
>is misplaced.

        My state has what is an effectivelly federally mandated
speed limit.  I can have my home confiscated under federal law if
someone brings a controlled substance into my home and leaves with
it, all without my knowledge.  I am required by the IRS to give
testimony against myself or risk summary confiscation of my property
and a prison term.  My right to self protection is under constant
attack at the Federal level.  I can be arrested and detained for fitting
a "profile" which includes both carrying large amounts of cash and
not carrying large amounts of cash.  (In fact, a federal court has
said just *having* a large amount of case was probable cause to have
it seized.)

>As for my rights. I don't have to convince the
>Federal Government to agree with me.  All I have to convince them
>of is that I am no being given the same rights as my fellow
>citizens.

       You must convince them to do something about it.

>>        A substantial portion of the national majority is Christian.
>>What, exactly, are you going to do if they decide to protect your right
>>to go to church on sunday morning - whether you like it or not?
>
>As I've said - I don't care if the majority is Christian. I do
>not need the right to go to church on Sunday morning.

       You should care, because the majority influences Congress, and you
might not like what Congress may do in the absence of concrete limits
on its powers.

>As a Jew
>I would not be going to church on Sunday morning.  I need the
>right to practice my religion, or none, without having another
>pushed on me.

       True, but only if the Congress decides that is your right.  With
unrestricted powers, who *knows* what they'll do?

>>      No, I don't.  I disagree with the Federal Government assuming power
>>outside what it is granted.  I don't disagree in theory that the Feds should
>>always stay out of state business.
>
>And what is state business - segregated schools?  White only hospitals?

        How many times do I have to type the words "equal protection" and
"fourteenth amendment?"

>>       All states have agreed to abide by the Constitution, including the
>>amendment process.  When they agree to the Constitution, they are agreeing
>>to abide by that.  Whether something existed at the time is not important.
>
>Yet you can't expect an amendment when the radio was invented and
>the car and the plane.

       Sure I can.  Or they are state issues.  That's the law.  If
it is inconvenient, we must change it.  A law mutable based solely
on the current convenience isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

>>>From your point of view - is there any difference between the fed
>>>interpreting the existing constitution to allow people to appeal
>>>rights violations, and passing a new constitutional amendment to
>>>offer relief?
>>
>>       I can't answer that without knowing what they are interpreting and
>>what their logic is.  As a general I don't support new "interpretations"
>>out of whole cloth, because they have a tendency to reverse themselves.
>
>I don't see them out of "whole cloth".  To me the entire civil
>rights movement comes out of interpreting "All men ..." as black
>as well as white, women as well as men.  The rights were very
>clear but were restricted to the majority.

       By the majority.

>>       There's a difference between the Congress (one form of majority)
>>passing a law outside the Constitutional powers it has, which is not
>>something that States have agreed to, and passing a federal amendment, which
>>is something they have agreed to abide by.
>>
>
>And yet - you worry about the majority picking on your states.

       No, I worry about *Congress* and the *government* taking power
from my state.

>So how
>I am to accept that you wouldn't reject a constitutional amendment
>if your state did not ratify it.

        Accept it as the law, yes.  Agree with it?  Depends on the
amendment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal    Div. of Cont. Ed. Information Services Group  UT, Knoxville
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu   "Of course the government and the newspapers
                          lie.  But in a democracy they're different lies."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc