From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: State's Rights
Summary: State power vs Federal
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:52:46 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.041716.18929@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:

>In article <PA146008.645.727558693@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>> In article <1993Jan20.134855.12694@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
>>        Then why not let the state population do it, and leave the nation 
>> out of it?  (Setting aside the fact you don't have to convince the nation
>> of something, only Congress and the President.  That's the way a Republic
>> works.)
>> 
>
>To what extent do you "let the state population do it"?  

       Where the State's have authority, they get to decide to what extent.  
Self-government is a really cool thing, you know.

>The closer
>the authority the more likely the abuse.  

       Are you seriously suggesting that Bob Smith, my next door neighbor
and city councilman is more likely to oppress me than Sen. Congresscritter 
who'se never met me, and may never have even been in my city in his life?

>I've seen many instances
>of local authorities regarding some issue as life and death and
>the last bation of society, when - viewed from a national 
>perspective - it was an issue hardly worth the repression involved.

       Tennessee should not be allowed to enact laws without national
approval because the people in New England and and out West don't consider
it *important*?
       And again you bring up repression.  Is it your opinion State's *can't*
enact laws that aren't repressive?

>Issues such as Sunday blue laws that discriminated against Jews and
>other non-christrians, and laws against inter-racial marriage.

       Fine, then propose giving powers to deal with that to the Federal 
government.  Don't simply throw the rules out the window every time they 
don't do exactly what you want.  If you do, you'll find people wanting to 
throw *your* rules out the window.  And you'll have little basis for 
opposing them.

>>        Slavery, women's votes, and freedom of religion are all addressed
>> in the federal Constitution.  The only way the State's can have the "right"
>> to do those would be to repeal those amendments, which I don't particularly
>> see happening.
>
>They are addressed in later amendments to the federal constitution.
>At the time it was written they were not as they are today.  

       If we were talking about 1840 you'd have a point.  They are there 
today and neither my political opinions or yours will have the slightest 
effect on what happened then.  They are there today.  The Constitution was 
written so concerns such as yours could be address, through the amendment 
process.  It was designed to be difficult, but not impossible.

>Many
>people at the time took it as a fact of life that people could be
>slaves, that women could not vote and that some religions were more
>equal than others.  There were people a hundred years later who
>felt the same way and people today who argue that it should not have
>been changed.  According the the states rights idea - they would not
>have been changed. 

       All I ask is that state's not have their autonomy within the Federal 
Constitution violated.  Do you disagree with that?  Don't quote some 
position I have neither expressed nor support at me.  Answer what I say, not 
what somebody else has.
       Do you believe the Federal government, which was created by the 
Constitution, should be required to abide by the restrictions therein on 
how it may and may not interefere in State business.  Or do you believe they 
should be able to make up whatever rules are convenient (or poltically 
possible) at the time?

>After all, what is the difference between the
>Fed telling a state what to do, and a new constitutional amendment
>changing the rules?

        Because the Federal government was *created* by the Constitution.  
The rules for its functioning are there.  With that creation the Federal 
government and the states agreed to abide by certain rules.  That is the 
Rule of Law.  If the Federal government can simply ignore the rules that 
gave it its power in the first place, the rule of law is gone and we have 
nothing but rule by force.
        It would be like you and I making a contract that I will pay your 
some money for a service, then later throwing contract aside and demanding 
you do more for me for no more money.  We've agreed to abide by certain 
rules and I am then breaking them because I think it's an OK thing to do.  
Would you really accept my orders without question, or would you scream 
bloody murder because that wasn't in the contract?
        The difference is that the State's agreed to abide by the Federal 
constitution, not Federal whim.

>>        Which particular right *are* you worried about the state's infringing
>> on that isn't already addressed?
> 
>My right to practice any religion that I choose, or none at all.  

       Amendment one, wasn't it?  And the fourteenth probably applies.

>In
>case you didn't see that in a previous message, I saw a Reagan White
>House official (Bruce Fein) advocate allowing states to declare on
>religion as the "official State religion".    

       So what?  Bruce Fein (under the Constitution at least, but I wonder 
about your proposed system) has neither the power to make law nor even make 
Executive policy.  Such a power would require that amendment process that's 
so difficult to do.

>There are a number
>of other rights, many that do not affect me.  Restrictions on Gays,
>and other minority groups for example.

       Equal protection, again.

>>        *I* didn't suggets making the State's supreme with no controls.  *I*
>> suggested returning the power the Federal Government has stolen from the
>> States back where it belongs, as it should be under the tenth amendment. I
>> have yet to call for a repeal of the Constitution.
>
>You have only suggested allowing a state to carry out what YOU feel
>are it's proper functions (many of which are not mentioned in the
>Constitution and some which did not even exist in the 18th century)
>without Federal interference.  

       Read the Constitution, Marc.  It *reserves* power to the States.  It 
neither lists them nor grants them.  See the tenth amendment.  It is the 
Federal goovernment which is granted powers in the Federal Constitution.
State's are granted powers in their State Constitutions.
       And it is irrelevent whether things did not exist prior to the 18th
century.  That's what an amendment process is for.  To adjust the law.  The 
law has been adjusted.
       Proper state functions are defined in State Constitutions.  The 
Federal Constitution only grants power to the Federal government and forbids 
powers to the States.

>Amounts to the same thing.

       It does?  I advocate allowing a State to function where *the 
agreement it signed off on* allows it autonomy.  You are suggesting that
that agreement by summarily dissolved in favor of some national "good
will" which will safeguard rights without any restrictions on government 
whatsoever.

>>        *WHO* rounded up and incarcerated Americans of Japenese ancestry 
>> during WWII?  I don't think you can make a case either level of government
>> has a sparkling record.  The question is, whose mistakes hurt more people?
>> Tenneseee's, or the Federal Government's?
>
>The internment of Japanese Americans did not come out of the blue 
sky.       
>It was not opposed by the state - although that might have gone a long
>way to vindicate States Rights.  

       The Federal government did it, but it's the State's fault because 
they didn't oppose it?  (I have no clue what objections the states might 
have had.)
       You seem to be suggesting when the States do something and the Feds 
agree, it's the states fault, but when the Feds do something and the States 
agree its *still* the States fault.  I think your just deciding the blame 
the States regardless.

>Did they attempt to stand up to 
>the big bad fed?  Not at all.  In fact it was their idea and to their
>benefit.  Read up sometime on how the Japanese Americans property was
>scooped up by locals.  so it's a bad example.  

       Yes, it's a bad example, because it was implemented by the 
governmental body you want to be responsible for your rights without even 
having a written agreement saying what your rights are.  They *had* that 
agreement then, and it didn't help.  How do you figure things will be better 
if the Constitution is thrown out the window?

>The questions of who
>can hurt more people, over the long haul - the states, since they
>have such a bad record of doing just that.

        Sigh.  I've listed at least twice lists of offenses at the Federal 
level each time you say, "What did the states do to oppose it," and then 
blame the States for that. 
        Any way they might oppose it *comes* from Federal restrictions in 
the Constitution.  Your advocating that because they've "never" used it it 
should be abolished.  That's crazy.  They're not going to use it ever if it 
isn't there.

>As for Tennessee enacting stiffer standards - why would they do that?

        Read up on Champion paper mill in North Carolina.  The question,
though, isn't why, but what if.

>If the industry was in their own state - they would see stiffer
>standards as hurting local industry.  If the industries are in other
>states - as you suggest - what would Tenn stiffer rules do?  Nothing.

        Yet a company in California and Arizona, not wanting to bother with 
two State legislatures, lobbies successfully for a national law setting 
safety standards which over-rides state laws.   They didn't care about 
Tennessee, but Tennessee's laws get squashed any way.  That's the problem 
with national laws.

>It's the neighbors who complain when you make a stink, and without
>a higher authority, the offending state could just shrug it off.

        That's why you *have* a Federal government, and why there are rules 
governing its behavior.  I'm not advocating getting rid of it,  but making 
it follow the rules it has agreed to abide by.
        And the argument that the Constitution is old doesn't wash.  *EVERY* 
Congressperson and Executive and Judicial officer swear to uphold that 
Constitution.
        Do you really not see the difference between limited Federal power 
and unlimited Federal power?

>>        My state legislature would disagree with you.
>
>You many have "moral or ethical standards".  Your legislators may
>have them (I hope so).  But your "state" is a piece of real estate
>filled with people.  As such it does not have such human qualities.

       You may pick-nits all you like, but the State legislature still makes 
decisions with moral and ethical character to them.

>>        So you would allow a majority of states to dictate to a minority of 
>> states.  I fail to see how this is different, save on scale and that bad 
>> decisions are felt over a much wider area.  If Tennessee enacts a poor law, 
>> Tennesseans suffer until it is repealed.  If Congress enacts a poor law *250 
>> million* people all across the country suffer until it is repealed.
> 
>If Tenn enacts a poor law, many people could suffer for many years.  I
>find this troubling.  

        And how does this change at the Federal level, except that you have 
no higher authority to appeal to, especially if you are ignoring the 
Constitution.  Essentially, the finally authority becomes the legislature.  
That was a specific thing we got away from when we seperated from Britain.

>I also find it troubling that if those people
>are in the minority - the law may never be repealed, but may actually
>be wildly popular. 

       This is a problem with any form of democratic lawmaking.  And the 
problem remains no matter how big your democracy gets.  If there is enough 
outrage in other states, they can pass an amendment and fix the problem.

>So what is the remedy?  

       A federal government which can, with enough support, following the 
rules laid down, over-ride the states.  What your arguing for is essentially 
a benevolent dictator ship which will ignore the majority on it's own 
opinion.  I'm not ready to dissolve the Republic yet.

>As for the minority states
>vs. the majority states - if the minority states are violating the
>rights of it's citizens - then why is it so wrong for the majority
>of states to take steps to stop them.  

       Understand the difference between wrong and illegal.  It is not 
wrong.  But if the Federal government exceeds its powers, it is illegal.
They can take steps under the current Constitution.  It's called the 
amendment process.

>>        But *why* should individuals in California have *any* say in how we
>> build our streets, fund our schools, or clean our rivers?  If other states 
>> had their way, Tennessee would probably have an income tax.  But the people
>> of Tennessee *don't want an income tax and have said so!*  Yet you would 
>> allow those other states to force us to have one. 
> 
>So if Tenn chose to double the school tax on Black people, and then
>deny them the right to go to those schools - it's nobodies business
>but the people doing the oppressing?  

       Look, at least come up with an example that isn't already covered.
But yes, it is others business.  And you continue to ignore that they 
*already* have an avanue to express their displeasure.  Amend the 
Constitution.

>If your plants are poisoning
>rivers that flow into other peoples water, that's no ones business.

       If others are poisoning your land, take 'em to court.  If they're in 
another state, take them to Federal court.  All of which can be accomplished 
without removing all restrictions on Federal power.

>It would be a shame if they forced you to have an income tax.  

       Awww.  It would be a "shame."  But that's ok.  That's the National
Majority, which apparenlty is magically better than the Local Majority.

       Somehow.

>It
>would be a bigger shame if they let you get away with murder because
>it's "none of their business".

       Are you deaf?  Pass a damn amendment.  An avanue of change is 
available to you.  I'm sorry if you can't simply wave your have and force
other states to conform to you;  that the process is difficult, but don't 
pretend it isn't there.
       If someone is doing something wrong in another state, at least 
exhaust your options within the system before you advocate throwing the 
system away.

>>        Minor issues disguise major ones.  The question is not whether
>> an issue is important enough to worry about it.  That isn't important.
>> What is important is *who* is entitled to worry about it and that has
>> *nothing* to do with how important an issue is, because in that way
>> there is no difference between an important issue and an unimportant
>> one, except in degree.  And drawing a line between degrees is a messy
>> business.
>
>So you are simply willing to draw a line around each state, and say
>that no matter what happens in the state - from legalized prostitution,
>to complete denial of rights is nobodies business.  

       Are you reading what I write?  Of *COURSE* it matters.  That's why we 
have a Federal Constitution.  Use the system.

>>        Article I give Congress the power to over-rule state legislature's
>> on voting criteria.  It is a non-issue.  Further, the various amendments
>> provide extra protections.  The power you are arguing should over-ride
>> State's power already does.  You need not crush their autonomy in order
>> to exercise it.
> 
>Hardly a non-issue.  Article I is 200 years old.  

       Yet still the law of the land.

>But women couldn't
>vote until much later and black people found that even after they
>got the vote they had a lot of trouble exercising it.  So why didn't
>those protections work for 200 years?

       Because (and this is important) the national majority didn't consider 
it important enough.  They had their avanue open, and failed to use it.  The 
protection you are asking for is there. and your national majority failed 
you.

>>         Then call up the Secular Left or anybody else who dislikes the idea
>> and get 'em down to their State legislature to voice their opinion.  I'm
>> afraid you can't simply pick and choose among democratic decisions to only 
>> keep those you like.
>
>A decision to take away someones rights, while allowing others to
>practice them can hardly be called "democratic".  

      Don't be absurd.  Democratic systems have nothing to do with rights.  
Democracy means rules by the majority, regardless of what they want to do.  
Which is the whole point behind being a Republic, to provide a check on the 
absolute will of the majority.  Don't confuse democracy with protections of 
rights, because by itself it doesn't.
      Anything decided by majority will is by definition democratic.
 
>>        It's a mistake to totally bar religion from schools.  It presents a 
>> skewed and innaccurate view of both the world and history.  I would, however,
>> accept that other people may educate their kids different than I do.
> 
>I have no trouble with teaching about the history of religion in schools,
>although the people pushing for it might find it teaches a lesson with
>which they are not very comfortable.  As for the practice of religion
>in public schools, that is a very touchy area and one in which majority
>religious groups have trampled over the rights of minority religions.

       The national majority is still predominately Christian.  Even with 
such a disastrous term Bush got 37% of the vote.  The majority does not 
become flawless at the National level.  Our past two Presidents have both 
wanted "prayer in schools."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Univ. of Tenn. Div. of Cont. Education Info. Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
"Of course the government and the newspapers lie.  But in a democracy,
they're different lies."
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc