Talk:States' rights/Archive 2

message: There should be a section for how technically the United States is a union of 50 member nations unified into one country, and discuss how the federal government is sovereign in some areas, and the states in the rest. Chiss Boy 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Co-Sovereignty

message: As this edit war is not going to be resolved by mutual consent, I move that the Morrison parts be removed for the following reasons.
*Delete I believe that United States v. Morrison is not a state's rights decision.  Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act and let someone who had been sexually assaulted sue their attackers in federal court.  They could sue whether their attackers were prosecuted by the state or not.  The Supreme Court held that Congress did not have power through either the Commerce Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a way to punish individuals for violating the rights of another individual.  Whether one agrees with the reasoning of the court or not, this decision did not address any issues of state sovereignty or state power as neither would have been affected by any way the court decided on the issue.  It was thus not a state's rights decision and should be removed. 69.105.0.115 04:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morrison is not a state's rights decision and should be removed

message: This is getting into endless repetition. See above and archive for reasons why.
Faking it till you make it does not mean there's any indication you've read these Court opinions. After you look up the repeated answers to your repeated questions,
lets go from there with no more repetition.
Also, pretending my stuff isn't easy enough to verify amounts to pathological lying at this point.
Again, never reading the Court opinions or checking the facts doesn't mean you're right. It means you're wrong. And deleting half the relevent facts, even though they're very easy to verify for anyone that goes to the trouble of reading the Court opinions, proves you have no clue what you're talking about.
Also, I've answered endlessly that Rehnquist (here again you have to look at the facts before saying you're right) gave many states' rights reasons why it would have been a mistake to attempt to sue states, and other states' rights problems to attempting any other course of action. To pretend you don't know this because you never check the facts after being told what they are and how to check them a gazillion times amounts to yet more pathological lying.
You're not being constructive with never-ending make believe, never checking the facts and always saying you're right.
Jimmuldrow 04:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Endless

message: I saw that this article needed a third opinion, so I would like to offer up my reading of the subject.
In the particular case at hand, while the chief justice described the possible ramifications of upholding the law as pertaining states' rights, it did not concern the supremacy of the federal government over state law, per se. The federal government did not claim sole or overriding jurisdiction; it claimed supplementary jurisdiction. Justice Rehnquist offered up states' rights as an example of the slippery slope that expanding federal jurisdiction could lead to, but the central question hinged on the federal government's ability to affect the rights of individuals in the sphere of sexual liability under the Commerce Clause. The fact that the states would then be required to enforce the Equal Protection Clause (in theory, not necessarily in practice) is of questionable relevance, at best.
However, the case is still relevant to states' rights, as an example of the Rehnquist Court's more active restraint of federal powers because they were afraid that expanding federal powers would eventually impact on states' rights. This is how I would word it; I now leave it up to the editors more actively involved in the article to accept or reject my opinion of the matter. Captainktainer * Talk 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Although I disagree that they said they were afraid that in the future this could lead to infringement on states' rights.  The issues of the case were police power of Feds in my opinion.  The case did involve Federalism, and perhaps this article needs to be merged into that one, which would solve two problems, the dispute over Morrison, as it clearly was a federalism decision, and the other over the definition of states' rights and whether it even exists, as it could be the section of federalism about states' powers and immunities. 69.105.0.115 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion, based on [[WP:3O]] 

message: I'm more than willing to accept Captainktainer's assistance and suggestion.Jimmuldrow 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debate is open for 7 days if a proposal has been formally made.  What do you think about the merge or rename proposal? 68.125.167.9 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Well?

message: *Merge I think that since it is technically correct that there is no such things as States' rights, only individual rights, and as all issues on this page can also be classified as Federalism, such as Medical marijuana and assisted suicide as well as all State sovereignty and Federal power issues, that the two pages be merged. 69.105.0.115 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps renamed to Federalism in the United States. 69.105.0.115 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Federalism is generally the argument directly opposed to a belief that states have the powers to do such things. Merging opposites seems like a bad idea to me.--68.114.223.106 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: Why's you delete comments from discussion? Like the third opinion one?Jimmuldrow 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't delete any comments, just moved them out of Merge Proposal section.  That section is for discussing merge or renaming. 68.122.9.232 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Although I disagree that they said they were afraid that in the future this could lead to infringement on states' rights. The issues of the case were police power of Feds in my opinion. The case did involve Federalism, and perhaps this article needs to be merged into that one, which would solve two problems, the dispute over Morrison, as it clearly was a federalism decision, and the other over the definition of states' rights and whether it even exists, as it could be the section of federalism about states' powers and immunities. 69.105.0.115 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If I did it was accidental.  Sorry.  Any opinion on merger or rename proposal? 68.122.9.232 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why'd You Delete From The Third Opinion Discussion?