[Daver]

Quote

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The above outlines the federation of the several states into the United States of America. As you can see it never claims absolute authority over the several states but rather regulates the economy and provides for the common defense by raising a regular force and having the ability to nationalize the forces of the several states. This is the USA in theory, a federation of nation-states in allegiance to a city-state who's only reason for existence is to administer the federation. An alliance not far off form what the EU is trying to become.

This is not how it is obviously. The several states may not raise a militia if not organized under US CODE: Title 32 and as this shows may lose control even when the militia aren't nationalized.

The several states may not go to war unilaterally, despite the Feds only having authority in federation wide war efforts. They may not execute an independent foreign affairs policy despite the Constitution banning only official agreements. They may not regulate their own domestic affairs as the above militia example shows.

The several states are now states in name only, client-states to Washington, D.C. No longer is the USA a federation, a republic or even a republican empire. It's a farce. A sham. A dead husk vainly trying to hold on to what once was.

/rant

[Flamingmonkey923]

Well there were huge debates about States' Rights following the birth of the nation. People were afraid that the Federal government would have too much power, and it would turn into another Monarchy or something. The bill of rights was originally just 10 rights that the Federal government couldn't take away (but any given state was allowed to). After much bickering and arguing, the Federalists won with the Civil War (No, Jefferson Davies, States do not have the right to secede).

[America]

Daver, on Jan 21 2008, 02:10 PM, said:

The above outlines the federation of the several states into the United States of America. As you can see it never claims absolute authority over the several states but rather regulates the economy and provides for the common defense by raising a regular force and having the ability to nationalize the forces of the several states. This is the USA in theory, a federation of nation-states in allegiance to a city-state who's only reason for existence is to administer the federation. An alliance not far off form what the EU is trying to become.

This is not how it is obviously. The several states may not raise a militia if not organized under US CODE: Title 32 and as this shows may lose control even when the militia aren't nationalized.

The several states may not go to war unilaterally, despite the Feds only having authority in federation wide war efforts. They may not execute an independent foreign affairs policy despite the Constitution banning only official agreements. They may not regulate their own domestic affairs as the above militia example shows.

The several states are now states in name only, client-states to Washington, D.C. No longer is the USA a federation, a republic or even a republican empire. It's a farce. A sham. A dead husk vainly trying to hold on to what once was.

/rant

Check for Federal laws about this, as any federal law would have an effect on this. Good job researching and ranting though, it was the most interesting one in a lonnnnnng time.

[SpacingOutMan]

It's the UNITED States of America as well. You forgot to emphasize (and spell properly) United. As said above, following the Civil War, seceding from the Union is not allowed, and that states adhere to the codes brought foward by the Federal Government. Also, States do have their own sovereign rights. They do run their own domestic affairs; states also receive funding from the government, so in order to get certain funding, they have to do certain things.

[BamaBuc]

SpacingOutMan, on Jan 21 2008, 09:34 AM, said:

It's the UNITED States of America as well. You forgot to emphasize (and spell properly) United. As said above, following the Civil War, seceding from the Union is not allowed, and that states adhere to the codes brought foward by the Federal Government. Also, States do have their own sovereign rights. They do run their own domestic affairs; states also receive funding from the government, so in order to get certain funding, they have to do certain things.

This.

I like it better as it is. United we stand, divided we fall. We are one nation, not 50. May that never change.

-Bama

[Daver]

We are one country. Even now the USA is a federal-state, not a nation-state.

I'm not saying the nation should be broken up (or I'd be pro-CSA), I'm just saying that the Feds do things that the states have reserved for them.

[El Pilchinator]

The states have rights. Compare the rights of a state in the USA to the rights of a province in Canada.


And at any rate, the name comes from the Articles of Confederation, when the states were merely in, and I quote exactly, a "firm league of friendship". They were literally just a bunch of states working together. Kind of like Greece during the better years. It was the Constitution that formally established the federal government as being truly superior to the state.

[King IB]

While your argument is valid, I must cite Article 6 paragraph 2, known simply as the supremacy clause:

Quote

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Along with this stands the 14th amendment, which has been used to incorporate the Bill of Rights(the first such case being Schenk v. US, and used as recently as Heller v. US), providing more backing of for the argument that the US is not a truly federal government, but a unitary system with only hints of confederation.

Edit Addendum: It seems you've cited Article 1, Section 8, which includes the Commerce clause. This clause has seems to be one of the major sticking points, for early on, as seen with United States v. E. C. Knight, the clause was interpreted broadly. This seems to be your mentality, that of the laissez-faire late 19th century. This runs contrary to Marshall's opinion in Gibbons v. Ogden, and later cases like Wickard v. Filburn.

This post has been edited by King IB: 21 January 2008 - 10:40 AM

[Kenadian_2006]

El Pilchinator, on Jan 21 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

The states have rights. Compare the rights of a state in the USA to the rights of a province in Canada.


And at any rate, the name comes from the Articles of Confederation, when the states were merely in, and I quote exactly, a "firm league of friendship". They were literally just a bunch of states working together. Kind of like Greece during the better years. It was the Constitution that formally established the federal government as being truly superior to the state.

Actually, since you mention them, the provinces have been steadily gaining power, much to my chagrin.

All I can say to this is, good.

[Aeternos Astramora]

I'd rather have more central government powers than state powers.

[DuMbHour]

I thought we settled this in the Civil War.

We won't be able to survive in the modern world divided like that. Consider the context of the writing of the US Constitution. Do you think something conceived more than 200 years ago would be able to work today?

[Saniel]

Aeternos Astramora, on Jan 21 2008, 12:00 PM, said:

I'd rather have more central government powers than state powers.

I would say that Alabama and Kansas are fine arguments against "state's rights".

[Daver]

Saniel, on Jan 21 2008, 01:16 PM, said:

I would say that Alabama and Kansas are fine arguments against "state's rights".

And I would say Florida and California are equally strong for them.

[El Pilchinator]

Kenadian_2006, on Jan 21 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Actually, since you mention them, the provinces have been steadily gaining power, much to my chagrin.

All I can say to this is, good.

Heh. That's interesting. They didn't get much power to start with because of when Canada was formed. 1867. Interesting time to argue for "states rights".

[Kenadian_2006]

El Pilchinator, on Jan 21 2008, 02:22 PM, said:

Heh. That's interesting. They didn't get much power to start with because of when Canada was formed. 1867. Interesting time to argue for "states rights".

It was formed, partly, because we feared the Union and their giant standing army. So that's another reason I'm glad they won.

[Alteveer]

Daver, on Jan 21 2008, 09:10 AM, said:

It's a farce. A sham.

It's a vast improvement.

This post has been edited by Alteveer: 21 January 2008 - 02:26 PM

[SpacingOutMan]

Daver, on Jan 21 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

And I would say Florida and California are equally strong for them.

We don't need to give the Governator more power.

[Opethian]

State's rights are good. I don't need some jerk in Washington who doesn't know squat about my life always ordering me what to do. The Federal government should only cover interstate issues and basic human rights issues (i.e. make sure the states don't undermine the Constitution).

[SpacingOutMan]

Opethian, on Jan 21 2008, 08:43 PM, said:

State's rights are good. I don't need some jerk in Washington who doesn't know squat about my life always ordering me what to do. The Federal government should only cover interstate issues and basic human rights issues (i.e. make sure the states don't undermine the Constitution).

What about state-specific currency? Contradicting laws (Laws that are worth mentioning such as drugs, etc.) such as labor laws, tax laws, etc.? What about the national economy? Would states count as seperate countries or regions or provinces such as Canada? Different state-wide languages? Would the states be considered more of a commonwealth of nations than actual subordinate states of a federal government?

There are a lot of issues that take effect, and it became apparent that giving states too many sovereign powers is terrible because it simply doesn't work. As of right now, states do have a lot of sovereignty, but are in fact barred down a bit by the federal government for good reasoning. If states begin to seperate themselves from one another, the aspects of U.S nationalism and the economy will just come crashing down because states would no longer have to adhere to many of the federal level laws, with the exceptions of interstate and basic human rights as you stated. I am personally all for state sovereignty, but to an extent. Giving states to much power would also pose to be a problem because how would we elect a national leader? The electoral college is already in favor of larger states. So allowing states to practically completely run themselves would only benefit some of the states. One could argue that some of the smaller states could combine, such as in the 1600's when all of New England existed as "one state" for a time being.

There are just way too many issues to resolve for it to be worth the troubles.

[Opethian]

SpacingOutMan, on Jan 21 2008, 08:51 PM, said:

What about state-specific currency? Contradicting laws (Laws that are worth mentioning such as drugs, etc.) such as labor laws, tax laws, etc.? What about the national economy? Would states count as seperate countries or regions or provinces such as Canada? Different state-wide languages? Would the states be considered more of a commonwealth of nations than actual subordinate states of a federal government?

1) currency is interstate = regulated by the feds. (it is not a confederacy)

2) No. States are states.

3) So far as I know, states can already deal with language on a local level. However, there is no established national language, so it isn't all that relevant an issue.

4) As I said, it would be state's rights so long as it didn't interfere with the constitution or violate basic human rights. Other than that and nationalized defense, state's would be free to regulate themselves.



And federal clamping down for the sake of preserving federal clamping down isn't a good thing.