PDA

View Full Version : Another Blow to States Rights



depittydawg
06-28-2010, 01:07 PM
Funny how radicals from the right, or the left, always cheer when the federal government asserts its authority over State and Local jurisdiction on their hot issue. No doubt the radical right will applaud this little piece of legislation from the Bench. Even though it flies in the face of one of their other key issues, States Rights. No harm, the left radicals do it all the time too. MHO, the federal government is way to strong and getting stronger with the decisions being handed out weekly by the current activist Supreme Court, at the expense of more localized authorities. Not good.

Now before you all start slamming and insulting and quoting the second amendment, let's be clear. This post is a question about State vs Federal authority, not the second amendment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.htm

luvmylabs23139
06-28-2010, 01:12 PM
5-4 is not good. It should be 9-0. 4 justices threw the constitution in the trash including Obumma's chosen one. Another reason to stop Kagen

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 01:19 PM
I actually sort of agree with Deppity on this. The thing people don't understand is that the constitution only applies to the federal government. The Constitution is a limit of federal powers period. The 14th amendment has now applied itself to some other amendments. Free speech was frequently restricted on a state by state level. The beauty was that you could move to a state you liked better. After the 14th amendment as you see with this decision more and more of the states rights are becoming federal rights. I really don't see how people can argue that the first amendment should be a federal right and not the second amendment.

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 01:33 PM
5-4 is not good. It should be 9-0. 4 justices threw the constitution in the trash including Obumma's chosen one. Another reason to stop Kagen

So you think Federal Authority is supreme and states have little to no rights when it comes right down to it. Ok. Thats a valid opinion.

Pals
06-28-2010, 02:12 PM
And yet you think it's great that this administration is going to sue Arizona for actually enforcing a law already on the books :rolleyes:.......you must have mistakenly put on "Conservative Big Boy" panties this morning.

I have no problems with the ruling.

Move along........nothing to see here just us RRW wackos.

same old, same old regards,

dnf777
06-28-2010, 02:28 PM
Have to agree with deppity and Cody on this.
Its not so much about gun rights per se, as you pointed out, but is the Constitution the law of the land, or can states choose to abridge the rights of its citizens, that are federally protected. Rather than looking at it as the Fed telling states what it can or can't do, I see it as limiting what states can tell CITIZENS what THEY can or cannot do. If a right is guaranteed by the Constitution, then no state has the right to deny a person that right.

Think how this would apply to other issues. What if Utah decided it didn't want women to vote? What if Alabama decided was ok to buy and sell humans, and place them in bondage? Its not about taking away states' rights, but NOT taking away peoples' rights.

From that perspective, it should have been 9-0 too.

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 02:28 PM
I do NOTthink that Arizona should be getting sued for enforcing a law already on the books but also think that the use of the 14th amendment as a catch all to usurp states rights is not what the 14th amendment was intended to do.

Pals
06-28-2010, 02:38 PM
Not referencing you Cody-the original poster. Go find some of his threads about arizona....for which he was flamed and roasted.

Pals
06-28-2010, 02:49 PM
Rather than looking at it as the Fed telling states what it can or can't do, I see it as limiting what states can tell CITIZENS what THEY can or cannot do. If a right is guaranteed by the Constitution, then no state has the right to deny a person that right.

Think how this would apply to other issues. What if Utah decided it didn't want women to vote? What if Alabama decided was ok to buy and sell humans, and place them in bondage? Its not about taking away states' rights, but NOT taking away peoples' rights.

From that perspective, it should have been 9-0 too.

Holy smokes!!!!! I totally and completely agree with this. I have to go write this down, I agreed with Dave. ;) You should prolly go wash Dave, afterall I'm a RRW.

xxxooo,

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 05:04 PM
Have to agree with deppity and Cody on this.
Its not so much about gun rights per se, as you pointed out, but is the Constitution the law of the land, or can states choose to abridge the rights of its citizens, that are federally protected. Rather than looking at it as the Fed telling states what it can or can't do, I see it as limiting what states can tell CITIZENS what THEY can or cannot do. If a right is guaranteed by the Constitution, then no state has the right to deny a person that right.

Think how this would apply to other issues. What if Utah decided it didn't want women to vote? What if Alabama decided was ok to buy and sell humans, and place them in bondage? Its not about taking away states' rights, but NOT taking away peoples' rights.

From that perspective, it should have been 9-0 too.Unfortunately, and this may be where the constitution fails us, the Constitution was never meant to place limits one way or another on citizens at all. It was meant to limit the federal government, end of story.

Until the 14th amendment that is. The founders had the forsight to limit the federal CENTRAL government from amassing to much power while leaving the states to be able to tell people more or less, within the confines of their state constitution's, how to live. This is why before the 14th amendment many local city and state governments did in fact limit freedom of speech. They did limit when where and how you could protest. If you didn't like it the country was set up for you to be able to vote the people or issues out if you saw fit or move to a different state that fit more to your view point.

Now we have this huge umbrella federal government where we now have catch all amendments that completely undermine what the intention of the Constitution originally intended. I am a firm supporter of the second amendment and own many guns. But I am also tired of the revisionist history of the Constitution on both sides of the isle to serve their purpose.

dnf777
06-28-2010, 05:55 PM
Unfortunately, and this may be where the constitution fails us, the Constitution was never meant to place limits one way or another on citizens at all. It was meant to limit the federal government, end of story.

Until the 14th amendment that is. The founders had the forsight to limit the federal CENTRAL government from amassing to much power while leaving the states to be able to tell people more or less, within the confines of their state constitution's, how to live. This is why before the 14th amendment many local city and state governments did in fact limit freedom of speech. They did limit when where and how you could protest. If you didn't like it the country was set up for you to be able to vote the people or issues out if you saw fit or move to a different state that fit more to your view point.

Now we have this huge umbrella federal government where we now have catch all amendments that completely undermine what the intention of the Constitution originally intended. I am a firm supporter of the second amendment and own many guns. But I am also tired of the revisionist history of the Constitution on both sides of the isle to serve their purpose.

Cody,
I think you're confusing "imposing limits" with "guaranteeing rights". You're right, the Constitution establishes and limits gov't, but the framers felt the need to set aside and delineate certain rights, so that there would be no question where they resided....with the people. (that's why this constructionist court really bothers me when they grant corporations with individual status and rights!....THAT'S BS)

Once the federal gov't has guaranteed certain rights to its people, no state shall take that liberty away through local legislation. I don't see this ruling so much as the fed taking away state's rights, but rather not allowing them to take away the citizens' rights. I have no problem with that.

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 06:23 PM
Not referencing you Cody-the original poster. Go find some of his threads about arizona....for which he was flamed and roasted.

Let me translate your drivel Since you disagreed with the premise of a post yesterday, and "flamed" the poster, you feel compelled to "flame" the poster today, regardless of the material posted. In so doing, you inadvertently "flamed" the wrong person and now would like to blame the original poster for your error. Man, you are one piece of work dude.

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 06:32 PM
Cody,
I think you're confusing "imposing limits" with "guaranteeing rights". You're right, the Constitution establishes and limits gov't, but the framers felt the need to set aside and delineate certain rights, so that there would be no question where they resided....with the people. (that's why this constructionist court really bothers me when they grant corporations with individual status and rights!....THAT'S BS)

Once the federal gov't has guaranteed certain rights to its people, no state shall take that liberty away through local legislation. I don't see this ruling so much as the fed taking away state's rights, but rather not allowing them to take away the citizens' rights. I have no problem with that.
I would really like to see some proof on this Dave. Through out history we are shown that the constitution is set up to limit the federal government in its ability to impose on the citizens. The Constitution was not set up to affect anything to do with the states.

Thats the way I've always read about it from a historical stand. If you can provide some books articles or otherwise that state something different I'm definitely open to it. This document was written over 200 years ago and so what the founders intended sometimes gets lost.

One thing that does bother me is the clause that states that any rights not outlined in the document are to lie to the states. When throughout the rest of the document we are led to believe that the document strictly only applies to the federal government and that the states can do as they see fit. Not to mention we see this in practice throughout history.

Like i said I am definitely open to new ideas but would like to see some sort of proof on the matter.

dnf777
06-28-2010, 06:52 PM
Cody,
I don't think we're arguing at all here, rather I'm just not conveying what I think we agree upon very well. I don't mean to imply the Constitution in any way regulates states, except when it comes to the states infringing upon people's rights. The fed then steps in and tells the states "not so fast, you can't take away the rights of man that WE guarantee." But it then goes on to say (as you pointed out) that "hey, we don't want to legislate or control every little thing, so unless we specifically mention it, its up to the states to decide what THEY want to do." So long as it doesn't abridge anyone's rights.

I think we agree, don't we?

A book on the topic I enjoyed was Founding Brothers, the Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis. (Vintage Books, 2000)

Another interesting read was The Courts and the Constitution, by Archibald Cox. It gave a nice summary of the major landmark decisions by SCOTUS, and how they relate to the original intent of the Constitution.

Have a good one,
dave

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 07:04 PM
I would really like to see some proof on this Dave. Through out history we are shown that the constitution is set up to limit the federal government in its ability to impose on the citizens. The Constitution was not set up to affect anything to do with the states.

Like i said I am definitely open to new ideas but would like to see some sort of proof on the matter.

That is about as good as it can be said. It should also be pointed out that the constitution is a living document. It always has been. Today's decision is another case in point. While the majority asserted it's ruling that States cannot infringe upon gun ownership rights, it also added the "except when" clause once again. Obvious limitations are things like school grounds, airports etc. But the lines of enforcement were once again not addressed by the court. In effect they said no you can't prevent this citizen from owning his handgun, now go figure out what to do.

dnf777
06-28-2010, 07:06 PM
That is about as good as it can be said. It should also be pointed out that the constitution is a living document. It always has been. Today's decision is another case in point. While the majority asserted it's ruling that States cannot infringe upon gun ownership rights, it also added the "except when" clause once again. Obvious limitations are things like school grounds, airports etc. But the lines of enforcement were once again not addressed by the court. In effect they said no you can't prevent this citizen from owning his handgun, now go figure out what to do.

Yes, and in that light, I'm surprised it was such a close decision. Put that way, it sounds like it ought to be 9-0

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 07:13 PM
That is about as good as it can be said. It should also be pointed out that the constitution is a living document. It always has been. Today's decision is another case in point. While the majority asserted it's ruling that States cannot infringe upon gun ownership rights, it also added the "except when" clause once again. Obvious limitations are things like school grounds, airports etc. But the lines of enforcement were once again not addressed by the court. In effect they said no you can't prevent this citizen from owning his handgun, now go figure out what to do.And now we disagree. The Constitution is only a living document in that it can be amended. But the process is so hard it is hardly ever done. Unless that is your definition of "living". When most people say living document ala Woodrow Wilson they mean that the document can be interpreted how ever they see fit and the original intent means nothing.

If this was the type of government that we were meant to have there would be no reason for the Constitution since it can be here today gone tomorrow so to speak. The Constitution can be changed if we amend it, but thats where the "living'ness" of the document ends. The founders put it in place to limit the federal government and were kind enough to leave it open to change via amending it if the Nation ever needed it. There would be no need for amendments if it can just be interpreted at will.

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 07:16 PM
Cody,
I don't think we're arguing at all here, rather I'm just not conveying what I think we agree upon very well. I don't mean to imply the Constitution in any way regulates states, except when it comes to the states infringing upon people's rights. The fed then steps in and tells the states "not so fast, you can't take away the rights of man that WE guarantee." But it then goes on to say (as you pointed out) that "hey, we don't want to legislate or control every little thing, so unless we specifically mention it, its up to the states to decide what THEY want to do." So long as it doesn't abridge anyone's rights.

I think we agree, don't we?

A book on the topic I enjoyed was Founding Brothers, the Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis. (Vintage Books, 2000)

Another interesting read was The Courts and the Constitution, by Archibald Cox. It gave a nice summary of the major landmark decisions by SCOTUS, and how they relate to the original intent of the Constitution.

Have a good one,
dave

States make decisions that infringe upon people rights all the time. They do it because some greater need demands it. Is it illegal for the State to say they want to license your firearm? Is it illegal for the state to say they want to regulate who drives a vehicle? After all, doesn't the Constitution guarantee the people can move freely within the borders of the country? Seems to me what the court said today was, you went too far this time, go figure it out.

Pals
06-28-2010, 07:53 PM
Let me translate your drivel Since you disagreed with the premise of a post yesterday, and "flamed" the poster, you feel compelled to "flame" the poster today, regardless of the material posted. In so doing, you inadvertently "flamed" the wrong person and now would like to blame the original poster for your error. Man, you are one piece of work dude.


:rolleyes: My error? Really? Take a look, closely, since reading seems to be a real stretch for you.....I wasn't the one who attacked a gov. of a state I don't live in, since I don't feel qualified to tell them arizonians how to protect themselves. Apparently you do, now you want to make a big deal out of people being allowed to keep a gun in their home. Re-read Dave's post(wow can't believe I said that Dave!!!).

BTW, sweetcheeks it's dudette. Get it right if you're flinging insults.

dnf777
06-28-2010, 08:05 PM
States make decisions that infringe upon people rights all the time. They do it because some greater need demands it. Is it illegal for the State to say they want to license your firearm? Is it illegal for the state to say they want to regulate who drives a vehicle? After all, doesn't the Constitution guarantee the people can move freely within the borders of the country? Seems to me what the court said today was, you went too far this time, go figure it out.


Yes, they do, and that's why we have courts to challenge these laws, ultimately the surpreme court. Driving a car is not guaranteed in the constitution. Nor is every conceivable situation of gun ownership. The C leaves the details to the states to figure out. If someone is charged under a state law, and feels their rights were violated, they can begin the judicial review process. Not everyone has the means, so most of the time its worked out short of SCOTUS.

As far as licensing firearms, this is a good example. The second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms. However, the states can say they'd like to know who is doing so. Does this violate your rights? Does banning carrying guns on school church property violate your rights?

Often time the contentious part of any law is where to draw the line. Again, given the question really posed by this case, I'm surprised it was a 5-4 ruling.

Eric Johnson
06-28-2010, 09:07 PM
The Federal Cts. have always had the power to rule in disputes between states and between states and citizens of different states or between citizens of different states. I call your attention to Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

Eric

mjh345
06-28-2010, 10:26 PM
And now we disagree. The Constitution is only a living document in that it can be amended. But the process is so hard it is hardly ever done. Unless that is your definition of "living". When most people say living document ala Woodrow Wilson they mean that the document can be interpreted how ever they see fit and the original intent means nothing.

If this was the type of government that we were meant to have there would be no reason for the Constitution since it can be here today gone tomorrow so to speak. The Constitution can be changed if we amend it, but thats where the "living'ness" of the document ends. The founders put it in place to limit the federal government and were kind enough to leave it open to change via amending it if the Nation ever needed it. There would be no need for amendments if it can just be interpreted at will.

I don't know you Cody, but I wish you were Obama's nominee to the SCOTUS.
I feel the U.S. Constitution is the greatest writing in history, and the framers of it would be appalled to see how it has been basterdized

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 10:34 PM
And now we disagree. The Constitution is only a living document in that it can be amended. But the process is so hard it is hardly ever done. Unless that is your definition of "living". When most people say living document ala Woodrow Wilson they mean that the document can be interpreted how ever they see fit and the original intent means nothing.

If this was the type of government that we were meant to have there would be no reason for the Constitution since it can be here today gone tomorrow so to speak. The Constitution can be changed if we amend it, but thats where the "living'ness" of the document ends. The founders put it in place to limit the federal government and were kind enough to leave it open to change via amending it if the Nation ever needed it. There would be no need for amendments if it can just be interpreted at will.

I don't think we disagree. Interpretation has usually been narrow. And certainly in my lifetime, Miranda, Roe v Wade, and many others have been very controversial. The Supreme Court has gotten it completely wrong in the past, Dred Scott comes to mind, and their is no reason to assume they don't miss the boat entirely in the present at times.

My view is that I'm very concerned about the rise in Federal Power, through an activist court. To me this trumps some variation in States attempts to harmonize the rights of individuals against the needs of communities, esp re: health and saftey.

After some thought and reading the inputs of you and Dave I think a lot of this issue isn't necessarily the failure of the court as it is the failure of the Congress. Take Roe V Wade for instance. How many years ago did that decision occur? Since then both Republicans and Democrats have had super majorities in Congress and yet have never once addressed the issue with legislation one way or the other. Without legislation, constitutional or otherwise, the congress has failed in its primary function and deferred that power to the courts.

depittydawg
06-28-2010, 10:45 PM
:rolleyes: My error? Really? Take a look, closely, since reading seems to be a real stretch for you.....I wasn't the one who attacked a gov. of a state I don't live in, since I don't feel qualified to tell them arizonians how to protect themselves. Apparently you do, now you want to make a big deal out of people being allowed to keep a gun in their home. Re-read Dave's post(wow can't believe I said that Dave!!!).

BTW, sweetcheeks it's dudette. Get it right if you're flinging insults.

Ok, you get the last word again.

cheers, and sleep well

Cody Covey
06-28-2010, 10:46 PM
After some thought and reading the inputs of you and Dave I think a lot of this issue isn't necessarily the failure of the court as it is the failure of the Congress. Take Roe V Wade for instance. How many years ago did that decision occur? Since then both Republicans and Democrats have had super majorities in Congress and yet have never once addressed the issue with legislation one way or the other. Without legislation, constitutional or otherwise, the congress has failed in its primary function and deferred that power to the courts.Completely agree. When congress fails to do its job and lets the run away SCOTUS essentially writing legislation from the bench when this is NEVER what was intended is a disgrace for both republicans and democrats alike.I think it was Sotomayor (at least the most recent one anyway) that gave a speech and spoke of legislating from the bench. Social injustice (as well as other hotbutton issues) is not a reason to rule on laws how YOU see fit. We have a constitution and the SCOTUS is there to up hold the constitution not interpret it. The interpret whether the LAW is in violation but not what the constitution actually means. It wasn't meant to be this uber hard document to decipher. We shouldn't need Harvard scholars to tell us "peons" what it says. We can read it ourselves and see exactly what they said and what was intended.

If the SCOTUS wants to change the constitution they should've become Congressman and enacted change through amendments as was intended. NOT rule on a decision how THEY wish the world to be, but how the constitution lays out the law of the land in America.

dnf777
06-28-2010, 11:23 PM
I try to avoid the "constructionist" or "activist" labeling of judges. Its seems both sides are equally guilty of labeling a court "activist" whenever a ruling is handed down that they don't agree with. I think the truth is, all courts are constructing law to varying degrees by positive or negative rulings, and even by refusing to hear a case at all. I find it somewhat amusing to see how some major, very fundamental legal principles are sometimes tested by seemingly trivial cases or unrelated issues.

huntinman
06-28-2010, 11:36 PM
I try to avoid the "constructionist" or "activist" labeling of judges. .

This is your quote "avoiding" the label from an earlier post on this thread:


(that's why this constructionist court really bothers me when they grant corporations with individual status and rights!....THAT'S BS)

dnf777
06-28-2010, 11:41 PM
This is your quote "avoiding" the label from an earlier post on this thread:


(that's why this constructionist court really bothers me when they grant corporations with individual status and rights!....THAT'S BS)

I said I "try"! Wouldn't you agree that deciding that corporations should enjoy individual rights is somewhat constructionist, BTW?? That is NOWHERE in the constitution, so they must have constructed (or pulled) it out of somewhere!

I proved my own point....I didn't agree, so I called them constructionists. ;-)

huntinman
06-28-2010, 11:49 PM
I said I "try"! Wouldn't you agree that deciding that corporations should enjoy individual rights is somewhat constructionist, BTW?? That is NOWHERE in the constitution, so they must have constructed (or pulled) it out of somewhere!

I proved my own point....I didn't agree, so I called them constructionists. ;-)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.[1][2] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts

depittydawg
06-29-2010, 12:18 AM
I said I "try"! Wouldn't you agree that deciding that corporations should enjoy individual rights is somewhat constructionist, BTW?? That is NOWHERE in the constitution, so they must have constructed (or pulled) it out of somewhere!

I proved my own point....I didn't agree, so I called them constructionists. ;-)

I would say that particular decision, which I believe goes way back, was likely the root cause of why our Government is so dysfunctional today.

dnf777
06-29-2010, 10:27 AM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The corporate personhood debate refers to the controversy (primarily in the United States) over the question of what subset of rights afforded under the law to natural persons should also be afforded to corporations as legal persons.

In the United States, corporations were recognized as having rights to contract, and to have those contracts honored the same as contracts entered into by natural persons, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, decided in 1819. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394, the Supreme Court recognized that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the 14th Amendment.[1][2] Some critics of corporate personhood, however, such as author Thom Hartmann in his book "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," claim that this was an intentional misinterpretation of the case inserted into the Court record by reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis.[3] Bancroft Davis had previously served as president of Newburgh and New York Railway Co.

Proponents of corporate personhood believe that corporations, as associations of shareholders, were intended by the founders and framers to enjoy many, if not all, of the same rights as would the shareholders acting individually, such as the right to lobby the government, the right to due process and compensation before being deprived of property, and the right, as legal entities, to speak freely. All of these rights have been upheld by the U.S. courts


I would have guessed we would disagree on this. ;) Just don't be too surprised if the gov't seizes your property to help build a wal-mart where it will provide a few low-skill jobs and tax revenue! :-x After all, walmart has the same rights you do, and along with the other SCOTUS decision, its much easier to take private property now.