Fed is Not Allowed to Violate Life, Liberty, Property, But States Are?

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

Fed has to follow the constitution and only do things that are authorized by it (we all know they violate it anyway).

But the States are allowed to violate our right to life liberty and property?

Ex) Fed is technically not given the power to punish those who possess marijuana because they are not authorized to do so. But the state can?

If so, what was the point of creating the constituion to limit the powers of the fed, if the state can just come in and expand gov. above and beyond what was limited in the constitution?

2

OK, first off, when you say “Fed” you mean the “Federal Government” and not the “Federal Reserve” right?

If so, there are some things to remember:

The states cannot violate certain parts of the constitution (e.g. religious test to office, coin money, violate the 2nd, or 4th amendments, etc), however, for the ones it CAN violate, it has a strong incentive (at least in the presence of an extremely limited federal government) not to. If a state imposes harsh laws, regulation (thereby increases taxes, and the cost of living and lowering the quality of what’s being regulated), people can move to another state, and the state loses its tax base. Hence, each state has an incentive to keep their government efficient.

3

yes, i mean the federal government. Sorry, i should have made that clearer.

4

All powers not vested to the federal government are reserved to the states, but federal law trumps state law so the states must abide by the constitution also.

Regarding your example, that would depend on how the courts define ‘pursuit of hapiness’ vs. ‘promoting general welfare’

5

My understanding of it was that the Federal Government was created by the States, therefore State law was supposed to trump Federal law. In other words the creation cannot be more than the creator. Of course the Civil War makes for a mean counter example.

6

You have made me think of roads, and paving, and good intentions… [:)]

7

I wonder if the billboards along side said road are advertisements for the Bill of Rights[+o(]

8

if only the people with soft hearts did not suffer from soft heads… [;)]

9

It was/is a voluntary union which the states chose to join for their own benefit while sacrificing a little of their sovereignty. As the war against the southern statesr proved, the states became married to the mob and now have much less sovereignty than they originally bargained for.

10

The Constitution says federal law trumps state law.

11

Actually the ‘Supreme law of the land’ clause simply states that the Constitution is the supreme law…not federal.

12

“‘pursuit of hapiness’ vs. ‘promoting general welfare’” - bbnet

How are those two at odds?

13

“Promotion of general welfare” usually involves trumping any individual right that seems to get in the way of “promoting general welfare”, like property.

14

See: The IXth Amendment.

Randy Barnett (the dude who argued in favor of state and individual rights in Gonzalez v. Raich, the California medical pot case) has written extensively about the subject.

15

As a matter of fact, when the Constitution was ratified, twelve of the thirteen states required confessions of faith from their elected officials.

Just nitpicking.

16

The First Amendment is pretty explicit: “Congress shall make no law…” No mention of the states. The IXth Amendment, though, protects certain natural, individual rights:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here is an interpretation.

17

The system is designed to put the two levels of government at odds with each other, just as it is designed to put the three branches of government at odds with each other. The genius of the constitution is that it delegated certain powers to the Federal government, gave the rest to the state governments, and let them fight over the gray areas. Freedom and responsible government - the goals of the constitution - are merely a byproduct of these two governments (and the various branches) squabbling with each other - that is the genius of the design.

Each level of government has some areas where it has clear authority - the Navy is clearly a Federal issue, keeping the streets clear of horse poo was clearly a local issue. Everything else, including the army (well ordered militias) was left “a little grayer”, and the two levels of government are supposed to squabble.

The other important facet of federalism is that the more intrusive powers are supposed to be more local powers - the idea being that each individual state could better decide what was important to regulate in each given state. The (I think unintended) byproduct of this is that if people don’t like the laws of a community, they can vote with their feet and leave. For example, because of California’s tax, rent control, and labor laws, I moved from California back to Florida - a costly transition for sure, but one less costly than me moving from the United States to the Cayman Islands (come to think of it…).

This maximizes freedom, because (1) states must compete with each other and (2) I can move around to find a government more to my liking if that goverment is local rather than national.

That is why I am a staunch Libertarian at the National Level of government, but I am “more okay” with local, tax-funded, “free” health clinics; local public education; and local bans on pornography, gambling, and guns. If you don’t like it, leave - it is less expensive to “move to another town”, involving a longer commute, than it is when the Federal governments policies force you to change countries.

And frankly, I think that intrusive local government power maximizes my Liberty, because I want to live in a country where gambling, pot, prostitution, and walking naked downtown through the crosswalk with a leather-clad submissive on a chain is legal. However, I want to raise my children in a local town/city where those activities are illegal, and the town puts a manger scene on the public lawn every year… and I want to live in a very local community where my neighbor does not have a pink house.

  • It’s okay, you can call me a “Public Choicer” if you want.
18

If baffles me that those who say they believe in liberty, often want the government (whether they are local or federal) to take their liberties away.

19

That was a great idea at the time, but now the fight is over. The Federal Government has won total power. So what’s the point of carrying on the charade of a dead system?

20

The states can deprive any person of life, liberty, and property with due process of law.