• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State's rights (question specific for the USA, I think)?

State's Rights

  • Yes - full state autonomy.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes - most laws decided at state level

    Votes: 12 40.0%

  • Neutral - leave as-is, nothing is wrong with system.

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • No - most laws decided at federal level.

    Votes: 7 23.3%

  • No - all laws decided at federal level.

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Other - explain please.

    Votes: 9 30.0%
  • Total voters
    30
I voted other because this isn't really a simply issue.. For the most part all states can make their own laws and govern the people that live within them.. However, no state can violate the constitutional rights of the people within it's boarders.. No state can ban people from peaceful protest.. Or violate their freedom of speach..

The federal government has the right and the power to dictate laws based on the constitution.. For instance the SCOTUS striking down the sodomy laws during the Bush years.. Descrimination is a violation of the constitution and no law can be made that descriminates against the people.. Gay marriage is an issue of descrimination and it technically it is legal and constitutional.. It is sad that we will need a SCOTUS ruling to tell some states the plainly obvious..

States can govern.. But the civil rights of the people is guarded by the federal government..
 
I think that it absolutely depends on the issue.

One that most do not mention and that seems to tick people off, is education. I would love to see a federal set of standards (not NCLB) that sets a minimum for what courses students need to graduate and ensures that students moving between states are given full credit for their classes from other schools and given some way to ensure that they can be waived from certain rules or have some online system setup as a fallback to allow students who do need to move around (due mainly because of a parent's need to move for a job or other reason) a chance to actually graduate if they deserve to do so no matter where they come from or move to.

I bring this up because I did have a brother who was forced to get a GED because my mother moved during his senior year of high school and he was unable to enroll in the new state's high school because local policy was no one could enroll into their school after reaching the age of 19. He had failed one grade (in elementary school and he is dyslexic) and his birthday is in the middle of the school year. Things like this are pretty rare, but they do happen. This can negatively affect a young person's life from the start for something that is a technicality that the student had little control over.
 
roguenuke said:
I think that it absolutely depends on the issue.

One that most do not mention and that seems to tick people off, is education. I would love to see a federal set of standards (not NCLB) that sets a minimum for what courses students need to graduate and ensures that students moving between states are given full credit for their classes from other schools and given some way to ensure that they can be waived from certain rules or have some online system setup as a fallback to allow students who do need to move around (due mainly because of a parent's need to move for a job or other reason) a chance to actually graduate if they deserve to do so no matter where they come from or move to.

I bring this up because I did have a brother who was forced to get a GED because my mother moved during his senior year of high school and he was unable to enroll in the new state's high school because local policy was no one could enroll into their school after reaching the age of 19. He had failed one grade (in elementary school and he is dyslexic) and his birthday is in the middle of the school year. Things like this are pretty rare, but they do happen. This can negatively affect a young person's life from the start for something that is a technicality that the student had little control over.
Click to expand...
At the same time, I think one of the issues in today's public schools (and perhaps some private?) is a tendency to teach everyone as if they were identical, or nearly so - those who do not or cannot meet that template end up in detention, expelled, on various drugs, etc.

I think that the majority of those problem children could be taught if the instruction procedure were fitted to their individual needs.

IMO, a 1 : 1 instructor : student relationship would be optimal, because maximum tailoring of individual instruction could be achieved that way - this is not reasonable, I suppose, but it seems the optimal way.

In my mind, working to capitalize on an individual's strengths and shore up their weaknesses is the proper way to teach.

Meh.

I could probably go on for quite awhile about all the issues I see with the public education system - how it can be improved, etc.

But I'm no expert.

So perhaps I am incorrect.

-------------------
:ranton:
Nevertheless, I think that our public education system is THE key issue.

Of primary importance over any and all others.

Terrorism? Secondary.

Debt? Secondary.

Plague? Secondary.

Worldwide nuclear war? Secondary.

EVERYTHING is less important.

:rantoff:

:lol:

As you can tell, somewhat of a pet issue.
 
The Mark said:
At the same time, I think one of the issues in today's public schools (and perhaps some private?) is a tendency to teach everyone as if they were identical, or nearly so - those who do not or cannot meet that template end up in detention, expelled, on various drugs, etc.

I think that the majority of those problem children could be taught if the instruction procedure were fitted to their individual needs.

IMO, a 1 : 1 instructor : student relationship would be optimal, because maximum tailoring of individual instruction could be achieved that way - this is not reasonable, I suppose, but it seems the optimal way.

In my mind, working to capitalize on an individual's strengths and shore up their weaknesses is the proper way to teach.

Meh.

I could probably go on for quite awhile about all the issues I see with the public education system - how it can be improved, etc.

But I'm no expert.

So perhaps I am incorrect.

-------------------
:ranton:
Nevertheless, I think that our public education system is THE key issue.

Of primary importance over any and all others.

Terrorism? Secondary.

Debt? Secondary.

Plague? Secondary.

Worldwide nuclear war? Secondary.

EVERYTHING is less important.

:rantoff:

:lol:

As you can tell, somewhat of a pet issue.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. This is why we should have states working with federal government on this issue. What I envision is a plan where the federal government sets down certain ground rules, such as this is the minimum classes that a person needs to graduate, period. Everything else is extra, but they should be required to have that extra, just not specifically based on each individual school/district 's available courses. Without making exceptions, schools are screwing over some kids, who probably know as much if not more than many of those graduating, just due to their poor circumstances and the school not willing to do a small amount of extra work to make such an exception.

States/districts should not be limited by equal protection to the point where it is harmful. For example, there was the area in KY where they had their schools set up in a way where the students picked the school they wanted to go to within the district, because each school offered different programs and setups that really got the students into the right school for their needs. It had to change because one student didn't get into his first choice school initially (he actually got in before the school year started due to an opening coming available) and his mother filed suit on discrimination because the schools did not take race of the students into account in the decision for where the students went and a couple of the schools were unequal in amounts/percentages based on race. The rest of the district suffered because we seem to have lost all common sense when it comes to making decisions for schools.

I would love to see each school district diversified in a way that allows students to have options on how they are taught to better fit their educational needs.

There should also be federal alternatives available for students who are having some clash with their school where they can get a good education.

One of the things that is actually in a trial period right now in certain states/districts (I'm pretty sure some WA districts are trying this) is online high school. If done correctly, this could be a great way to help some students, both some groups of problem students and some smarter students who feel that normal public high school moves at a slower pace than they want to go.
 
The Mark said:
There are multiple ways in which the constitution has and will be interpreted.

Some include the thought that unless an action is authorized specifically in the constitution, the federal gov is not allowed to get involved.

Some tend towards the opposite - that if an action is not specifically prohibited, it's allowed.

Even specific clauses have different interpretations depending on who you ask - like the 2nd Amendment for example.
Click to expand...

This isn't about interpretation.. This is about where it applies or doesn't apply.. Not everything has to be mentioned in the constitution for it to apply.. Those that claim it does are simply a little short on brains.. You have the right to bare arms.. That does not mean that everyone has a right to a nuke silo in their back yard.. Nor does it mean they should have automatic weapons or assult rifles.. Should the constitution actually list every type of weapon past, present, and future that people are allowed to have?? Can common sense prevail here?? The first amendment implies a seperating of church and state.. Do we really need the words to know that it is there?? The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.. Even homosexuals.. So why can't they get married?? Does not marriage law count as a law?? Does not the 1st amendment limit the discussion to non religous arguements??

The problem that conservatives have is that they want to use the arguement that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.. The constitution is a living document and is written in such a way that implication is very important.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.. Single shot muskets rifles were the weapon of the day.. So there is no arguement by your terms to make the claim that pistols, assult rifles or anything that isn't a single shot musket are included in the constitution.. Conservatives will use that logic in attempt to limit the power of the government.. See the Obama health plan.. Then deny that very arguement when applied to the 2nd amendment..

There really isn't a difference of interpretation.. Just a difference on how you want to twist what it says for your own cause..

Gay marriage is legal nationwide.. The 1st amendment denies the religous their right to force their views onto others.. The 14th amendment applies all laws equally to everyone.. Which includes marriage laws.. There is no arguement.. There is no debate.. As it is all written, that is all fact.. Now convince the religous that their views don't matter?? Like I said.. Twist it as much as they can for their own cause or purpose..

Gun rights.. Same thing.. While the constitution doesn't say what kind of arms a civilian may keep.. There is no logical way to make the assumption that assult rifiles or any other automatic or semiautomatic weapon is included.. Despite what the NRA says, they don't have any constitutional basis for their claims.. The single shot musket was the weapon of the day.. There is the weapon you have right to bare.. I am sure many will argue with that logic..

Is that the same logic to say that the mandate is illegal because the constitution doesn't say the government has that power?? So which is it?? If the constitution doesn't say something it is legal when it comes to guns and illegal when it comes to the mandate?? Talk about hypocritical..
 
We need to use common sense to interpret the constitution. If we read it like The Bible we are going to find ourselves without many of the privileges we enjoy as American citizens. We should do what is in the greatest benefit of the American people.
 
I think issues should be looked at individually as to whether they should be legislated on a state or federal level. Some things which are currently dealt with on a federal level I think should be dealt with by the states, and others which are currently dealt with by the states should be dealt with by the federal government.
 
One would have to read the US Constitution and they would see that it has already been decided. Anything not addressed in the Constitution is left to the states. When the Federal Gov makes laws that are not within their area they are stepping on State's rates to govern. So things such as abortion and marriage are state issues since there is no amendment to take that right away from the states.
 
DemonMyst said:
Now that is a dumb statement.. The constitution is the law of the land.. Exectly where doesn't the constitution apply?? Where exactly doesn't the constitution authorize it's application??
Click to expand...
He means in terms of powers granted to the Fed Gvmnt by the Constitution.
For instance, the word "education" is found nowhere in the Constitution; as such, the Fed Gvmnt has no power to make law regarding education.

Perhaps you should should conssider what someone might mean before jumping all over them and making yourself look like an Obama. Just a thought.
 
I would support more power to states and more state autonomy. America is a very large nation with a diverse political scene. I think it would be better for states to be the primary law makers with a weaker federal government that mainly handles foreign affairs and national defense. I think most social programs should be run and funded by states. National healthcare in a nation of 300+ million people would be extremely hard to manage. It would be better for states to establish their own healthcare systems (like MA). I believe it would also be able to be managed better.

Issues like gay marriage are also states rights issues. States issue the marriage license, so it's their issue and not the feds.

I think abortion should be a federal issue.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.
Click to expand...

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with gun control?
 
American said:
What does the 14th Amendment have to do with gun control?
Click to expand...

Really? The 14th amendment has something to do with all of the first ten amendments or the bill of rights. If you do not know that, then you are in need of some education before wading into discussions on the constitution.
 
U.S. Socialist. said:
You know what I've never understood. A lot of proponents of the states rights argument argue that the states and local government are more responsive to the people and less likely to abuse their power. However, history shows otherwise. Segregation was endorsed by several southern states and had to be broken by the hammer of federal power.

Also a lot of state and local laws that have conflicted with the Bill of Rights have been overturned via the 14th Amendment and the doctrine of Incorporation. Prior to 1890s states and local governments could limit the rights guaranteed you by the Bill of Rights because it only applied to the federal government, however that has changed due to Incorporation.

The most recent example, which conservatives should like, is McDonald Vs. Chicago where the City tried to outlaw gun ownership and the Supreme Court though the due process clause of the 14th Amendment stuck that law down.

I do think there should be a balance, I mainly wanted to address the ideal that state and local governments are "good" or "not corrupt" and the federal government is "bad' and 'corrupt" and useless.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much a strawman. A few idiot conservatives may argue something similar to your strawman, but you are just picking on the weakest arguments, which is rather pathetic.
 
I voted other. I support adhering to the Constitution, all of it, including the 14th. The state's and municipalities should do most of the work and the feds should only step in to protect against violations of the 14th. I would like to see a repeal of the 17th amendment as it has had a negative impact on the balance of power between the states and the feds, but other than that... My position is not in support of "as is", but "as intended."
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm going to try and sum something up here when it concerns the fed vs the states.

When the founding fathers first made the bill of rights there were those that did not want to make it. Not because they thought that people didn't deserve rights or that the federal government shouldn't protect individual rights. But because they were afraid that by doing so they would put a limit on what would be considered Rights. It is my opinion that this is exactly what has happened.

For example marriage. They never even questioned the fact that people had a right to marry. It was one of those things that was so obvious that it should have been idiotic to even question, much less put in the BoR. Now what do we have? People saying that marriage is not a right. Even asking (telling) people to show them proof that it is written somewhere in the Constitution as a right.

Now with all of that said I believe that anything that could be considered a Right (whether it is in the Constitution or not) should be handled strictly by the federal government in the form of protection. Anything that has to do with safety from others or inanimate objects should be left to the federal government with peoples rights over ruling all else. The other things that the government should handle are issues which are so huge as to be impossible to apply equally across the whole country on a state by state basis. For example, abortion. Everything else should be left up to either the individual or the States.
Click to expand...

I think we forget that these are not rights given to us be the goverment these are rights that the goverment are not allowed to impede upon. We give the power to the goverment not the other way around. Many have forgotten that.
 
DemonMyst said:
This isn't about interpretation.. This is about where it applies or doesn't apply.. Not everything has to be mentioned in the constitution for it to apply.. Those that claim it does are simply a little short on brains.. You have the right to bear arms.. That does not mean that everyone has a right to a nuke silo in their back yard.. Nor does it mean they should have automatic weapons or assault rifles.. Should the constitution actually list every type of weapon past, present, and future that people are allowed to have?? Can common sense prevail here?? The first amendment implies a separating of church and state.. Do we really need the words to know that it is there?? The 14th amendment guarantees everyone equal protection under the law.. Even homosexuals.. So why can't they get married?? Does not marriage law count as a law?? Does not the 1st amendment limit the discussion to non religious arguments??

The problem that conservatives have is that they want to use the argument that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.. The constitution is a living document and is written in such a way that implication is very important.. At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment.. Single shot muskets rifles were the weapon of the day.. So there is no argument by your terms to make the claim that pistols, assault rifles or anything that isn't a single shot musket are included in the constitution.. Conservatives will use that logic in attempt to limit the power of the government.. See the Obama health plan.. Then deny that very argument when applied to the 2nd amendment..

There really isn't a difference of interpretation.. Just a difference on how you want to twist what it says for your own cause..

Gay marriage is legal nationwide.. The 1st amendment denies the religious their right to force their views onto others... The 14th amendment applies all laws equally to everyone... Which includes marriage laws. There is no argument... There is no debate... As it is all written, that is all fact... Now convince the religious that their views don't matter?? Like I said... Twist it as much as they can for their own cause or purpose.

Gun rights.. Same thing.. While the constitution doesn't say what kind of arms a civilian may keep.. There is no logical way to make the assumption that assault rifles or any other automatic or semiautomatic weapon is included... Despite what the NRA says, they don't have any constitutional basis for their claims... The single shot musket was the weapon of the day... There is the weapon you have right to bear... I am sure many will argue with that logic...

Is that the same logic to say that the mandate is illegal because the constitution doesn't say the government has that power?? So which is it?? If the constitution doesn't say something it is legal when it comes to guns and illegal when it comes to the mandate?? Talk about hypocritical..
Click to expand...
I think you being are somewhat disingenuous when you focus on “Conservatives” in your statement.

I would say that all of the multiple ideologies have at some point changed something or supported a position which it could be argued violated the constitution.

I’ve heard people state their opinion that the following systems/programs (among others) violate the spirit and/or the letter of the constitution:
  • Federal Reserve.
  • Federal standards and controls on education.
  • Social Security.
  • Medicare/whatever other related programs.
  • Gun control.
  • More recently, the pseudo-UHC legislation.
------------------
Many of those arguments would be supported (as I understand it) by your statement that “…they want to use the argument that, if it isn't specifically there then it must be ok to simply violate the constitution.”

As to your statement about interpretation – twisting the words to fit your position is precisely and exactly the same thing as interpretation, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom