[EastCoastAmerican]

Ron Paul and several libertarians and conservatives often speak of eliminating federal power so that state and local governments can do more for themselves. The idea is that the local mayor/governor has a better understanding of events in his jurisdiction than an over-arching federal government. Another reason is that it's easier to monitor and control a smaller-sized government than a larger one. I agree with both of these things to a point.

But what happens in the cases of tyrannical state and local governments? What if a minority in the county/state suffers intense discrimination (like African-Americans circa 1960's Alabama), but the majority of voters are in favor of oppressive laws and keep voting for unconstitutional measures? What if these state and local governments are virtually unopposed within their jurisdiction? In such a case, would it be justified for the federal government to enforce the Constitution? If not, then who should enforce it if not the feds?

I appreciate any answers you can provide me on this matter!

[Kman]

Ron Paul and several libertarians and conservatives often speak of eliminating federal power so that state and local governments can do more for themselves. The idea is that the local mayor/governor has a better understanding of events in his jurisdiction than an over-arching federal government. Another point is that it's easier to monitor and control a smaller-sized government than a larger one. I agree with both of these things to a point.

That is not the only reason, another one is to create political competition so that a government does not grow abusive, monopolies always become abusive, same thing is true for governmental monopolies.

But what happens in the cases of tyrannical state and local governments? What if a minority in the county/state suffers intense discrimination (like African-Americans circa 1960's Alabama)

Then said african-americans can just move to another state, that is very easy to do under the US constitution so where exactly is the huge problem?

What if these state and local governments are virtually unopposed within their jurisdiction?

Oh noes states would be able to decide their own laws, then they might become evil independant political entities like Switzerland!!

In such a case, would it be justified for the federal government to enforce the Constitution? If not, then who should enforce it if not the feds?

The original constitution laid virtually no limitations on states rights so almost everything they could possibly pass would be constitutional hence no need for enforcement.

The key thing you need to remember is that if the Federal government grows tyrannical then you are fucked as an american since it is pretty hard to get a new nationality, if however 1 state among the 50 states becomes abusive then you can just relocate to another one, that is very easy to do under the american political system.

This is the same reason why I despise the UN with a passion, it is because it is the seed for world government and when we get something resembling a world government, trust me, it will grow diabolically evil very fast.

Personally I dont think the United States should have ever been created actually since it laid the seed for tyrannical government which it too a large extent has already developed into.

[EastCoastAmerican]

1. Then said african-americans can just move to another state, that is very easy to do under the US constitution so where exactly is the huge problem?



2. The original constitution laid virtually no limitations on states rights so almost everything they could possibly pass would be constitutional hence no need for enforcement.

1. It's a huge problem because it flies in the face of the Constitution. Additionally, a government which is oppressive can create laws that restrict civil liberties and rights. They can even go so far as to arrest people on trumped-up charges, and those people imprisoned cannot simply move away. This happened to many African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement; it's not so far-fetched for something like this to happen to another group of people if state and local governments faced virtually no restriction from the feds.

2. Not every American in political power understands the Constitution. A lot of public officials have not studied the law, and so can create laws without understanding their consequences. What if a state decided to repeal a Constitutional Amendment, like what some right-wing groups advocated for in Arizona (the 14th Amendment, specifically)?

[Daktoria]

Please, go back to 1968...

...or 1948.

The professionalization of reform is getting old.

In fact, read these two essays when you get the chance:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_i ... -of-reform
http://www.nationalaffairs.com/public_i ... -reform-ii

[Eran]

1. It's a huge problem because it flies in the face of the Constitution.

This is debatable.

The Federal Constitution is primarily a document enumerating and limiting Federal powers. It was designed by the states to relinquish certain, limited, powers to the Federal government.

While on any specific issue, the Federal government might make a better choice than a particular State, as a system, Americans are much safer with more power at the State level.

The reason is, as Kman noted, that it is much easier to move to another State, than it is to leave the country as a whole.

[Kman]

Additionally, a government which is oppressive can create laws that restrict civil liberties and rights. They can even go so far as to arrest people on trumped-up charges, and those people imprisoned cannot simply move away.

And what happens if this law is passed by the federal government instead of a state government? Then all african-americans will be fucked instead of just a small number of african-americans who were too slow to move out (I suspect before the passing of such a state law there will be some warning of what to come).

[Pants-of-dog]

If the federal government is limited by the constitution and the states are not, and you remove federal limits on the states, you basically remove constitutional limits of power from the states.

[Eran]

The Federal government is limited by the Federal Constitution.

Each State government is limited by its own State Constitution.

You only need to be worried if you implicitly assume (1) that the Federal constitution is more restrictive of government power, and (2) that the Federal government is benign.

If you recognize that the Federal government is potentially dangerous, its potential danger is much greater due to lack of choice.

The issue of Marijuana legalization comes to mind.

[Pants-of-dog]

The Federal government is limited by the Federal Constitution.

Each State government is limited by its own State Constitution.

You only need to be worried if you implicitly assume (1) that the Federal constitution is more restrictive of government power, and (2) that the Federal government is benign.

If you recognize that the Federal government is potentially dangerous, its potential danger is much greater due to lack of choice.

The issue of Marijuana legalization comes to mind.

I know that the federal constitution definitely limits the powers of government (which is why I do not need to assume that the federal government is benign). I do not know how much any state constitution limits the powers of the state government, forcing me to hope that each state government is benign.

[EastCoastAmerican]

And what happens if this law is passed by the federal government instead of a state government? Then all african-americans will be fucked instead of just a small number of african-americans who were too slow to move out (I suspect before the passing of such a state law there will be some warning of what to come).

Then it's worse. But I'm not defending abuses of power at the level of the federal government; I'm asking how we would enforce the Constitution among states if in a pure "states' rights" society.

Several states already tried making "anti-Sharia" bills; these bills are so broad and ill-defined that if enforced, would it make it a crime simply to be a Muslim. This isn't just an issue of the 60's or African-Americans; it can easily happen whenever the populace gets manipulated by fear. It's surprising how much freedom many Americans would give up in the name of national security or preserving the status quo.

Do you believe that nothing should be done if a state or local government disregards the Constitution?

[Kman]

Several states already tried making "anti-Sharia" bills; these bills are so broad and ill-defined that if enforced, would it make it a crime simply to be a Muslim. This isn't just an issue of the 60's or African-Americans; it can easily happen whenever the populace gets manipulated by fear. It's surprising how much freedom many Americans would give up in the name of national security or preserving the status quo.

Yeah and the federal government has created a multitude of anti-terrorist bills that are outrageous assaults on individual liberty so what is your point? Human stupidity will not go away no matter what system you choose but atleast under a political system with 50 different political systems you atleast have a chance of some of these systems being run by rational and intelligent people and you can move into this system to enjoy the benefits of this system. The odds of you being able to live under rational and intelligent leaders are much smaller when you only have 1 provider of politics.

Do you believe that nothing should be done if a state or local government disregards the Constitution?

The constitution does almost nothing against states, it only says they need to keep free trade open (and allow free movement also I think), so the possible ways for states to violate the US constitution are very limited, the US constitution was a tool created primarily to control the Federal government, not states.

[Eran]

I know that the federal constitution definitely limits the powers of government (which is why I do not need to assume that the federal government is benign).

The Federal Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, the Federal Constitution is also interpreted by the Federal Government, a point the implications of which escaped the Founding Fathers...

Virtually nothing of the limitations of power stipulated by the Constitution, desired by its writers, and expected by its ratifiers actually survive.

The Federal Government routinely exceeds its enumerated powers and ignores or circumvents much of the Bill of Rights

[Pants-of-dog]

The Federal Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, the Federal Constitution is also interpreted by the Federal Government, a point the implications of which escaped the Founding Fathers...

Virtually nothing of the limitations of power stipulated by the Constitution, desired by its writers, and expected by its ratifiers actually survive.

The Federal Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and those courts beneath it. This body is unable to craft legislation. This separation of powers between the judicial and the legislative branches of government is a limitation of power stipulated by the Constitution, desired by its writers, and which has survived to this day.

[Kman]

The Federal Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court and those courts beneath it. This body is unable to craft legislation. This separation of powers between the judicial and the legislative branches of government is a limitation of power stipulated by the Constitution, desired by its writers, and which has survived to this day.

If the supreme court said that all black people should be deported would you follow their ruling?

[Pants-of-dog]

If the supreme court said that all black people should be deported would you follow their ruling?

That would be logically and legally impossible, as the Supreme Court cannot make rulings that are obviously contradictory to the Constitution.

[Kman]

That would be logically and legally impossible, as the Supreme Court cannot make rulings that are obviously contradictory to the Constitution.

That is where you are wrong my friend, the supreme court has taken an extremely lax position to the general welfare clause to mean basically anything promoting the ''general welfare'' and if the Judges sitting in the supreme court deems that removing black people from North America increases the general welfare of american society then according to the modern interpretation of the general welfare clause they have the right to do that.

[Eran]

Wrong.

The limitation of the powers of the Federal government, as expressed clearly in the Constitution, as well as by its framers and ratifiers was not based on separation of powers, but rather on said government being one of enumerated powers.

The idea was that the Federal government would only be authorized to act in one of several, specific domains.

Neither the original framers nor the people ratifying the Constitution expected its interpretation to lie solely with the Supreme Court. Nor could any of them anticipated (and, indeed, many expressed themselves clearly to the contrary) the degree to which the court would choose to ignore the actual terms of the Constitution through incredibly flexible interpretation.

A good recent example is the ruling that allowed the Federal government to prohibit growing for self-consumption of Marijuana, despite lack of any reasonable relation to any of the (enumerated) powers of the Federal government.

That would be logically and legally impossible, as the Supreme Court cannot make rulings that are obviously contradictory to the Constitution.

Yet, it does so routinely. The Supreme Court is a political body (in the sense of being nominated by politicians). It need not follow any specific logic. As to legality, if the Supreme Court were to issue an illegal (but politically popular) ruling, what mechanism do you envision would stop it?

[Pants-of-dog]

That is where you are wrong my friend, the supreme court has taken an extremely lax position to the general welfare clause to mean basically anything promoting the ''general welfare'' and if the Judges sitting in the supreme court deems that removing black people from North America increases the general welfare of american society then according to the modern interpretation of the general welfare clause they have the right to do that.

Please provide a single example of a ruling on the general welfare clause that is racist. Thank you.

Wrong.

The limitation of the powers of the Federal government, as expressed clearly in the Constitution, as well as by its framers and ratifiers was not based on separation of powers, but rather on said government being one of enumerated powers.

The idea was that the Federal government would only be authorized to act in one of several, specific domains.

Neither the original framers nor the people ratifying the Constitution expected its interpretation to lie solely with the Supreme Court. Nor could any of them anticipated (and, indeed, many expressed themselves clearly to the contrary) the degree to which the court would choose to ignore the actual terms of the Constitution through incredibly flexible interpretation.

A good recent example is the ruling that allowed the Federal government to prohibit growing for self-consumption of Marijuana, despite lack of any reasonable relation to any of the (enumerated) powers of the Federal government.

None of this contradicts my claim.

When did the Supreme Court rule on marijuana?

As to legality, if the Supreme Court were to issue an illegal (but politically popular) ruling, what mechanism do you envision would stop it?

Again, the Supreme Court cannot issue such a thing. This is because each ruling comes with a publicly accessible argument displaying why it is logical, consistent with the Constitution, uses legal precedent, and is therefore legal.

Moreover, there is no reason for the SCOTUS to act in a politically popular manner since they are not elected.

[Stormsmith]

What I find worrisome in regards to State power is being played out now in several states: The introduction of (state) legislation that attempts to trump the Federal constitution and in some cases, the state's own laws.

Some of this legislation, if unchecked at the state level will eventually work its way up to the Supreme Court (Federal) and the outcome must be that the legislation is overturned. This means a lot of court time and tax dollars are being wilfully wasted. Its becoming so agregious that I think the counter strike must be in forcing the people responsible, and not the taxpayer, to pick up the tab they are willfully imposing.

We've all seen several state governments trying to impose medical procedures that are unnecessary, and opposed to by people, by lawyers and by doctors. These legislators have absolutely no business in practicing medicine without a licence, and no bloody business being legislators if the procedure(s)'s already outlawed as crime (transvaginal ultrasound, where it is unnecessary and unwanted equals rape)

[Daktoria]

We've all seen several state governments trying to impose medical procedures that are unnecessary, and opposed to by people, by lawyers and by doctors. These legislators have absolutely no business in practicing medicine without a licence, and no bloody business being legislators if the procedure(s)'s already outlawed as crime (transvaginal ultrasound, where it is unnecessary and unwanted equals rape)

Can you talk about how we know who has "business" doing what?