# A Defeat For States' Rights.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 20, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102 "2012-01-20T04:32:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102/41 "2012-01-20T20:07:08Z")
Nuclear power, technology and waste is a matter of national security. It’s a profoundly Federal matter. If VY is lying about environmental problems, there are federal agencies that can investigate and have the issues either taken care of, or have VY shut down. No? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102/42 "2012-01-20T20:10:51Z")
While it might be profoundly federal as a matter of common sense, it is not necessarily as a matter of constitutional law. “National security” is not mentioned in the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![cmyk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmyk/32/3353_2.png) [@cmyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmyk)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102/43 "2012-01-20T20:16:59Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > While it might be profoundly federal as a matter of common sense, it is not necessarily as a matter of constitutional law. “National security” is not mentioned in the constitution. Of course not, but still the issue remains. What was the state of Vermont trying to avoid in not going through the obvious channels in regards to existing nuclear statutes (both state and federal)? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102/44 "2012-01-20T20:20:02Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > While it might be profoundly federal as a matter of common sense, it is not necessarily as a matter of constitutional law. “National security” is not mentioned in the constitution. No but “provide for the common defence” is. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102/45 "2012-01-20T20:20:52Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The states don’t need permission from the Feds to act. They do it all the time without permission, and we don’t have “chaos”. By ‘allow’ I mean not superceded by the federal government. States are free to do anything not addressed by federal law already. But the issues arise when the state’s actions are contrary to the federal law. So it’s not an issue of permission, it’s a question of who gets the last word. Unless the Supreme Court throws out the federal law, it tends to win. > [@](#): > > But beyond that, there is the issue of plenary vs limited power that we’ve gone over numerous times on this MB. The states are presumed to have whatever power is not explicitly disallowed by the constitution. The feds are presumed to have only those powers given to it by the constitution. Well yes, that is the law. But the Constitution has numerous means of allowing federal law to be based on the Constitution, and in practice, this is used post hoc to disallow the state right, i.e., because the federal law is Constitutional, the Constitution disallows the state’s right. I know that’s not how it was supposed to work, but I think it’s actually better this way. Otherwise a Constititional Amendment would be necessary to maintain a national law whenever the states conflicted. The result would be laws that are more difficult to change than they are now. And allowing states freedom to ignore federal law would lead to interminable disputes that stifle commerce, foster corruption, and readily deny Constitutional rights. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-defeat-for-states-rights/610102.md?page=2)