# Americans: State vs Federal. Why is it a big deal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 21, 2005, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550 "2005-03-21T13:36:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/61 "2005-03-22T15:11:35Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > This is why Americans have to be careful about weapons and all kinds of things that might change from state to state. It varies _greatly_. In some states you have to be a police officer or private detective with all kinds of certifications just to carry a gun in any fashion, and in some states people have the automatic right wear their guns into the banks. It’s a crazy mixed up world. I believe that recently the Virginia legislature upheld citizens’ rights to carry firearms into places of worship. That means no church can put up a sign saying “no guns allowed in here.” ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/62 "2005-03-22T16:20:41Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This shouldn’t be a mystery to any American who values being able to make decisions about his or her own sex life without interference from federal or state government. One’s sex life was not the basis of the _Roe v. Wade_ decision, nor the laws it changed. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/63 "2005-03-22T16:33:05Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I believe that recently the Virginia legislature upheld citizens’ rights to carry firearms into places of worship. That means no church can put up a sign saying “no guns allowed in here.” Are you sure that on private property (the church) they couldn’t say that? Or is the ruling that the _state_ can’t prohibit it? I remember when concealed carry came into effect in Texas that the state allowed places to put up “no guns” signs, but didn’t try to impose it itself. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/64 "2005-03-22T16:35:16Z")
I’m not going to get into a discussion on the merits and arguments of _Roe v. Wade_, but it’s clearly based on the right to privacy suggested in _Griswold_, and the privacy in question had to do with one’s sex life, specifically, decisions regarding procreation. My point is that there should be no reason to glibly wonder “how it all happened.” It happened because people argued that there were fundamental rights involved, including, for all of us, the fundamental right to contraception as expressed in _Griswold_. Whether or not it came out the right way or whether the reasoning presented was sound is a different matter. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/65 "2005-03-22T17:04:41Z")
I’ve been thinking about the expansion of Federal power since this came up. I’ve checked out Gibbons v Ogdon and McCulloch v Maryland. Any of you experts send me to a better place to go?? ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/66 "2005-03-22T17:44:03Z")
Law school. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/67 "2005-03-22T17:49:45Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I believe that recently the Virginia legislature upheld citizens’ rights to carry firearms into places of worship. That means no church can put up a sign saying “no guns allowed in here.” Cite? I find no such news story. Code of Virginia: > [@](#): > > **§ 18.2-283. Carrying dangerous weapon to place of religious worship.** > If any person carry any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes is being held at such place he shall be guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/68 "2005-03-22T18:10:56Z")
Sorry, sorry, just kidding. However, the best resources for understanding the federal/state divide that I know of are going to be Constitutional Law or Federal Courts texts. I don’t know of any popularly-available works that would serve to give you a full overview. That said, the greatest expansion of federal power came as a result of the Depression and there’s been a _lot_ writen (both scholarly and popular) on the Court in that period. To give a basic overview, FDR and the Democratically-controlled Congress were implementing all these welfare plans and price controls to try and end the Depression. The Supreme Court was striking them down as either over-reaching Congress’s powers enumerated in the Constitution or inappropriately delegating Congressional power to the President. When the states tried similar programs, the Court was striking them down as impinging on the due process rights of private businesses. Many of these decisions were 5-4 splits. This was an increasingly untenable situation, and FDR took a drastic step – he announced a Court-packing plan which would greatly increase the size of the Court. Since Congress was friendly to FDR, this would have led to a bunch more FDR-appointed justices. The lan was roundly criticized, but nonetheless, shortly thereafter Justice Owen Roberts started voting to uphold FDR’s programs. Although scholars are divided as to whether the Court-packing plan was the reason Roberts switched sides, his voting pattern is known as the Switch in Time to Save Nine. After the Switch, most of the New-Deal programs got up and running wthout too much trouble. As I said, there’s a lot written about this period. you can start off by researching the Switch in Time to Save Nine, FDR’s Court-Packing Plan, The Four Horsemen (four justices who’d made up the rest of the bloc that struck all this stuff down), and Wickard v. Filburn, one of the early Switch cases which shows just how dramatically Congress’s power over “interastate” commerce had been expanded. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/69 "2005-03-22T22:39:29Z")
Thanks for all the input. This has been fasacinating. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/70 "2005-03-22T22:41:04Z")
ooops …fascinating. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/71 "2005-03-23T21:15:21Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! URBAN LEGEND ALERT! The Straight Dope is a bad place to be spreading urban legends. > > Texas does not and never has had any right to split into five states. When Texas was annexed by the United States, the law said that the territory would be admitted as no fewer than three and no more than five separate states. In fact, the territory encompassed by the originally annexed Texas Territory is now incorporated into five states – Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado. Nope… check this out, it’s the real deal. > [@](#): > > Third, New States, of convenient size, not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution. And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying south of thirty-sic degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri compromise line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri compromise line, slavery, or involuntary servitude, (except for crime,) shall be prohibited. From: [http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm](http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm) which is the text of the The Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress March 1, 1845 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 797-8). Texas, has another weird thing other states don’t have- the mineral rights to all lands/waters 3 leagues off the coast, due to their previous claim on them prior to Statehood. [US vs. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 83 (1960)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=363&invol=1&pageno=8) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/72 "2005-03-23T21:44:25Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Nope… check this out, it’s the real deal. > > From: [http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm](http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/two/texannex.htm) > > which is the text of the The Annexation of Texas Joint Resolution of Congress March 1, 1845 (U. S. Statutes at Large, Vol. V, p. 797-8). > > Texas, has another weird thing other states don’t have- the mineral rights to all lands/waters 3 leagues off the coast, due to their previous claim on them prior to Statehood. > > [US vs. Louisiana, 363 U.S. 1, 83 (1960)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=363&invol=1&pageno=8) Note in your quoted portion: “_which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution_.” This means that such subdivision must be approved through the normal constitutional process. So your assertion that it could be done “without needing Congressional assent” is entirely false. And it also means that this provision is _functionally identical_ to the provision of Article IV, Section 3, of the Constitution that provides for similar subdivision of _any_ state. So Texas has nothing that any other state doesn’t also have, except maybe a _limitation_ on subdivision (“not exceeding four in number”), which doesn’t apply to any other state. I think I’m going to start looking for a bumper sticker that says “Texas, Get Over Yourself.” ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/73 "2005-03-23T23:27:04Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Note in your quoted portion: “_which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the federal constitution_.” Even if this provision didn’t exist and the Resolution read the way the Texans always pretend it reads, I’m not convinced such an Act would be constitutional. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/74 "2005-03-24T05:57:48Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > Snip > > I think I’m going to start looking for a bumper sticker that says “Texas, Get Over Yourself.” Get ready. A few years ago I started a Pit thread with that title, and you wouldn’t believe the venom that came back. Some Texans really think that everyone else is jealous because they don’t live in Texas. One woman even started saying that other states have ugly shapes. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/75 "2005-03-24T13:52:08Z")
> [@Cardinal](#): > > One woman even started saying that other states have ugly shapes. Well, Florida does look like a penis. Is that a good or a bad shape? –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/76 "2005-03-24T17:51:10Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Under our first constitution, the [Articles of Confederation](http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html) (1781-1789) you might say the states considered themselves more like individual countries in a confederation. But under the capital-C Constitution (1789-), no. Certain “sovereign” rights that the states enjoyed under the Articles were surrended to the federal government under the Constitution. The post-Civil War amendments moved the Constitution further in that direction. While the Articles of Confederation accorded less sovereingty, responsibility, and power to the central government, it was also explicitly a perpetual union - secession was off the table. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/77 "2005-03-24T19:52:24Z")
I wasn’t referring to the power of secession. I was referring to Article II of the Articles of Confederation: > [@](#): > > Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [March 25, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550/78 "2005-03-25T02:43:53Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > I wasn’t referring to the power of secession. Still, it’s interesting how that association of fully-sovereign states was entered as a “perpetual” one. The Constitution as adopted states as one of its aims to form “a more perfect union”, with the states surrendering unto the Federal Government the key appurtenances of recognized nation-state-hood (power to conduct foreign relations, declare war, outfit a Navy, mint currency, issue patents, naturalize citizens, run the posts, etc.). BTW re: Texas, part of the reason why that article was included may have been, if you recall, that Texas was a recognized _independent_ nation and ally prior to incorporation, and it was to become a state right off the bat, _with no Territorial Administration period_; and that at the time of the Joint resolution (1845) the Republic of Texas _claimed_ a large piece of Mexico (essentially everything NE of the Rio Grande _all the way to its source_) that it did not really control (nor did the Mexicans do so effectively either, most of the time). So you had to state exactly what you intended to do with this annexation which was not of Indian wilderness, but of a sovereign ally. The idea was that multiple states would be formed out of that “Greater Texas”, but that it would not be a total dismemberment that would erase the former republic (and thus reveal it for a land-grabbing sham). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/americans-state-vs-federal-why-is-it-a-big-deal/295550.md?page=3)