# States' Rights in the USA - why? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2007, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234 "2007-11-13T14:12:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2007, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/41 "2007-11-13T22:51:43Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Virtually nobody actually cares about states rights or federal power unless they’re a state or federal office holder. People care about other issues: slavery, canals, gold standards, womens suffrage, alcohol, abortion, unions, marijuana, whatever. If they think they can convince enough people in the country to agree with them, then they want it to be a federal issue. If they can’t convince enough people throughout the country but can convince enough people in their local area to agree with them, then they want it to be a state issue. People who argue for or against states rights are just looking for the most favorable venue for their pet peeve. [/QUOTE] Thank you for insulting me and trivializing my opinions about what a just and representative government can and should be. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/42 "2007-11-14T02:03:36Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] Virtually nobody actually cares about states rights or federal power unless they’re a state or federal office holder. People care about other issues: slavery, canals, gold standards, women’s suffrage, alcohol, abortion, unions, marijuana, whatever. If they think they can convince enough people in the country to agree with them, then they want it to be a federal issue. If they can’t convince enough people throughout the country but can convince enough people in their local area to agree with them, then they want it to be a state issue. People who argue for or against states rights are just looking for the most favorable venue for their pet peeve. [/QUOTE] I don’t believe that myself. The most basic point is that the U.S. is one of the largest countries in the world by both population and land area. Federalizing most things simply wouldn’t work. People tend to focus on hot button issues like abortion, gun rights, and gay marriage. That stuff is mainly just fluff meant to keep the populace endlessly jabbering about things that dont have much relevance to the health of the nation (not to say that some of these aren’t very important to some people). Once you start federalizing issues, you will start to run into problems that have day to day importance. How could Congress draw up a comprehensive water rights bill that takes care of both Arizona and Maine equally? You would just end up with a Congressional bill with 100 sub-parts to address the various situations in different areas of the country. What about polution control? California obviously has separate issues than Wyoming. How would federalizing what even a fraction of what the states do even work? Congress supposedly has a full workload now. How could they take on many times that workload and do it as effectively as each state does? The states all have their own executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Alaska has one congressional representative and two senators. Are those people supposed to represent Alaska as well as the entire current governmental body in Alaska already? As you try to work around these issues, the answer quickly becomes “why”? India has strong states and even Canada with 1/10th of the U.S. population has strong provinces to some degree for the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/43 "2007-11-14T02:27:31Z")
[QUOTE=SuaSponte] But, of course, Jim Crow was ultimately found to be _un_constitutional. It was a misapplication of states’ rights, not the ultimate example of the propriety of the principle. Sua [/QUOTE] I’ve always been of the belief that ideas get to be _defined_ by their proponents. The rest of us can decide whether they make any sense or not, or whether they’ll work in various situations, but the proponents get to define what they _are_, what they _mean_. By that metric, Jim Crow was _exactly_ what states’ rights was all about. It may have ultimately been found by the rest of the nation to be inconsistent with the _Constitution_, thank goodness, but that didn’t change the underlying idea. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/44 "2007-11-14T02:34:53Z")
[Reagan’s campaign strategist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater) explains how “states’ rights” became used as a code word for bigotry, as to a large degree it still is today (with gun rights tossed in for good measure): > [@](#): > > Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster… > > Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…? > > Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘nigger’ - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. > > And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘Nigger, nigger.’ Reagan starting his campaign for President by announcing his support for “states’ rights” in the Jim Crow hotbed of Philadelphia, Mississippi was quite well understood by his audience, you can be sure. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/45 "2007-11-14T02:56:07Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] [Reagan’s campaign strategist](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater) explains how “states’ rights” became used as a code word for bigotry, as to a large degree it still is today (with gun rights tossed in for good measure):Reagan starting his campaign for President by announcing his support for “states’ rights” in the Jim Crow hotbed of Philadelphia, Mississippi was quite well understood by his audience, you can be sure. [/QUOTE] But that may be good for demonizing Republicans or Reagan (may be, another debate) but can’t someone espouse the idea of states rights as a good thing, even though others have perverted the idea and turned it into support for Jim Crow laws? In other words, maybe Hitler championed the idea of dog ownership to breed a race of superdogs to kill Jews (hypothetical). Does that mean that dog lovers are forever to be compared to Hitler because of this? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/46 "2007-11-14T03:04:21Z")
Not without being very careful with the wording of it, no, you can’t. The term “states’ Rights” has permanent baggage dating back to, and inextricable from, the Civil War and Southern secession in the cause of slavery. The war, btw, did establish Federal supremacy over the states permanently and incontestably, despite what one hears from the self-styled Federalist Society and their fellow travelers even today. Deal with it, guys. It isn’t about “demonizing” Republicans at all (their actions in embracing the Southern Strategy speak for themselves, and did you notice it was Reagan’s own campaign strategist I was quoting?), it’s just about historical and linguistic accuracy. That includes context and code meanings, like it or not. Words mean what they’re generally understood to mean, and that includes political code words. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/47 "2007-11-14T04:30:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Thank you for insulting me and trivializing my opinions about what a just and representative government can and should be. You’re welcome. I did in fact read your post but I disagreed with it. You made some accurate statements about issues involving state vs federal powers and what effect they have on American politics. But what you wrote doesn’t invalidate my point - that there’s probably less than a thousand people in the country who actually care about the issues you described. They may use the issues you described but only to carry out whatever agenda it is that they actually care about. Look at gay marriage (to use a topical current example that’s already been brought up). Sure there are people arguing that states rights are a valid reason to ban gay marriages in states where it’s unpopular - but then these same people will argue that we need a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages everywhere in the country. And gay marriage proponents will say that states that support gay marriage should be allowed to legalize them because of states rights - and then they argue that other states should have to legalize gay marriages also because of the full faith and credit clause. Both sides will argue loudly and invoke states rights and federal power but what they’re really arguing about is gay marriage. ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/48 "2007-11-14T13:26:17Z")
[QUOTE=SuaSponte] That is a decidedly incorrect statement. The Constitution maintains uniformity of a limited set of rights amongst the states (itself a relatively recent development - the Bill of Rights did not apply to state law until well into the history of the U.S.), and ascribes to the federal government the exclusive authority to make the law governing a relatively limited state of interstate and international issues. It does nothing to regulate the uniformity in laws amongst the states, except in those limited areas. Sua [/QUOTE] So when some state ruling or law gets overturned by the Supreme Court, it’s because of the Tooth Fairy? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t institute segregation in schools? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t make abortion illegal? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t make sodomy illegal? Good thing we have a Tooth Fairy, because that dumb ol’ Constitution is good for nothin’. I said “most.” “Most” is a relative word, just like “limited.” Of course the Constitution is limited, because, well, the Constitution limits itself. My point was that if you want to have a state where laws are uniform in all provinces, you start with a constitution (c.f., European countries). The fact that the U.S. Constitution is very limited doesn’t change that. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/49 "2007-11-14T15:37:04Z")
[QUOTE=guizot] So when some state ruling or law gets overturned by the Supreme Court, it’s because of the Tooth Fairy? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t institute segregation in schools? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t make abortion illegal? The Tooth Fairy is why a state can’t make sodomy illegal? Good thing we have a Tooth Fairy, because that dumb ol’ Constitution is good for nothin’. I said “most.” “Most” is a relative word, just like “limited.” Of course the Constitution is limited, because, well, the Constitution limits itself. My point was that if you want to have a state where laws are uniform in all provinces, you start with a constitution (c.f., European countries). The fact that the U.S. Constitution is very limited doesn’t change that. [/QUOTE] Actually, in the context in which you used it, “most” did not refer to quantity, but instead was used as emphasis. Of course the Constitution is why certain state laws have been overturned. But the point I made, and which you fail to refute, is that the U.S. Constitution, due to its limited scope, is decidedly not a primary cause of uniformity in state laws. Indeed, it can been strongly argued that the primary cause of uniformity in state laws are the Uniform laws drafted and advocated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which was founded in 1892 and has drafted over 200 of them. The Uniform Laws (and Model laws, which is a catch-all category of proposed laws drafted by other organizations, and have not had quite as much success in obtaining universal adoption) in all probability govern considerably more of day-to-day life than does the Constituion. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/50 "2007-11-14T17:10:37Z")
> [@](#): > > The Constitution maintains uniformity of a limited set of rights amongst the states (itself a relatively recent development - the Bill of Rights did not apply to state law until well into the history of the U.S.) A relatively recent development? It’s been part of the Constitution since 1868. The states were immune from the Bill of Rights for only the first seventy-nine years under the Constitution; they’ve been subject to it for the last one hundred and thirty-nine years. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/51 "2007-11-14T17:41:37Z")
Not all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated. Those parts that have been were incorporated over a series of cases. There is no one point at which the whole Bill of Rights was applied to the States. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/52 "2007-11-14T18:19:23Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] A relatively recent development? It’s been part of the Constitution since 1868. The states were immune from the Bill of Rights for only the first seventy-nine years under the Constitution; they’ve been subject to it for the last one hundred and thirty-nine years. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > In 1897 the Supreme Court began declaring that the states were bound by various portions of the Bill of Rights, and ultimately applied the establishment clause to the states in 1947. (The Court had rejected earlier efforts to apply the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1873 and 1884.) [http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfreereligion.htm](http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfreereligion.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/53 "2007-11-14T18:45:11Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Not all of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated. Those parts that have been were incorporated over a series of cases. There is no one point at which the whole Bill of Rights was applied to the States. [/QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Incorporated or Not Incorporated? > 1st Amendment: Fully incorporated. > 2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected). > 3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated. > 4th Amendment: Fully incorporated. > 5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment. > 6th Amendment: Fully incorporated. > 7th Amendment: Not incorporated. > 8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection agains “cruel and unusual punishments,” but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the “excessive fines” and “excessive bail” protections. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm) ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/54 "2007-11-14T18:51:22Z")
My own personal researcher! Thanks, **Gfactor**. Any chance I can send you some other stuff I need done? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/55 "2007-11-14T18:56:05Z")
Not to detract from what **Gfactor** has provided, but I found [this Wikipedia article on incorporation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights))’s list to be apparently both accurate and thorough: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Amendment I > > Establishment of Religion > > ``` > * Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). > > ``` > > Free Exercise of Religion > > ``` > * Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). > > ``` > > Freedom of Speech > > ``` > * Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). > > ``` > > Freedom of the press > > ``` > * Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931). > > ``` > > Freedom of assembly > > ``` > * DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937). > > ``` > > Petition for redress of grievances > > ``` > * It appears that no one case incorporates this right individually. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 (1963): After listing several First Amendment rights, including redress of grievances, the Court wrote: "It has long been established that these First Amendment freedoms are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States." > > ``` > > Freedom of association > > ``` > * NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958): Although the First Amendment lists no "right of association", "Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly." > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment II > > Right to bear arms > > ``` > * Has not been incorporated. According to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Parker v. District of Columbia, "The Second Amendment is one of the few Bill of Rights provisions that has not yet been held to be incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment." All supreme court jurisprudence on the Second Amendment predates Due Process incorporation doctrine except US v Miller 307 U.S. 174 (US 1939), which was a challenge to a federal law unrelated to incorporation. Incorporation of Second Amendment was rejected in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) and United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment III > > Freedom from quartering of soldiers > > ``` > * Has not been incorporated. But Griswold v. Connecticut, 116 U.S. 252 (1965): mentions this right indirectly: ". . . [S]pecific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. . . . The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers 'in any house' in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy." > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment IV > > Unreasonable search and seizure > > ``` > * Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949): The Court held that although the Fourth Amendment applied to the states, the exclusionary rule (unconstitutionally obtained evidence cannot be used at trial), which the Court had been held to be an essential corollary to the Fourth Amendment, did not. The Court later incorporated the exclusionary rule in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). > > ``` > > Warrant requirements > > ``` > * Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964). > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment V > > Presentment or indictment of grand jury > > ``` > * Has not been incorporated. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884). > > ``` > > Double jeopardy > > ``` > * Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969). > > ``` > > Self-incrimination > > ``` > * Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964). > > ``` > > Miranda warning > > ``` > * Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966): The Court held that what is now called the Miranda warning was an essential corollary to the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. > > ``` > > Taking of private property > > ``` > * Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897). (Strictly speaking, this case appears to have been decided on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, without recourse to incorporation of the Fifth Amendment. Nevertheless, a number of subsequent cases have cited it for the proposition that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. E.g., Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1980). > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment VI > > Speedy trial > > ``` > * Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967). > > ``` > > Public trial > > ``` > * In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948). > > ``` > > Trial by impartial jury > > ``` > * Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968): The Court held that in state criminal proceedings, where a person could be sentenced to a significant time in prison, he or she had a right to a trial by jury. However, there is no similar right in juvenile delinquency trials. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (1971). > > ``` > > Unanimous jury verdict > > ``` > * Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979): The Court has never incorporated the Sixth Amendment's implicit guarantee that convictions be obtained only from unanimous twelve-member juries, but in Burch, the Justices did hold that when as few as six jurors are empaneled, their verdict must be unanimous. > > ``` > > Notice of accusation > > ``` > * Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313 (1972). > > ``` > > Confrontation of adverse witnesses > > ``` > * Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965). > > ``` > > Compulsory process to obtain witness testimony > > ``` > * Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967). > > ``` > > Assistance of counsel in capital criminal cases > > ``` > * Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). > > ``` > > Assistance of counsel in all felony cases > > ``` > * Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). > > ``` > > Assistance of counsel in imprisonable misdemeanor cases > > ``` > * Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (1972). > > ``` > > Miranda warning > > ``` > * (See above.) > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment VII > > Jury trial in civil cases > > ``` > * Has not been incorporated. See Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974). > > ``` > > [edit] Amendment VIII > > Excessive bail > > ``` > * Has not been incorporated. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), quotes the Eighth Amendment in full, then says, "The provision is applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." However, the cases cited by the Court do not address bail. > > ``` > > Excessive fines > > ``` > * Cooper Industries v. Leatherman Tool Group, Inc., 532 U.S. 424 (2001). > > ``` > > Cruel and unusual punishment > > ``` > * Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962). > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/56 "2007-11-14T18:56:25Z")
[QUOTE=villa] My own personal researcher! Thanks, **Gfactor**. Any chance I can send you some other stuff I need done? [/QUOTE] I’ll send you my rate sheet. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![guizot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guizot/32/3636_2.png) [@guizot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/guizot)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2007, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/57 "2007-11-14T21:40:45Z")
[QUOTE=SuaSponte] …it can been strongly argued that the primary cause of uniformity in state laws are the Uniform laws drafted and advocated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which was founded in 1892 and has drafted over 200 of them. [/QUOTE] Did those those laws came out of thin air? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/58 "2007-11-15T02:15:29Z")
Here is my big question: If the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights guaranteed to all, and the 14th amendment forces states to recognize fundamental rights, then why are only some incorporated? Why is the 1st amendment valid to the states, but the 7th amendment (jury trial in matters over $20) has no validity to the states? It makes no sense to me. They were all ratified together. I know the real reason is because SCOTUS hasn’t said so, but why? ---
**Author:** ![VarlosZ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/d78d45/32.png) [@VarlosZ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VarlosZ)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/59 "2007-11-15T02:47:01Z")
> [@Elvis](#): > > The term “states’ Rights” has permanent baggage dating back to, and inextricable from, the Civil War and Southern secession in the cause of slavery. Ok, then change the name, because a federalist system is probably way better than homgenous laws governing a decidely heterogenous nation. You can mostly let the states do as they please so long as you take the 14th Amendment at face value: > [@Amendment XIV](#): > > **Section 1.** All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2007, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234/60 "2007-11-15T03:25:51Z")
[QUOTE=jtgain] Here is my big question: If the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights guaranteed to all, and the 14th amendment forces states to recognize fundamental rights, then why are only some incorporated? [/QUOTE] Because the Court has said the entire Bill of Rights isn’t fundamental. The Court has struggled for a test: As Justice White said in _Duncan v. Louisiana_ > [@](#): > > The question has been asked whether a right is among those “‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions,’” whether it is “basic in our system of jurisprudence,” and whether it is “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.” The claim before us is that the right to trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment meets these tests. The position of Louisiana, on the other hand, is that the Constitution imposes upon the States no duty to give a jury trial in any criminal case, regardless of the seriousness of the crime or the size of the punishment which may be imposed. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/duncan.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/duncan.html) The Court rejected blanket incorporation in several cases, starting with the _Slaughterhouse Cases_: > [@](#): > > It would be the vainest show of learning to attempt to prove by citations of authority, that up to the adoption of the recent amendments, no claim or pretence was set up that those rights depended on the Federal government for their existence or protection, beyond the very few express limitations which the Federal Constitution imposed upon the States – such, for instance, as the prohibition against ex post facto laws, bills of attainder, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts. But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the States, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the States, and without that of the Federal government. Was it the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, by the simple declaration that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government?.. [http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/slaughter.html](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/slaughter.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/states-rights-in-the-usa-why/426234.md?page=4)