THe Civil War didn’t end state sovereignty, it only established that states can’t leave the union. States still control the bulk of governance in this country and that’s not going to change.
Back to this. What specific sovereign rights do you believe have been taken away from the States? Should the States be allowed to form/endorse official religions? Suppress free speech? Take away fire arms? Implement racist/sexist laws? What are we missing that you feel is destroying America?
Article VI, Clause 2:
Got it?
First of all, to understand the “solution,” you’d have to understand the premise, which has nothing to do with the Civil War, or, the alignment of states on either side. It does however have everything to do with our more contemporary federal regulatory agencies and the mandates they have been imposing on the states for over a half century.
Now as to current examples of states where success or failure is reflected through ‘policy brand,’ the American landscape is litterd with them.
The solutions I speak of are already out there, and they’re not coming from the federal government.
Who ever said the Civil War put and “end” to “state sovereignty?” You left no quote, so I’m asking.
As for ‘state control,’ I think you’d better take a look at ALL those federal agencies that are given power and authority over states not granted in the Constitution - EPA is a good place to start…
“Back to this”
Yep, back that pesky document - The US Constitution/Amendments that keep hounding those who’d like to forget specifically what it actually states.
If you understand the broad powers granted the federal government by our Constitution, also understand that those powers are in SPECIFIC ENUMERATED AREAS. State government, state laws are vital in all those areas that are not left exclusively to the federal government. Guess what, that’s a lot of AREAS!
“Should the States be allowed to form/endorse official religions? Suppress free speech? Take away fire arms? Implement racist/sexist laws? What are we missing that you feel is destroying America?”
Suggestion: “States” should be singular - State. Now you’ve got something relevant to your follow-up questions.
States have to comply with federal law, per the Supremacy Clause, and since the war they can’t secede if they don’t like it. IOW states can only do what the feds *let *them do. Where in there do you see room for something you can call “state sovereignty”?
Elvis, the supremacy clause only applies to the limited areas the federal government has been given power over.
Furthermore, the entire burden of enforcing federal law is on the federal government. States are under no obligation to assist. And since a general police power is specifically denied the federal government, their ability to enforce the law is sorely limited on their own.
There are *no *effective limits on the federal government’s supremacy over the states. If you think otherwise, just point out one single thing that the states can do against the federal government’s will.
Neither can they hinder or deny or work against federal law.
Ever hear of the FBI?
You’re amazing.
Ahhh…okay. Thought so. Have fun!
The two sentences are not incongruous, unless of course you choose to dismiss the key word - “end” in the first sentence.
For all the encroaching on both states and individual rights the federal government has been doing over the past several decades, it does not mean that either is without ANY recourse to ward off this federal creep. In fact, you’re seeing more resistance from state governments now than in recent memory. This federal government is being successfully challenged in the highest courts. And “resistance” to federal overreach i.e. the mandate, is growing stronger, not weaker in many states.
Take the discussion of states rights and sovereignty to another thread, please.
If Obama is so foolish as to inject himself into this case (ala Henry Louis Gates, or Trayvon Martin), then he will destroy himself. As others have said, if found gilty (and sentenced to death), there will be appeal after endless appeal-and nothing will happen. Meanwhile,maybe Nidal will do everyone a favor and refuse treatment (though a urinary tract infection is a messy way to go).
How?
How?
If he were to issue unfounded and bizarre speculations about the case (as he did in the case of the Gates case). Notice I sad “IF”.
Look, Obama is a graduate of a prestigious law school. Yet, he made a statement “The Cambridge police behaved stupidly”.
He later admitted that he spoke before he even bothered to read the official Cambridge PD report.
For a guy who claims to be a brilliant lawyer, this is quite odd behavior.
I’d like to point out again that he didn’t inject himself into those cases. He was asked to comment on them and he did. I also don’t think his statements had anything to do with the ultimate outcome of either situation. (I’m not sure you can even call the Gates thing a case.) Would you mind explaining what would count as a similarly foolish statement about this case and how it would “destroy” Obama? I’ll explain ahead of time that he is already connected to this case because he has already spoken about and it’s a federal prosecution - he is involved with both because he’s the president.
Well, it is quite obvious that Obama has gone out of his way to bury the murders-he refers to it as “workplace violence”…somehow mass murder is not terrorism. If he decides to comment upon the proceedings, he will be seen as upstaging the court martial. And if a death sentence is pronounced, he risks having to authorize the sentence.which will put him at odds with the muslim community. For these reasons he will want to have the case turn into an endless series of appeals, so as to have it forgotten.
Where to begin? Better question: why to begin? There’s an amazing list of things that are wrong with this post. I explained the terrorism thing upthread with a link. Perhaps you should read it. Anyway, aren’t you inveighing against Obama commenting on this case? If so, why do you want him to pronounce that it’s terrorism?
By whom?
He is in favor of the death penalty.
Which Muslim community? Do you think a lot of American Muslims would oppose the death penalty for this guy?
And how do you believe Obama will bring about this endless series of appeals?
Ok, this comment is absurd. Why would Muslims get offended by Obama being tough on the Major?
We don’t like him any more than most Americans do. Hell, we cheered as loudly as most Americans when Obama retired Osama Bin Laden.
Beyond that, most of us don’t object to the death penalty.