Talk:States' rights/Archive 2

Rights are limits on governmental power. Thus, state and federal rights don't exist. States and the federal government can not have rights, only people may have rights. ♥


 * While this is a readily-comprehensible position to take, and may well have validiity, it really doesn't pertain to this article, as the term "States' rights" has existed ever since the U.S. became a nation, and your denial of the concept will not change this history nor the fact that this is a vaild topic for a Wikipedia article.

Talk:States' rights Archive 1

Co-Sovereignty
There should be a section for how technically the United States is a union of 50 member nations unified into one country, and discuss how the federal government is sovereign in some areas, and the states in the rest.  Chiss Boy 12:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rehnquist Court States' Rights Issues
You still haven't told me who was trying to compel the state to do something. It wasn't her, nor him, nor the federal government. It was the federal government letting one individual try to punish another individual? Do you disagree? And please don't remove the dispute tag. 68.124.185.74 9:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The equal protection clause states just that: equal protection of the laws. The reason the state was compelled to neither provide equal protection of the laws nor allow the feds to do so was because of states' rights interpretations.

This is getting into repetition. I thought I gave good reasons why nothing happened even though something should have happened if only the text of the equal protection clause was applied, and that states' rights court interpretations are the reason why nothing happened. If you disagree, say why instead of repeating the same stuff over and over. If you do, I'll leave the dispute tag for more than a day or two.

Remember that by the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, it's no longer a crime issue. It's an issue that involves statistics that indicate states don't enforce some laws as much as others (who knows why), enumerated powers, an interpretive limits on the commerce clause and equal protection clause to protect areas of state sovereignty, including law enforcement.

The reason federal courts were tried is because of another states' rights interpretation (Cruikshank, Civil Rights Cases) that apply the equal protection clause only to state action, not to state inaction. All of this was spelled out, and you keep acting like you didn't read the Rehnquist decision that includes all of this.

You need to do more than keep repeating the same stuff, and never mentioning which of my answers you disagree with and why, to have a valid dispute.Jimmuldrow 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The dispute box stays as long as this is in dispute, or do you dispute this section is in dispute?


 * Since we are just talking past one another, let's do this binary style. I'll ask you a yes or no question, and then you do the same.  Did anyone in the case sue the state or try to compel the state in any way to do anything through the case?  Yes or no. 69.105.0.115 21:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Because it would have violated the Cruikshank and Civil Rights Cases Court states rights interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause to do so.

As to whether not only Rehnquist (see previous) but many others saw Morrison as part of the Rehnquist Court's states' rights campaign, the Washington Post said the Court was giving states rights that 36 states said they didn't want. Read the following:

The right of rape and domestic violence victims to sue their attackers in federal court--a right that Congress enacted in 1994 and the Supreme Court took away last week in the name of state sovereignty--was "a particularly appropriate remedy for the harm caused by gender-motivated violence." Who says? Not Bill Clinton or Janet Reno or some member of Congress trying to usurp the power of the states. Rather, those are the words of the attorneys general from 36 of the states whose very interests the Supreme Court is so intent on protecting. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last November, these legal guardians of their states (along with the attorney general of Puerto Rico) asserted that the Violence Against Women Act "complements state and local efforts to combat violence against women." They saw the law--and the provision that gave victims the legal right to pursue damages through federal lawsuits--as a legitimate way to address a growing problem that is local in nature but national in scope. Their collective judgment exposes one of the more bizarre aspects of the Supreme Court's recent activism on behalf of state sovereignty: From the states' point of view, this campaign is often pointless and sometimes counterproductive. ...

In their brief in U.S. v. Morrison, the attorneys general said that violence against women is just the kind of problem that the states cannot remedy by themselves. "The States' own studies demonstrate that [their] efforts to combat gender-motivated violence, while substantial, are not sufficient by themselves to remedy the harm caused by such violence or to eliminate its occurrence," they wrote.

If you're going to keep going nuts removing facts clearly stated in the Court opinions (as if you've never read them) and saying you're right, that's not good intentions for a dispute.Jimmuldrow 01:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep saying I haven't read them. I have.  How else do I actually cite large sections of them, section and paragraph, as you don't.  Are you calling me a liar?  I simply disagree with your summary of the reasoning of the decision.  I keep asking because you keep not answering.  I asked if anyone was asking the state do anything, and you said "No. Because it would have violated the Cruikshank and Civil Rights Cases Court states rights interpretations of the Equal Protection Clause to do so."   Are you stating they, either the woman, man, or federal government, was not asking for action from or against the state because they believed those decisions went against them?  They were not asking because the law in question made no provision for them to do so, as I've pointed out before.  At least we agree that no one asked anything from or for the state.


 * Now, if she had won, would anything have happened to the state, or would only an individual have been punished by the federal government. Yes or no.


 * And this WP cite seems to be an editorial as it describes the courts "activism" as "bizarre", something not generally found in a straight news article. Was it a news article about the case or an editorial?  In the second case it's just someone's opinion, and has no bearing on the case, as nowhere in the opinion does it say they decided the case in the name of state sovereignty. 69.105.0.115 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

States' rights are different than federal rights. because if the federal government passes a certain law the state can go ahead and pass a different law saying the complete opposite than what the federal law states.

Morrison is not a state's rights decision and should be removed
As this edit war is not going to be resolved by mutual consent, I move that the Morrison parts be removed for the following reasons.
 * Delete I believe that United States v. Morrison is not a state's rights decision. Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act and let someone who had been sexually assaulted sue their attackers in federal court.  They could sue whether their attackers were prosecuted by the state or not.  The Supreme Court held that Congress did not have power through either the Commerce Clause or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to create a way to punish individuals for violating the rights of another individual.  Whether one agrees with the reasoning of the court or not, this decision did not address any issues of state sovereignty or state power as neither would have been affected by any way the court decided on the issue.  It was thus not a state's rights decision and should be removed. 69.105.0.115 04:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Endless
This is getting into endless repetition. See above and archive for reasons why. Faking it till you make it does not mean there's any indication you've read these Court opinions. After you look up the repeated answers to your repeated questions, lets go from there with no more repetition.

Also, pretending my stuff isn't easy enough to verify amounts to pathological lying at this point.

Again, never reading the Court opinions or checking the facts doesn't mean you're right. It means you're wrong. And deleting half the relevent facts, even though they're very easy to verify for anyone that goes to the trouble of reading the Court opinions, proves you have no clue what you're talking about.

Also, I've answered endlessly that Rehnquist (here again you have to look at the facts before saying you're right) gave many states' rights reasons why it would have been a mistake to attempt to sue states, and other states' rights problems to attempting any other course of action. To pretend you don't know this because you never check the facts after being told what they are and how to check them a gazillion times amounts to yet more pathological lying.

You're not being constructive with never-ending make believe, never checking the facts and always saying you're right. Jimmuldrow 04:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If I haven't checked them, how can I cite them section and paragraph? And it is endless, which is why I've sought third party help and brought the issue up for a vote. And please Assume good faith, as is required. I have been debating points, and you have been calling me irrational and a liar. 69.105.0.115 04:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As for good faith, you act as if I never answered your question and repeat the same stuff over and over again, and did you recite section and paragraph where you're wrong and it's your fault? Or did you reverse your story and say you're right, as with the whole reasonable???/rational thing.

And tell the truth about one thing, at least. How honest was it to pretend my sources were too difficult to verify? How dishonest was that? Answer.Jimmuldrow 04:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I did check them and in my opinion you are incorrectly stating what they say, as I've said. I asked you to cite section and paragraph as legal scholars generally do, and you still have not done it. 69.105.0.115 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If you never tried the Edit/Find thing, you're still dumb. Give one example.Jimmuldrow 05:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Dumb? Personal attack? I think so. And no, I never tried it, and I don't care to as it's much easier for you to just tell me, as you already know where they are to be found in article. 69.105.0.115 05:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would very sincerely like for people to point out factual errors, an make constructive efforts to make this article better. I'm sure someone can provide some factual assistance here. Hello, someone? Anyone?

As to what these opinions say, tell me something I don't know. That I could look and check and verify.Jimmuldrow 05:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion, based on WP:3O
I saw that this article needed a third opinion, so I would like to offer up my reading of the subject. In the particular case at hand, while the chief justice described the possible ramifications of upholding the law as pertaining states' rights, it did not concern the supremacy of the federal government over state law, per se. The federal government did not claim sole or overriding jurisdiction; it claimed supplementary jurisdiction. Justice Rehnquist offered up states' rights as an example of the slippery slope that expanding federal jurisdiction could lead to, but the central question hinged on the federal government's ability to affect the rights of individuals in the sphere of sexual liability under the Commerce Clause. The fact that the states would then be required to enforce the Equal Protection Clause (in theory, not necessarily in practice) is of questionable relevance, at best. However, the case is still relevant to states' rights, as an example of the Rehnquist Court's more active restraint of federal powers because they were afraid that expanding federal powers would eventually impact on states' rights. This is how I would word it; I now leave it up to the editors more actively involved in the article to accept or reject my opinion of the matter. Captainktainer * Talk 08:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would be inclined to go along with that.Jimmuldrow 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Although I disagree that they said they were afraid that in the future this could lead to infringement on states' rights.  The issues of the case were police power of Feds in my opinion.  The case did involve Federalism, and perhaps this article needs to be merged into that one, which would solve two problems, the dispute over Morrison, as it clearly was a federalism decision, and the other over the definition of states' rights and whether it even exists, as it could be the section of federalism about states' powers and immunities. 69.105.0.115 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't delete from the discussion page, 69.105.0.115.Jimmuldrow 21:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well?
I'm more than willing to accept Captainktainer's assistance and suggestion.Jimmuldrow 00:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I think mediation resolved the dispute in question by two to one.Jimmuldrow 04:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Debate is open for 7 days if a proposal has been formally made. What do you think about the merge or rename proposal? 68.125.167.9 09:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

 * Merge I think that since it is technically correct that there is no such things as States' rights, only individual rights, and as all issues on this page can also be classified as Federalism, such as Medical marijuana and assisted suicide as well as all State sovereignty and Federal power issues, that the two pages be merged. 69.105.0.115 02:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps renamed to Federalism in the United States. 69.105.0.115 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. States do, however, have powers granted in the 10th Amendment. As long as that hasn't been repealed I think the term "States' rights" covers State powers that do exist. Perhaps not strongly, but enough to have an article on it, since it will be argued again and again.


 * Federalism is generally the argument directly opposed to a belief that states have the powers to do such things. Merging opposites seems like a bad idea to me.--68.114.223.106 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Don't merge. They are opposites.  Check "what links here". -THB 21:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. From what I've seen from googling, federalism is in between the extremes, confederations (when they exist) are at the decentralized, states' rights extreme and unitary governments are at the centralized extreme. So states' rights and federalism are not quite the same. Also, the phrase "states' rights" is closely tied to specific events in United States history. Federalism is an international concept. I say don't merge for these reasons.Jimmuldrow 02:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. No one on the Confederate side of the American Civil War ever stated that they were willing to die for "federalism", and there were not any children ever named "Federalism" to my knowledge, in contrast to the notable Confederate general States Rights Gist, which was his name, not a nickname.  Just the fact of how important and inflamatory the words themselves have been is important in determining what should be an article.  "States rights" has often been a codeword for racism in U.S. politics, especially Southern politics; "federalism" likewise carries no such baggage.  Also, "federalism" applies in a non-U.S. context in a way that I have never seen "states rights" used, although I do wonder the extent to which it has been cited and used in Mexico, Brazil, and especially, Australia, to name some other federal countries comprised of "states".  Rlquall 22:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

With Respect--Fix Bayonets! 15:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge.
 * 1) 1 -- The issues are related, but never the less they do merit distinction. As aptly stated above, Southerners did not die for "Federalism." See [[Naming_the_American_Civil_War#War_for_States.27_Rights  War for States' Rights].
 * 2) 2 -- As noted in paragraph #1 of the "Federalism" article, in the U.S., the term "federalism" has shifted meaning somewhat in the last 200 or so years, and such shift in meaning bears on the subject of States' Rights and federalism.

For reasons stated above, if no one objects within the next couple of days, I'd like to remove the Merge tag.Jimmuldrow 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why'd You Delete From The Third Opinion Discussion?
Why's you delete comments from discussion? Like the third opinion one?Jimmuldrow 12:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete any comments, just moved them out of Merge Proposal section. That section is for discussing merge or renaming. 68.122.9.232 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Discussion History, you

Wiped Out: Thanks. I would be inclined to go along with that.Jimmuldrow 17:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And replaced it with:
 * Thanks. Although I disagree that they said they were afraid that in the future this could lead to infringement on states' rights. The issues of the case were police power of Feds in my opinion. The case did involve Federalism, and perhaps this article needs to be merged into that one, which would solve two problems, the dispute over Morrison, as it clearly was a federalism decision, and the other over the definition of states' rights and whether it even exists, as it could be the section of federalism about states' powers and immunities. 69.105.0.115 21:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If I did it was accidental. Sorry.  Any opinion on merger or rename proposal? 68.122.9.232 01:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it was accidental, then I'll forget it happened. I haven't thought about the merger issue yet.Jimmuldrow 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)