The erosion of states’ rights

The erosion of states’ rights

By Joel Ogle on April 4, 2010

The federal government has for decades slowly tightened their grip on the states. Whether it be through legislation arising in Congress, court cases paving the way through the judicial branch or the president exercising executive authority, Washington D.C. is now our heart and soul.

Americans must understand that in our history the federal government has not always been as expansive and encompassing on our lives such as it is today. The start of our country found men who felt as though the states were the entities closest to the lives of the citizens in the country. Much of this feeling came from the grip for which England had upon the Colonies. It has only been since the Great Depression and President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal that the federal government has shaped our daily lives so significantly. Today, as has been the same for the past century, we find ourselves with the question of do we want to relinquish more power to the federal government.

The United States Supreme Court recently granted certiorari and heard arguments regarding the second amendment case McDonald v. Chicago. The case poses the question of whether the second amendment should be binding upon the states through the incorporation of the fourteenth amendment due process clause.

We must first remember what the second amendment says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” We must also remember that the citizens are being protected from the federal government in the Bill of Rights not the states. The question for which McDonald poses is at the core of states rights.

Throw out the argument of being for or against the possession of a handgun and look at the larger picture. If states lose the power to handle gun laws and act under their own power how much sooner will other rights be taken away from the states. It is not sensible to make Texas adhere to the same law as Connecticut does. It makes no sense from both an ideology perspective and economic perspective.

The federalist system we adhere to on a daily basis with the federal, state and local governments is crucial to our way of life. With the building of power in Washington we are slowly seeing this system erode away. State’s rights are being transplanted into the monster that is the federal government.

Every point in our day we live by the rule of government. Do we really want the people who are furthest away from us making the simplest of decisions in our daily lives? The individuals at the local and state level have a better feeling for what is best for us in our hometowns. Gun laws in each state vary and the people are the ones that need to make these decisions. The people will not be given this ability in their separate cities, counties and states if the federal government believes a uniform law suits the country best.

6 Comments

4 years 15 weeks ago, 9:32 PM

ecaman

ecaman's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2613
Join Date:
Jul 2009
Location:
Payson, UT, United States
Excellent argument

Thanks for posting this, Sam. I wonder how many of us have really thought this through completely. I believe that all of us on this site would want McDonald vs. Chicago to be decided in favor of McDonald, i.e., the right of any citizen to own firearms (to keep and bear arms). However, I also believe that the majority of us here would want less federal interference in our individual rights. I would personally like to see a federal concealed carry permit law enacted, whereby any citizen of the US would have the right to carry concealed anywhere within the nation. Oops! - again, that's an abrogation of states rights. Is it possible to have it both ways?

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. (Mark Twain).
4 years 15 weeks ago, 9:38 PM

luckybychoice

luckybychoice's picture


Rank:
Secretary of the Treasury
Points:
6774
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
United States
well ecaman

CCW laws are already recripricol from state to state,unfortunately not all states are onboard,but i believe Iowa just passed a CC law,i've got to check for sure but i know it was doing well,and that is a big step forward for Iowa,the argument over a federal law allowing CC in any state is that that the federal Government does not have the authority to make that law a reality.

i tried being reasonable,i didn't like it, NRA LIFE MEMBER,USMC VETERAN
4 years 15 weeks ago, 9:50 PM

ecaman

ecaman's picture

Rank:
General
Points:
2613
Join Date:
Jul 2009
Location:
Payson, UT, United States
LBC

If they don't have the authority in the case of a federal CCW, then they don't have the authority to pass the health care bill, one part of which says that individuals MUST buy health insurance.
As a matter of fact, I'm not at all sure that they did have such authority.
However, what about the argument that says that the federal government is supreme, and has authority over all states? If this is true, it follows that any any federal law that is passed immediately becomes the law of the land, superseding all state laws.
We have repeatedly seen the federal courts declare state laws invalid (unconstitutional). How far, then, does federal authority extend?

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man. (Mark Twain).
4 years 15 weeks ago, 9:55 PM

HampsterW

HampsterW's picture

Rank:
Secretary of State
Points:
7723
Join Date:
Jan 2010
Location:
Cottonwood Heights, Utah, United States
Not far

~

Change you can truly believe in comes from the barrel of a gun---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ron Paul 2012----Vote the bastards out!---------------------------------
4 years 15 weeks ago, 10:00 PM

ebbots

ebbots's picture

Rank:
Lieutenant Colonel
Points:
64
Join Date:
Jul 2009
Location:
The FREE State of, Arizona, United States
Too close

Getting too close for My comfort

4 years 15 weeks ago, 2:11 AM

luckybychoice

luckybychoice's picture


Rank:
Secretary of the Treasury
Points:
6774
Join Date:
May 2009
Location:
United States
10th ammendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

this is why the states are sueing the gov on the health care bill,now i know that obama had to of wargamed this scenario months ago because his(gov) lawyers have already said that the states will loose this argument,why? i don't know myself,all i can think is that this centralized gov has been allowed to run a muck for too long,$$$$$ talks

i tried being reasonable,i didn't like it, NRA LIFE MEMBER,USMC VETERAN
samD's picture
Posted by: samD
4 years 15 weeks ago
Views:
604
Comments:
6

Rating Overview

This text will be replaced

Recent Activity