Originally Posted by Evil_inKarlate

As much as I like the idea of the states telling the feds to blow it out their bong-hole, TSG and co. are correct on this one. The states can saber-rattle all they want, and the feds can indulge them or not as they see fit, but if no compromise is reached, in the end the states only true recourse is secession.

Originally Posted by countryboy

I don't understand where you guys get the idea that the states haven't a leg to stand on, when the Constitution clearly states otherwise.

Originally Posted by TheHighForester

You should understand that the members of the House Representatives DO NOT REPRESENT THE STATE--they are elected by and represent the people. When the Constitution was drafted and subsequently ratified, this was the subject of a great deal of discussion. At the Convention William Patterson of New Jersey proposed a legislature wherein each state would be equally represented. This was rejected by the larger states (and especially by Virginia) who insisted that the legislature be apportioned by population. The "Great Compromise" which was instituted to resolve this dispute allowed a Senate to be apportioned equally by state, and initially those Senators were chosen by the state legislatures--so it can reasonably be argued (aand it is supported by historical fact) that THE SENATE REPRESENTS THE STATES. But the House of Representatives, apportioned by population and elected by the people, represents ONLY THE PEOPLE, not the state.

Further, the framers of the Constitution fully understood that by instituting a new government, which would derive its authority from the people, they would necessarily take some powers away from the states, such as the powers to collect tariffs, maintain a military and naval establishment, and regulate interstate commerce. Since they were also realists, they did not submit the proposed Constitution for ratification by the states, but instead insisted that it be ratified, within each state, BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OR A CONVENTION OF THE PEOPLE, thereby neatly sidestepping the existing state legislatures. So the actual fact of the matter is that NO STATE EVER JOINED THE UNION, THE PEOPLE JOINED THE UNION. This was done in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the federal government in the face of anticipated state challenges, and to assure the supremacy of federal law over those of the several states.

The states are NOT "the agents of the federal government." In fact, they are not even a part of the federal government, which is in fact a compact among the people existing separately and independently from the states. This leads us to the uniquely American concept of "dual citizenship," under which a person is simultaneously a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the State wherein he resides. This Tenth Amendment movement is interesting, but it has no real foundation in history, in law, or in the Constitutional form of government the American people adopted in 1787 and 1788.

There is a way that the states can assert their rights in the face of perceived federal interference and intransigence. The Constitution itself provides that a convention must be held when called for by two-thirds of the states (see Article Five), and that Amendments to the Constitution may there be proposed. I suggest that you go for it--if you have the nerve.

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Mainly from the fact that the constitution doesn't clearly state otherwise. Actually, it clearly states SO.

Originally Posted by countryboy

Sounds pretty clear to me. What twisted logic do you use to infer otherwise?

Originally Posted by TheHighForester

The only thing you have proved, countryboy, is that you have absolutely no intention of trying to understand the Constitution. I do not mind discussing it with anyone, but I will not waste my time on someone who does not even do me the courtesy of addressing what I actually wrote, and who thinks it clever to edit or omit portions of my explanations.

Go back and reread what I posted before. It was written plainly enough for "common folk."

Originally Posted by Lettuce Head

It would be a more efficient model to eliminate State boundaries and governments and be homogenized into one Federal Government. It would save money for sure, but would it save freedom? As I would say we could all agree, isn't the idea of protecting Freedom an important issue? I think we could all agree on that. I don't see how dropping the identity of the States would help to do that.

Originally Posted by countryboy

The push toward socialism, and perhaps beyond, has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. So no, I don't think we can all agree on that. And that is very unfortunate, and as Eagle88 stated, it is also very dangerous.

Originally Posted by countryboy

And what, pray tell, would lead you to that conclusion?

How would you know what my education is?

Originally Posted by countryboy

Sounds pretty clear to me. What twisted logic do you use to infer otherwise?

Originally Posted by Lettuce Head

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 Jefferson and Madison penned resolutions that gave these States the right to declare that if a federal law was deemed unconstitutional by the State, the law was nullified and would not be enforced within that state. This was an attempt to keep a balance of power because if the Federal Supreme Court, who was part of the Federal Government, had the final word on law, what prevented them from always ruling on the side of the Federal Government? What recourse did the States have to defend themselves from unjust Federal Law?

Our country's history has proven what our founders feared, the Federal Government will seek to extract power wherever and whenever possible. If the States don't draw a line in the sand we might one day have no State to call home.

Originally Posted by dblack

These debates over sovereignty always remind me of the classic cartoon by the late, great B. Kliban (anyone who can find me an image will be a friend forever) - The cartoon shows a king, speaking from a balcony to his subjects, "I am your king, and you'd better do what I say or I can't be king anymore!"