The states very definitely DO have some rights, and they are significant. The problem is that many people don't understand the uniquely American concept of "dual sovereignty," and how it allots to both states and to the federal government the right to make laws and work on behalf of the people. It is surely also true that sometimes the rights of the states and the authority of the federal government conflict, and it is these occasions which most often lead to disputes over "State's Rights."

The states have a right to govern which is derived from the consent of the people who live within that state. On their behalf, the states levies and spends money, it makes regulations which govern the behavior of the citizens within that state (but only within that state--Texas, for example, does not make laws for the people of California, nor vice versa), and it provides services to the people of the state--schools, roads, courts, etc.

The federal government was formed separately from the states, and it does not derive its authority and sovereignty from the states, but directly from the people of ALL the states. The federal constitution, which was approved by the people, asserts that federal law will take precedence over those of the states. Some powers were given by the people exclusively to the federal government--the right to mint coins and regulate a currency, and the right to maintain an army and a navy being examples. These federal powers are enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution also says in the 10th Amendment, that all powers not specifically grated to the federal government are "reserved to the states, or to the people."

It is the 10th Amendment which is most often at issue in arguments between the state and federal authorities. Sometimes the states want to use their "reserved powers" to do something specific, and this can cause conflict. Essentially, this is what drove the nation to Civil War in 1861--the states in the South wanted to continue to keep some people in perpetual bondage. That was the "State's Right" which they defended on the battlefield, and they lost. As a consequence of that conflict the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were added to the constitution, ending slavery, defining "citizen" to include all those who had been born in the US, even those born as slaves, and guaranteeing to citizens the right to vote--i.e., the right to civic participation. Likewise, the "State's Rights" movement of the 1950s and 1960 defended the "State's Right" to operate segregated facilities for its citizens (including schools). It has been my observation, based upon experiences that these, that "State's Rights" is an issue which never stands alone. It arises when the state or states want to do something particular (usually abusive to some portion of its citizens), and are blocked from doing so by the federal government.

One final note in explanation. The advocates of the "10th Amendment Movement," who have introduced legislation in numerous states aimed at curtailing federal power, keep reciting that amendment, "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."

They take this to mean that the States have the right to do everything that is not specifically prohibited to them or enumerated as one of the powers of the federal government. I will disagree with this vehemently. All authority belongs to the people. The states and the federal government have each been granted by them certain sovereign authority, but it is the people, not the states, and not the federal government, who should have the final say. This ultimate authority must be wisely used to limit the powers of both the states and the federal government.

In this instance, I think what these states are complaining about is the implementing of some federal mandates without federal funding for said mandates. It is bad enough that the feds want to nullify some laws that were passed by a majority vote, they also demand implementation of other costly programs that they expect the states to foot the bill for.
I do not feel that Federal law should automatically trump state law that was passed by a majority of the voters in that state.
The issue of slavery was one where they simply could not come to a compromise, thus civil war. I sincerly doubt that any of the current disagreements will lead to that.

__________________
It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. Henry Ford

As a form of modern civil rights, the Tenth Amendment qualifies as a basis of authority for any privileges and immunities pursuant to it.

In my view, the 10A preserves the privilege and immunity of nullification of federal authority through the reserved powers clause.

That the South miss-applied States' rights does not render nugatory, the privilege and immunity of nullification of federal authority by the states, or the people as enumerated in our Tenth Amendment to the supreme code law of the land.

I think the States should take the opposite point of view; by meeting the Standard of Weights and Measures fixed by the general government of the Union, concerning the general welfare; and, request and require that the Debts of the several United States be paid. It could be viewed as a privilege and immunity that should be an already established States' right.

Quite right, in my unexpert opinion the civil war may not have happened without slavery. And after the freedom of every man was decided, the states could have then left the union freely. I think what we are beggining to see is slavery of another kind, to the federal govt, or whoever the majority is in power, whichever party. And if the states feel they need to get out of the union, to the point of fighting for it, I support it. IMO, the union does not exist without a unanimous support of it. Youll notice there were no states in the original union that refused to sign the constitution, yet the majority decided to force them.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Okay lets go back to a more immediate example here of what would happen. Federal law says that all firearms must have a serial number on them and cannot be fully auto. Lets say Texas goes ahead and passes a law saying that comapnies can make fully auto seriel numberless firearms for sale only in Texas. As has been pointed out over and over again those firearms are a national threat as they will not and cannot stay only in Texas. That law is in violation of federal law. Anyone manufacturing, selling or possessing those firearms would be an immediate criminal. And rightly so. If the FBI goes in or the ATF goes in and attempts to arrest the people with those illegal weapons and are fired upon they have committed another criminal act. So more officers would be called in to respond to their brothers who where attacked. And a situation that could have been prevented by not breaking the federal firearms law in the first place could spiral out of control into somethign big and ugly.
States rights is a dead and gone concept. The federal government is the government.

__________________
“If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of
a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.”

– George W. Bush in Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2000

That's your proof that the Constitution is no longer in effect? That's just plain silly.

Do you have any actual proof that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of The United States of America is no longer in effect? Like say, oh I don't know, perhaps a Constitutional convention was held in secret.....no, that won't work.......unconstitutional. Hmmmmm, maybe the anointed one had one of his czars declare the Constitution null and void......no, still unconstitutional, gosh darn it. I'm sure you have some actual evidence, and you were just making a funny with your cute little "cereal numberless" analogy.

Dude, you ever heard of spell check?

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

The theory of nullification is a valid theory in the US and is practiced by the US as one of the several States of the United Nations.

In principle, the several states should have recourse to that precedent already established by the judicature of the United States.

However, since the 2A is in our federal Constitution, the standard of weights and measures for arms useful to a Militia would come from our federal Congress.

State gun control laws should take care of the rest this issue.

LOL i suggest you actually look up the word you're trying to spell.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

Do you have any actual proof, or even arguments, supporting the idea that the 10th Amendment gives the states the authority to nullify federal law?

If you're talking about the word, "cereal", that was a little joke on your mispelling of the word, "serial". But jokes tend to lose a little sumpin' sumpin' when ya hafta 'splain 'em.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

Oops, I meant Rhamota's mispelling of the word, "serial", not BG85's.

Edit interface won't work from my phone.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

meh it looked to me like he spelled it "serial" once and then had a typo where he spelled it "seriel"...hardly anything worth mentioning or making a joke over.

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

You're probably right.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, not the states.

State "governments" are useless and expensive jokes. The states were very clearly meant to be very subordinate to the Fed. They cannot have armies, private coinage,or control their own borders; even in the early Constitutional period they could never hope to exist for long as private entities, nowadays the entire question is silly even to propose.

You guys constantly forget one thing. NOT EVERYBODY IS CONSERVATIVE, and surely not wingnut conservative enough to FUCKING SECEDE FROM THE MOST POWERFUL, STABLE AND PROSPEROUS NATION ON EARTH. You think, frex, I"M going to war to HELP some right wing wackos cancel my Social Security, make sure I never get Universal Healthcare or unemployment, and probably pass new laws saying everyone has to bow down whenever rich people go by?

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips