Does anyone actualy believe that there is still such a thing as states rights?
554088
I believe that the concept still lives.  In practical governing, however, the concept died during the civil war and was buried by the Supreme Court during the twentieth century.
80977
They are people correct? Are we not all entitled to certian unalienable rights? The constitution protect everyones rights regardless of race creed or orentation.\n\nAs far as marrage goes why not,it is more of a sosciety issue not a right or legal issue, it is not really covered under the constitution.
283595
Yes, the constitution does allow the rights of freedom speech, assembly, and religious practice in the 1st amendment.  But because these rights sometimes conflict with eachother (like in your scenario), its pretty safe to say that you have right and liberties as long as they dont interfere with anyone else, or cause other people malicious harm.
840670
I realize this is probably a waste of time; but what the heck.\n\nAs explained, the idea of a "people's right" was based entirely on the predicate assumption of State regulation. So actually, the militias then are the 18th century equivalent of the National Guards of today. And what the amendment protects is the states' right to have them. These are the only state defense forces recognized by law. You say that you won't get into the discussions of Supreme Court decisions in the last decades. You may recall my original answer. The Supreme Court has NEVER in the history of the Republic (repeat: NEVER) substantiated your interpretation. So forget about "recent decades," as you say. Your view is not substantiated by American Judicial History -- period.\n\nYou say that it's shooting myself in the foot to say that portions of the constitution are anachronistic? How? The Letters of Marque clause is anachronistic. The 3/5ths compromise is anachronistic.\nThe 3rd Amendment is anachronistic. (There is absolutely no case law under it -- it's dead). All but one sentence of the entire, long, 14th amendment is anachronistic. There are many elements of the document that have no relevance today because they addressed concerns that were limited to a specific time. That's just the way it is -- sorry.\n\nAs stated, your idea of a self regulated private militia being what the founders intended by this amendment is refuted by the extant record of the Constitutional Convention and the minutes of the First Congress. The whole idea of eliminating private militias was why the states wanted this amendment in the first place. They wanted to put private militias out of business.\n\nThe greatest single impetus for convening the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was the private militia movement known as Shays' Rebellion, in which disgruntled former soldiers in Massachusetts formed a private (well regulated) militia force to stop courts from farm foreclosures. The Founding Fathers were horrified by this. And so were the states. And again, to reiterate, THAT's why they wanted to regulate the militias.\n\nI've already addressed the issue of "shall not be infringed." If your interpretation is correct, then why have courts over the centuries (not "recent decades" as you imply) NEVER ruled in your favor.\n\n\n\n==============================================\n\nYes, as a matter of fact I do know what it means.\n\nLike the Article One provision giving Congress the authority to grant "Letters of Marque," the 2nd Amendment is an anachronistic holdover from the late 18th century.\n\nSupporters of the NRA and other like organizations always forget about that all important opening clause (which I'm glad you included). The purpose of the amendment is stipulated right there -- "A well regulated militia being necessary..."\n\nAfter the United States gained independence it was still confronted by many threats: the British to the north, the Spanish to the south, and the Native American tribes all around. After George Washington laid down his arms, the national army ceased to exist, and the burden for security fell on the states. Unfortunately, the states at that time were no more capable of providing the security than the infant central government. This meant that local communities and individuals were responsible for providing their own security. With few roads for transporting armies, and no money for troops, what else were the people supposed to do?\n\nThe militia system developed to enable local populations the ability to provide defense. By law, the militia was defined as every able-bodied male between the ages of 16 and 55 who owned a firearm. They could be mustered by order of the governor of the state or by special order of the President of the United States.\n\nThis was not part of the original constitution. The reason it exists is that during the ratification of the
841778
There are no loaws - the Constitution preserves our RIGHTS - that is why laws must always be Constitutional and guarantee our freedoms under the Constitution.   Have you read it lately??  The Govt we have today needs to refer to it.
451596
What makes you think you have a right to anything? \n\nSuggest reading Rights in the wikipedia.\n\n"There are two fundamental controversies surrounding the notion of rights: First, there is the question of the basis for rights (on what basis can rights be said to exist). Second, there is the question of the content of rights (what the rights of a person actually are)."\n\nWhat is a right?\n"At its most fundamental, a right is a claim, on other persons, that is acknowledged and perhaps reciprocated among the principals associated with that claim." \n \nWho granted  you these rights?
602483
Technically, yes.\n\nPractically, not a snowball's chance in hell.\n\nI actually believe in the limitations of government as established in the Constitution, and in the individual liberties and freedoms those limitations give us. That means no welfare, no social security, no medi-scam, no farm welfare, no corporate welfare, no bridges to nowhere, no self-aggrandizing monuments to KKK Byrd's ego with our $$ in West Virginia, no affirmative action, no government employee unions, no Depts of Education, Labor, HHS, Agriculture, etc, no nothing not authorized by that document. And I'd push to impeach every elected official or judge that acted, voted, or ruled contrary to the principles of the Constitution.\n\nAdd in my checkered past, my belief that marijuana should be legalized, etc, and I would not stand a chance. Other than myself, who'd vote for me?\n\nI'd piss off every constituency out there, almost all of them wanting to leech off others' paychecks.\n\nI'd give them freedom and liberty, but they are more interested in hand-outs and controlling others' lives.
1122085
If you are referring in general terms, the states have been formed under the power of the few. The masses, progressively got power and requested laws and regulations protecting them. Thus, Human Rights Act have risen around the globe.\nIn the case of the USA, early in the foundation of the USA, they understood the need of forming and supporting This act, in order to secure and guarantee the rights of all the people, just in case some group would get superpowers. Of course, this did not stop some groups to proceed in wrong acts (a day like today is when McCarthyism executed the Rosembergs, an act the later the judicial system admitted its severe mistake!)
417783
what rights do they not have?
1007697
I'm a liberal.\n\nThat said, I think one of the fundamental rights we Americans have is the 2nd amendment.  Though guns are generally associated with so many problems in our society, our right to own them is still important for a few reasons.  First and foremost, it is a freedom.  That itself is reason enought to make it an essential part of our identity.  Too many people are quick to jump to the defense of other rights that our founding fathers thought necessary for us to have, only to back out of this defense when guns are brought up.  We can't cherry pick our amendments to suit our situations because as soon as we give one up, the rest will follow all too quickly.  Every American should cherish every right granted in the constitution as if it were his or her lifeblood.\n\nAnother reason the right to own a firearm is so important is because an armed population can fend off tyranny much better than an unarmed one.  However unlikely it is, Americans can rest assured that if someone had the balls to overthrow the government, that would only be the first step in gaining absolute power here.  I realize that this is a weak argument because it's a hypothetical situation, but as evidence, look to any tyrannical government in history and check to see whether the people were armed [e.g., Iraq, Nazi Germany, Sudan, etc.].  On the flip side of the coin, look at the Swiss Army.  The reason nobody (including their own leadership) messes with them during most wars is because up until the mid 90's every man over the age of 18 was issued a semi-automatic assault rifle and made a member of the standing militia.  When the Swiss are involved in a war, it's because they want to be.
1034383
doent this bring back the civil war-era issues of states' rights? I think all states are required to abide by Federal laws.
1170011
No.  Our founding fathers declared that Church and State were separate and that ALL peoples and beliefs were equal in the eyes of the law.\n\nI'm constantly scared that we're on a slippery slope and those freedoms are being taken away by groups that believe that the US was founded for them.  It was not.
606078
There wasn't anyone of any importance really that didn't favor State's rights over the rights of a Federal Gov't.\n\nDo you know the reason for the Constitution, what it does? Most people haven't read it since High School, if then. It only grants one right to the people, and is not about us, although it was designed to protect us against big Federal Gov't. The whole thing is laid out to limit the powers of the Federal Gov't. It is the only lawful authority the Federal Gov't has. Read the Consitution as the sight in Sources.\n\nDid you know that our Constitution almost didn't get signed into action? Do you know what our Forefathers feared most? They did not fear Britian or India or China or Spain or the Dutch, or all of them together. They feared that the Federal Gov't they were authorizing would gain more power than any one or all States. So they broke our Gov't into three branches, and spelled out the only authority of our Federal Gov't. \n\nBut it still almost didn't get signed. The only way they were able to get enough votes, was if they added the clause of seccession. If any state ever wanted to, they could withdraw from the Union.\n\nEveryone blames the South for the Civil War, but all they were trying to do was lawfully withdraw from the Union, along with some northern states. Lincoln went to war to settle the argument. There were a lot bigger issues at stake than slavery. It was about Federal control over the STates.\n\nThe Contitution got signed, but we didn't enforce it. There was nobody to police the police. And you can bet, when they added the Amendments to the Constitution, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," was there for one reason: politicians only fear two things: public opinion and guns.
1140214
Have you ever read the UN Declaration of Rights? It's complete horse manure! It has things in it like the "right to electricity" or the "right to a job" those aren't rights, those are things that must be earned, not provided by a government at the expense of taxpayers. As a U.S. Citizen, I don't want my government committing me to some treaty that's been endorsed by a bunch of dictators and autocrats.
829991
Thanks for bringing up this important issue.\nMost of the things you mentioned have beneficial uses.  The danger if they are misused.  I think the Bush administration has demonstrated how our rights can be undermined.  They are talking of retaining the prisoners in Cuba for the rest of their lives, without charges or benefit of legal defense.\nThe only way to protect our rights is to participate in the process of government.  I hope anyone who reads this is ready to defend liberty with their vote on the 7th.
716014
Yes. But this has become a gray area, because it used to be that the Federal law was limited by the Constitution to certain areas, and denied the rest. However, this has changed, and the Federal government is now, and has been for decades, legislating on things they have absolutely no constitutional authority to be meddling with.\n\nAnd the majority of Americans think this is a good thing, which it isn't, and they fail to connect this usurpation of powers with the  fact that they feel their freedoms and rights are being taken away. Un-believable.
218672
It is a right of the People, not the State.  Several states also back this up in their own constitutions.  The reasons for the 2nd Ammendment were laid out in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers after the Revolutionary War.  Founders such as George Mason, Adams, Hamilton, and Washington all stated this was a protection for the People against external threats and internal tyranny.\n\nLike the rest of the Bill of Rights, it is part of a list of "thou shall nots" for the government.  The Bill of Rights places restrictions on the Federal Government, and by default on the State Governments and guarantees the rights stated to the People.  The Bill of Rights also states the US Constitution cannot list every protected right and those rights not listed are still retained by the States and the People.