4 ms·

Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, b

Enumerating the rights of states in the US is hard. The things that are clearly states rights is unclear. People assert various things as being states rights, but I think they are incorrect that this is an answerable question. There is usually an assertion that something is in that category, but others will not agree. Is the right to marry with restrictions a state right or a federal right or both?

dragonwriter 10y ago
Its actually not hard, as there aren't any. States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution. The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own foundational governing documents, just as the powers of the federal government are in its Constitution.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  State constitutions regulate the relationship between the state and its people. So they do not have rights per se in that relationship. But the term "state's rights" refers to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In that case states really do have certain rights against the fed much as individual persons have rights under the US constitution. This is most clear in case where the state sues various wings of the fed, asserting their rights under the US constitution. One of the largest cases in recent years would be Shelby County[1] v. Holder that struck down much of the voting rights act. At the most basic level, states have the right to bring cases in federal courts. [1] Shelby County is a local government, a devision of the state of Alabama under the Alabama constitution. Holder is an attorney general, an employee of the federal government and, importantly, not an elected official. Suing the prez is a very different ballgame.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Alternatively, the rights of the people of a state to choose how they are governed (along certain dimensions) without regard to the federal government.
    - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
      My point (which I know you weren't directly replying to), is that there are suits and supreme court decisions that change what those rights are from time to time. At a certain time all the southern states would have said they had a right to control who could get married (like blocking whites and blacks), but was overturned in that famous case (Loving v some state I think). Similarly, the const. allows fed control of interstate commerce, yet there were endless lawsuits about what this applies to until the supremes decided it. Then states all thought they could control what marriage meant (again, see above :-)), until they were again overruled by the supremes. I know there are rules and precedents, but I find it murky and mostly a political football (half the country is for states rights to trump the things they like and against states rights for things they don't like).

dragonwriter 10y ago

Its actually not hard, as there aren't any. States (like all governments) don't have rights, they have powers. And those powers are usually detailed in the state constitution. The federal Constitution limits the powers of states, assigns certain roles to the states, and reserves certain powers to them (or them and the people together), but generally the powers of the state are defined per state by the state's own foundational governing documents, just as the powers of the federal government are in its Constitution.

sandworm101 10y ago
State constitutions regulate the relationship between the state and its people. So they do not have rights per se in that relationship. But the term "state's rights" refers to the relationship between the states and the federal government. In that case states really do have certain rights against the fed much as individual persons have rights under the US constitution. This is most clear in case where the state sues various wings of the fed, asserting their rights under the US constitution. One of the largest cases in recent years would be Shelby County[1] v. Holder that struck down much of the voting rights act. At the most basic level, states have the right to bring cases in federal courts. [1] Shelby County is a local government, a devision of the state of Alabama under the Alabama constitution. Holder is an attorney general, an employee of the federal government and, importantly, not an elected official. Suing the prez is a very different ballgame.
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Alternatively, the rights of the people of a state to choose how they are governed (along certain dimensions) without regard to the federal government.
  - NotSammyHagar 10y ago
    My point (which I know you weren't directly replying to), is that there are suits and supreme court decisions that change what those rights are from time to time. At a certain time all the southern states would have said they had a right to control who could get married (like blocking whites and blacks), but was overturned in that famous case (Loving v some state I think). Similarly, the const. allows fed control of interstate commerce, yet there were endless lawsuits about what this applies to until the supremes decided it. Then states all thought they could control what marriage meant (again, see above :-)), until they were again overruled by the supremes. I know there are rules and precedents, but I find it murky and mostly a political football (half the country is for states rights to trump the things they like and against states rights for things they don't like).