2 ms·

Federal supervision of state powers, while not explicitly outlined in the constitution, has been developing based on the commerce and supremacy clauses since th

Federal supervision of state powers, while not explicitly outlined in the constitution, has been developing based on the commerce and supremacy clauses since the Civil War. We do not currently live in a strict constructionist country, and frankly that type of government is significantly flawed. Madison correctly pointed this out during the Constitutional Convention, and while his negative was not put in, it was later taken up by the Supreme Court as judicial review. I would argue that the death knell for the state's rights reading of the Constitution was the Civil War. It's fairly clear that the development of the government post-war, especially illustrated by the punishments levied against the southern states, created a national government rather than a federation of allied parties.

nickff 6y ago
Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights, followed by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state in the early 1900s.
- rat87 6y ago
  > Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. The fact that they needed to supervise them because not enough was being done to change the cops behavior is a strong argument that the federal government should be doing it > I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights People have rights. States which are government do not have rights. The idea of states rights is a ridiculous one that was frequently used to try to justify lack of federal oversight and the "right" to oppress people's rights. As for incorporation it's one of the best actions the supreme court has taken. As a libertarian you should be happy the court said that states can no longer violate people's constitutional rights

nickff 6y ago

Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights, followed by the dramatic expansion of the administrative state in the early 1900s.

rat87 6y ago
> Consent decrees are definitely an instance where the federal government is supervising the state, but the fact that they are doing something does not ipso facto mean that they should be doing it. This whole thread is about the differences between what governments are doing and what they should be doing. The fact that they needed to supervise them because not enough was being done to change the cops behavior is a strong argument that the federal government should be doing it > I would argue that incorporation was the beginning of the death knell of states' rights People have rights. States which are government do not have rights. The idea of states rights is a ridiculous one that was frequently used to try to justify lack of federal oversight and the "right" to oppress people's rights. As for incorporation it's one of the best actions the supreme court has taken. As a libertarian you should be happy the court said that states can no longer violate people's constitutional rights