I light of the ahem, discussion, on the current legislative pursuits in South Dakota I was wondering about states rights versus national interests. Where is that boundary? Shouldn't the state of South Dakota, or any other state, be allowed to make such laws to protect what they see as human rights and interests? When does that cross into an issue that needs to be legislated at a national level. The obvious slavery problem of course comes to mind but what about things that aren't so obvious? In a day and age where you can freely travel to another state with minimal effort (as opposed to days gone by) where is the boundary between protecting states rights versus legislating on a national level to protect basic human rights? (Hopefully I've explained my question well enough... I'm still thinking about it.)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I think the problem arises when one side of the spectrum considers something an "essential freedom", while the other side does not. Slavery and segregation are cleary wrong in retrospect, but at the time they were "grey issues" as well.
--j_k
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
The precise boundary between federal and state interests and legislation is the powers enumerated in the Constitution.
Of course there are aspects of modern life which our Founding Fathers couldn't have foreseen, and that is what Amendments are for. Theorectically, essential freedoms would be preserved and protected there as the process is democratic and requires super majority votes.
In terms of the South Dakota case, for federal legislation to hold, abortion would have to be conceived as in or effecting interstate commerce, and I agree that's interesting to consider now that long distance travel is relatively effortless, and the Supreme Court actually heard a case arguing that bringing guns to school would affect interstate commerce. Obviously, the debate would not merely be about commerce, but Congress has yet the explicit power to legislate on human rights issues...