FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Where is the boundary between state's rights and national interests?

   
Author Topic: Where is the boundary between state's rights and national interests?
Wendybird
Member
Member # 84

 - posted      Profile for Wendybird   Email Wendybird         Edit/Delete Post 
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.)
Posts: 1132 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kristen
Member
Member # 9200

 - posted      Profile for Kristen   Email Kristen         Edit/Delete Post 
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...

Posts: 484 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2