A doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government.
The history of the United States has been marked by conflict over the proper allocation of power between the states and the federal government. The federal system of government established by the U.S. Constitution recognized the sovereignty of both the state governments and the federal government by giving them mutually exclusive powers as well as concurrent powers. In the first half of the nineteenth century, arguments over states' rights arose in the context of Slavery. From the 1870s to the 1930s, economic issues shaped the debate. In the 1950s racial Segregation and the Civil Rights Movement renewed the issue of state power. By the 1970s economic and political conservatives had begun to call for a reduction in the power and control of the federal government and for the redistribution of responsibilities to the states.
At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates represented state governments that had become autonomous centers of power. The Constitution avoided a precise definition of the locus of sovereignty, leaving people to infer that the new charter created a divided structure in which powers were allocated between the central government and the states in such a way that each would be supreme in certain areas.
Nevertheless, defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government.
The gay marriage issue is clearly overreach by the federal government. There is no constitutional guarantee regarding marriage, therefore the individual states should be free to accept or not accept the institution of gay marriage. That's not good enough for liberals, though. The tolerant ones, the "live and let live" ones...so long as you agree with them. Cross them, though, and your rights go out the window in favor of theirs. As much as I hate it, I think gay marriage will be a universally legal depravity in the not so distant future.
***Oh brother...Columbus Day will be known as Indiginous Peoples' Day in Seattle.
***Charles Krauthammer: Obama's actions suggest he's not serious about destroying ISIS. You don't say.
***Good Lord, what a sicko...
Before she fell in love with a 10-year-old boy pupil, tattooed his name on her chest and made him she had cast a spell on him, primary school teacher, Diane Brimble, had once been described as a selfless ‘supermum’.Brimble, a mother of eight who lured the boy to her rose-covered home in country Victoria for sex, is expected to escape prison when she is sentenced on Thursday for what her victim’s parents describe as ‘evil’ acts upon their son.Just two years after graduating from university to take her ‘dream come true’ job teaching primary schoolkids, 47-year-old Brimble was exposing her breasts to the boy, asking him for sex and showing him condoms and sex toys.