The Constitution does not give the states the right to violate the federal Constitutional rights of the people.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution."

By agreeing to the Constitutional language, the states entered into a binding agreement to be part of a federation. Thus, Federalism is the term.

You can't make the claim that the agreement to be a part of the federation means nothing as states rights are more important.

Both federal rights and states rights matter simultaneously. It is not either or. Both states and federal rights exist within the boundaries of the Constitution.

You can not...

Quit spewing your own opinion.

George Washington told James Madison, the father of the Constitution:


"We are either a United people, or we are not. If the former, let us, in all matters of general concern act as a nation, which have national objects to promote, and a national character to support. If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by pretending to it." --George Washington, letter to James Madison, 1785

Does this sound like a confederacy of totally autonomous states? He spoke of national objectives to promote, not state objectives.

Why would we ever want to turn our health care system over to the same people who run the IRS and FEMA?

The Democrats were up in arms at FEMA's slow response to Hurricane Katrina. Now they want the same people who run FEMA (federal bureaucrats) to run 1/6 of our economy.

Insanity!!

What was considered conservative in the 1800's is not conservative today. You can't compare southern Democrats of the 1800's to Republicans of today.

Firstly, the issues in the 1800's are not the same as the issues as today.

Secondly, now that the Democrats have moved so far to the left on policy, being conservative today means finding a more balanced approach to issues as opposed to going over the deep end like the Democrats.

In order for a study to be accurate, it must contain validity and reliability.

John your comparison is dubious is contains no reliability or validity. You are comparing completely different things are trying to find commonality.

You are like the IPCC scientists and the global...

Lincoln said many times that he opposed slavery. You are totally off track. Like the article said, the very reason the Republican Party began was to end slavery.

That is why Lincoln was there in that school house in Ripon, WI.

You are taking out of context his statement about saving the Union above ending slavery.

He wanted to save the Union first. Then he wanted to address slavery. Stop cherry-picking history.

over how much latitude the states were allowed to have under the Constitution. The states do not have absolute rights.

If the states have absolute rights then slavery was somehow Constitutional. The South was wrong! The states can't do whatever they want.

This is why slavery is so closely linked with the states rights issue that caused the war in the first place. Slavery violates the Constitution.

This argument has gone on since the Federalists. and the Anti-Federalists.

The Federalists prevailed. Get over it.

Those rights not specified in the Constitution, -- and that do not violate the Constitution -- belong to the states. Not everything unmentioned in the Constitution is a states right.

That would make our nation a confederacy again. The confederacy failed, remember?

...as John Adams once said.

In May of 1919, the Republican controlled House passed the constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote.

85% of Republicans voted for the amendment.
Only 54% of Democrats voted against the amendment.