Danoff
Not really the point don't you think? Even still, the Supremecy clause is in there and is pretty clear. Beyond that, it makes sense.
Once upon a time just making something illegal in the federal penal code was unacceptable because of state sovereignty, so that when the federal government wished to make something illegal they amended the Constitution, which requires state involvement. Today they just add it to the penal code and claim supremacy. Do you see a problem with that at all?
I am not trying to say supremacy doesn't exist today and doesn't now trump the 10th Amendment, but rather that it shouldn't.
If one of the states legalized murder, that state's government and by extension the US government would necessarily be considered illegitimate. The whole reason we have government in the first place is to protect rights, no government on this Earth can legitimately permit murder.
If we are drawing an arbitrary line to determine the legality of abortion, why wouldn't allowing each state to determine their own arbitrary line be the same? Each state defines cruel and unusual punishment differently, some to the point of having no death penalty while others do. There is a very old precedent for states to define the arbitrary details in defining how they handle Constitutional rights. By the definition of California, Texas practices cruel and unusual punishment. As it is a Constitutional right should all forms of punishment prescribed for specific crimes be federally mandated?
See the abortion issue is not about defining murder, but rather defining when a fetus becomes legally protected by the laws of the land. What Texas considers murder California may consider a medical procedure, just as what California considers cruel and unusual punishment (maybe even murder? CA has too many laws to keep up) Texas considers a just punishment served by due process.
Now, it is possible a Supreme Court ruling would disagree with me, but it wouldn't be the first time I felt they were wrong (eminent domain comes to mind).
The federal penal code says murder is illegal - that makes murder a federal issue. The US constitution and associated founding documents guarantee a right to life, that makes murder a federal issue. The entire function of government is to protect human rights, that makes murder a federal issue.
But none of them define abortion as murder. And as you point out, it is because there is an arbitrary legal line drawn.
Or, take it this way: Federal penal code doesn't say abortion is murder. So then it is up to the states to determine the arbitrary line and enforce their own laws. We do it with substances such as alcohol and tobacco all the time now. If I did enough research I could probably find numerous things not prohibited on a federal level but regulated on a state and local level.
Is it seriously your position that states can legalize murder?
No, but they can regulate federally allowed acts unless prohibited to them by the Constitution.
I apologize that my tact appears to have changed, but I realized my opinion on abortion (which we have discussed at length before) and the use of the term murder caused me to try defending my position with that language. I read your response this time and then got sidetracked with real life and your post stuck in my head and as I thought on it I realized what I was missing.
That said, for a territory to become a state they must have their own state constitution, which is a determining factor for admittance. As such, every state has its own founding document which defends human rights. The first section of the Kentucky Constitution is right to life. So ultimately, no a state cannot legalize murder and remain a sovereign state, as they will have violated their own founding document required to be a state. Supremacy has squat to do with it in this case.
After even more reading I have this take on the Supremacy issue. California is not testing supremacy. As best I can tell, no court decision has ever eroded supremacy and it is not a controversial issue. California is basically saying "feel free to make pot illegal federal government, but we're not going to enforce it for you - you're in charge of enforcement". This is the other side of the coin that Arizona took saying "this is federal law, and even if you won't enforce it federal government, we will".
I likely described it poorly, as the challenge itself would not come from California but from someone charged with the federal crime. Someone could argue that they did what is claimed, but federal law has no jurisdiction according to the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, most trial lawyers are more interested in claiming the accused didn't do the act he is charged with, and everyone has failed to pass an outright legalization, which would force the hand of federal government to act or give an unspoken blessing.
That said, sovereignty is part of the healthcare dispute, even if supremacy is not.
That would be truly awesome.
All the way to the zeroed out bank accounts. Then when we're a third world country, blame Bush. Sure, Obama spent the money, but he had to cause we were in debt, makes sense, right?
