How could you justify having the federal government regulate something that is clearly a state issue?

It’s your assignment; we frown upon giving homework advice here. It’s a legitimate question.

The Brady Bill comes to mind, and it was declared unconstitutional in 1997 by the Supreme Court for the federal govt to try and regulate what is clearly a state issue. The lawsuit was brought to court by a county sheriff who didn’t want the federal govt taking his men away from the job they were paid to do, which is to protect the citizens. The story can be found here. I plan on reading the book, and all citizens should do the same. I for one don’t need the US Govt to babysit me. That leads to tyrants and martial law, which a free country doesn’t need or deserve.

It’s not a ordinary “homework assignment” i’m researching for debate, and just wanted some leads… I’m not cheating for a test :D

Hey man coming here’s not different than going to wikipedia. we’re just a live feed :).

That said, the federal government would have to give valid reason why the state is incapable of managing whatever issue by itself. Much like the current banking system is now(the banks cant take care of themselves so the Fed is). a common example is any form of martial law, The Fed takes over policing for a state(s) when the local police force is incapable.

Here’s one to consider: marriage.

Marriage is very much a state issue, and even the Supreme Court treated it as such—consider Loving v. Virginia. Until, of course, gay marriage became an issue, and then Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act.

The separation between state and federal jurisdiction has never been clearly delineated.

You might take a look at medical marijuana laws versus federal drug laws.

What is clearly a state issue? How do you decide?

To me, the only clearly ‘state’ issues are those that cannot take place or happen outside the boundaries of the state. This would be certain land uses, such as city growth patterns, and perhaps water rights.

daloon beat me to the punch…. but still:

“_____ is a blatant state decision” How is something a blatant state decision? I think the opposite is true, nothing is clearly a state or federal decision, that is why there is always fighting about what constitutes state’s rights. the main thing we have to go on is historical precedent (in the courts)... but any issue can sway from one to the other depending on the constituencies that are involved.

The Federal govt claims the right to control anything that affects or is involved in interstate commerce per the Constitution or any enterprise that involves Federal funds. That is why state issues like segregation, gender discrimination, private and state colleges etc fall under Federal regulation.

If all else fails, there is the Supremacy Clause, ie state law vs federal law-federal law wins

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding

I don’t think it’s even a state issue. I think it’s a personal issue and I think we…the people have given way too much of our power away to the state. In turn the states have given way too much power to the Federal gov’t. We citizens should all be required to read…really read…the Constitution at least once every year!

@maggiemaye While we’re at it, we should make annual reading of Jame Joyce’s Ulysses mandatory, too. Take Bloomsday seriously.

@daloon Maybe there is some way to make understanding it mandatory also.

@YARNLADY What a good idea! But seriously folks… since we’re speaking of mandatory understanding, do you remember “A Wrinkle in Time?”

Speaking for the minority, I guess, I loved reading (and rereading Ulysses) and still do.

But if it had been mandatory, and more to the point, mandatory that you understand it, wouild you still have loved it, @gailcalled? Would you have appreciated it as much as you do? And the constitution? Do you read and reread that?

My point is that it is absurd to require people to read something. They must do it out of love, as you do. There’s no point in doing it, otherwise.

I know, but you happened to pick a novel, written in English (mostly) that I think is one of the greatest of the 20th century. Certainly there are many books that I would not understand if forced to read them. Translations of Nietzsche come to mind.

You do make a valid point, but sometimes being pushed into something isn’t such a bad thing. After saying “No” many times, I ended up teaching French, and after the first terrifing class, learned to love the experience.

What was the original question, anyway?

I used Ulysses out of respect for it’s reputation, actually. I have neither read the Constitution, nor Ulysses. I have, however, read an awful lot of science fiction.

I think we were talking about whether it is the federal or state government’s job to encourage people to read Joyce.

Do I read and reread the Constitution? YES as a matter of fact I do!

Sci-fi…well, there’s the rub…unless it’s Heinlein.

Actually,I think we were talking about federal regulation vs state’s rights.

No Joyce?

FWIW, Joyce permanently exiled himsel from his RC roots and Ireland, due to the repressive and restrictive atmosphere in Dublin and surrounds. Born in 1882, he left Ireland in 1904. The novel, Ulysses, published in 1922, takes place in a twenty-four hour period on June 16, 1904.

Now called Bloomsday and celebrated by elitist, leftist obsessive readers all over the world, it is a day to dance, sing and howl at the moon (and have marathon readings of the entire 800-page novel). You can drink Guinness or stout if that is your wont.

@gailcalled Are they really all leftist?

I also wanted to say that you shouldn’t think that I won’t have that wont!

@daloon: Probably mostly progressives. All the conservatives are too busy hiking the Appalachian trail, and the loony-tunes spend their entire adult lives trying to wade through Finnigan’s Wake.

@gailcalled I think I tried a page or two of Finnegan’s Wake once. I’m told there are people who claim to understand it. Never mind that I have this secret (well, formerly secret) belief that if I tried, I probably could understand it, too. Well, except for the local and culturally-specific references.

@daloon : I have a friend who is in a Finnegan’s Wake book club. I don’t know whether they have disbanded or not. Too much for me.

OOH-OOH-OOH
I really do read the Constitution at least once a year. That’s why I knew about the Supremacy Clause. I also knew that individuals used to think they were allowed to discriminate against people of African ancestry in their own personal businesses by refusing service or jobs and the Supreme Court said that was unconstitutional.

I never read James Joyce’s Ulysses but I did read the Labors of Hercules by Agatha Christie many times.

@galileogirl: I’d rather clean out the Augean stables than read Finnigan’s. I started reading Christie’s mysteries in my teens and still reread them. I hated “Atlas Shrugged.”

@gailcalled It’s interesting that you hated Atlas Shrugged. I read it when I was fairly young, and to me, it was just a good yarn. Not a morality tale, not a libertarian manifesto. I’m sure I would hate it now, knowing what role it plays in this country’s political life, but I do remember enjoying it back then. Then again, I’m also a science fiction fan, and there are an awful lot of libertarians amongst science fiction writers. I always find that odd.

I could indeed. There are a few localities who apparently didn’t like the Supreme Court’s recent ruling stating that Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms, DC vs Heller. This one comes to mind.

@woodcutter The true constitutionalists who don’t agree with rulings like DC v Heller are not calling for revolution or secession like the loony fringe groups do when legislation and rulings are not to their liking. I believe that gun laws will eventually get it right. After Plessy v Ferguson it took almost 60 years to get it right with Brown v Bd of Ed and we are still working on implementation after 60 more years. We trust the Constitution and governmental process.

@galileogirl Well these folks who do not agree with Heller are having a hard time convincing me, anyways, that they are true constitutionalists . These folks do convince me that the bill of rights is a living, evolving document that needs to be altered whenever the political winds change.

I doubt they are trying to convince you, in the end it will be up to the legislature and the Court and Constitutionalists who learned from Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall. That’s why the Constitution was written on paper, not carved in stone.

I think it’s interesting that “Atlas Shrugged” has become the neocon instruction manual.