How does Constitution prevent States from passing tyrannical laws?

[giskard]

This is one common argument against States' Rights.

I vaguely remember Tom Woods arguing that

a) the people ultimately should control their State gov't
(and of course people will have more power over more localized, than central, gov't)

b) he mentioned some clause in the Constitution.


Could someone expound?

 

[Matt Collins]

States don't have rights, only individuals do. States have powers.

And the Constitution doesn't prevent the States from passing tyrannical laws other than simply stating that all State governments must be Republican.

 

[torchbearer]

the constitution was written by the states to restrain the federal government, not the other way around.
the people in each state must insure a free society in their own state.

 

[torchbearer]

with 50 competing governments, you are more likely to find a desirable government vying for the best and brightest to move and produce there.

 

[nate895]

The Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government for all states, so the rule of law applies in all states. Each state has its own constitution, all of which include an exhaustive bill of rights. They also limit the powers of the state governments. The problem is that many of the state constitutions grant too many authorities to the state governments, which evolved as the Federal government got more involved in the writing of the constitutions. The Federal government now exercises many of the state's broad authorities by threatening them with highway funds and otherwise.

 

[Major_C_Natural]

The Constitution does not prevent States from passing tyrannical laws but the reason that federalism should be supported is this:

with 50 competing governments, you are more likely to find a desirable government via for the best and brightest to move and produce there.

If you wanted to live in a libertarian or a socialistic state, then you can choose to live in that state that fits you best. It is applying free market principles to government.

 

[Pericles]

Article VI prohibits states from having laws that contradict the constitution:

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 notwith-standing.

and this is re-enforced in the 10A

The 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.

The problem began in 1833, when the SCOTUS failed the reading test of the Constitution.

 

[giskard]

Thanks all.

Pericles, do you have a link to the 1833 SCOTUS event you mention?

Also, I seem to remember Tom Woods saying that the final arbiter of the Constitution is not the SCOTUS but the States, via nullification. I understand the idea of this principle, but this sort of contradicts Article VI ... ?? Or, is it that the States can nullify unconstitutional Federal laws... and if the converse happens, and State judges violate it ... can the FEDs can invoke Article VI? How can they force the States to follow Article VI as per the Founders' vision?

 

[torchbearer]

Thanks all.

Pericles, do you have a link to the 1833 SCOTUS event you mention?

Also, I seem to remember Tom Woods saying that the final arbiter of the Constitution is not the SCOTUS but the States, via nullification. I understand the idea of this principle, but this sort of contradicts Article VI ... ?? Or, is it that the States can nullify unconstitutional Federal laws... and if the converse happens, and State judges violate it ... can the FEDs can invoke Article VI? How can they force the States to follow Article VI as per the Founders' vision?

If you and I and several of our friends got together and started a club, would it be fair to say, that since each of us voluntarily joined then each of us could voluntarily disassociate?
wouldn't that also be a right?
a right to associate and a right to disassociate?
then the state can nullify by leaving the club. it is it's right becuase it is the individual's right.

 

[anaconda]

Thanks all.

Pericles, do you have a link to the 1833 SCOTUS event you mention?

Also, I seem to remember Tom Woods saying that the final arbiter of the Constitution is not the SCOTUS but the States, via nullification. I understand the idea of this principle, but this sort of contradicts Article VI ... ?? Or, is it that the States can nullify unconstitutional Federal laws... and if the converse happens, and State judges violate it ... can the FEDs can invoke Article VI? How can they force the States to follow Article VI as per the Founders' vision?

I am also curious about the 1833 decision...

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If this thread is going to have a lot of talk about competing state governments and people moving I am going to lol.

 

[Pericles]

Thanks all.

Pericles, do you have a link to the 1833 SCOTUS event you mention?

Also, I seem to remember Tom Woods saying that the final arbiter of the Constitution is not the SCOTUS but the States, via nullification. I understand the idea of this principle, but this sort of contradicts Article VI ... ?? Or, is it that the States can nullify unconstitutional Federal laws... and if the converse happens, and State judges violate it ... can the FEDs can invoke Article VI? How can they force the States to follow Article VI as per the Founders' vision?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=32&invol=243

Justice Marshall "the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states"

which was contrary to previous thought - for example William Rawle (Washington's first choice for Attorney General) wrote the first book to explain the Constitution for legal students - an example from that book:

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

 

[anaconda]

If this thread is going to have a lot of talk about competing state governments and people moving I am going to lol.

Why? I suppose it is quite a project to move, but not over time for large quantities of people. People have migrated by the millions to places all over the world. Is mobility among the many states theoretically a real playing field leveler? Especially with a modern highway system?

 

[teacherone]

there will always be tyranny. the more localized it is the easier it will be to escape.

 

[low preference guy]

How does the United Nations prevent the United States from passing tyrannical laws?