RP on the Incorporation Doctrine

[lcphr3ak]

I recently found out that RP doesn't support the Incorporation Doctrine. This concerns me, because I question whether this would allow states to become completely free of restriction. Would they then be able to enforce worse legislation than the FED itself?

In example, by the current constitution I have my right to say the word "F*ck" in public. However, if we didn't have the doctrine, would my state be able to ban my use of it?

How far would states be able to go if we didn't have this doctrine?

 

[low preference guy]

The problem is that when you give the Feds the power to stop the states from doing evil things, you also give them the power to force them to do evil things.

In the long run, the political system that is most conducive to liberty is a collection of relatively small but completely autonomous states (except maybe for Nat. Defense) which don't restrict the flow of goods between them. That would be the United States with a Federal government that focuses mostly on National Defense.

To test whether you grasp this concept, ask yourself this question: Should the States be able to legalize murder?

The answer is yes. They should be autonomous, that's the only thing that works. As I said, if you give the Feds the power to stop the states from doing evil things, you give them the power to force the states to do evil things. The system in itself will make sure that most awful laws don't last, because people can move, and in the long run that encourages the creation of better laws.

 

[lcphr3ak]

That seems to make sense. I guess if the states were left alone, people wouldn't all vote to allow the freedom to murder anyone you want.

However, I ask:
1) Does the right to Liberty apply only to the FED? (As in, can a State take your liberty?)
2) What stops a state from refusing to act as a Republic and turning into a dictatorship/oligarchy?

 

[Vessol]

It's much easier to fight the individual corrupt States than it is to fight to fight the corrupt monolith that is the Federal government.

 

[Southron]

That seems to make sense. I guess if the states were left alone, people wouldn't all vote to allow the freedom to murder anyone you want.

However, I ask:
1) Does the right to Liberty apply only to the FED? (As in, can a State take your liberty?)
2) What stops a state from refusing to act as a Republic and turning into a dictatorship/oligarchy?

A state can only take your liberty if the people, collectively, allow it.

IMO, if a state refused to act as a republic, it should either be invaded or removed from the union. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee a republican form of government to the states.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I recently found out that RP doesn't support the Incorporation Doctrine. This concerns me, because I question whether this would allow states to become completely free of restriction. Would they then be able to enforce worse legislation than the FED itself?

In example, by the current constitution I have my right to say the word "F*ck" in public. However, if we didn't have the doctrine, would my state be able to ban my use of it?

How far would states be able to go if we didn't have this doctrine?

In general, the closer people are to you, the more they risk by trying to impose themselves on you. So local control is not only better because locals understand local situations better, but also because those same locals will be nicer to you and less likely to harm you when they are in close proximity to you. The same goes for them trying to impose oppressive measures upon you.

 

[zyphex]

This is where I absolutely think Ron Paul has it wrong. I also think the Supreme Court has it wrong. The 14th Amendment incorporates all rights within the Bill of Rights through the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court gutted the meaning of that clause in the Slaughterhouse Cases so they have used the Due Process Clause to incorporate. Ideally, I think Ron Paul should support incorporation through the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

 

[bb_dg]

Well, I am not sure what the incorporation doctrine is, but referring to the 10th amendment, "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." So Ron Paul probably supports this because of constitutional reasons. That's why he's fine if states ban drugs, gay marriage, or pass other legislation as long as it doesn't interfere with federal government powers the rights of the people.

 

[Vessol]

A state can only take your liberty if the people, collectively, allow it.

IMO, if a state refused to act as a republic, it should either be invaded or removed from the union. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee a republican form of government to the states.

If we were to go back to anything, I would prefer the Articles of Confederation which made the states much more stronger than the Constitution did.