Their View: States' rights: Good for ...

Their View: States' rights: Good for some, bad for many

There are 25 comments on the Las Cruces Sun-News story from Mar 12, 2011, titled Their View: States' rights: Good for some, bad for many. In it, Las Cruces Sun-News reports that:

America is a democratic republic which enfranchises its citizens to determine the structure, functions, and laws of their government.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Las Cruces Sun-News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Silverback

Santa Fe, NM

#1 Mar 12, 2011
States rights were never more than a coverup to rationalize slavery. If you would read the different states' declarations of secession, it would become evident that the protection of the institution of slavery was the primary concern, and that states rights rhetoric was absent. It was always bluster, think of the madman John C. Calhoun, and his lifetime spent wastefully defending human rights violations.
LC Today

Brighton, MI

#2 Mar 12, 2011
Hays.....you just can't seem to grasp the whole concept, can you? Ultra liberals, such as yourself, would screw this country completely into the ground on the basis of protecting the minorities, especially the criminal ones. Are you going to defend the gun runners from Columbus next? Remember now, they are Mexican!

Illegal immigrants are criminals that have no respect for this country, its people or laws. The words you use to imply that only illegal Mexican immigrants are being targeted is BS

I am an immigrant that "legally" came to America in 1960, and obtained my citizenship by going through the "legal" process of learning to speak English, studying the government process, and willingly giving up my previous citizenship. When these criminals enter this country by any sneaky means they can find, I find it to be a personal insult, as well as people like you who will defend someone who has violated the law.

Finally, you take away something from the young lady on the front page of today's paper, who was looking forward to receiving her citizenship certificate after working hard to enter this county "legally", and become a proud new member of the United States of America.
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#3 Mar 12, 2011
LC Today wrote:
Hays.....you just can't seem to grasp the whole concept, can you? Ultra liberals, such as yourself, would screw this country completely into the ground on the basis of protecting the minorities, especially the criminal ones. Are you going to defend the gun runners from Columbus next? Remember now, they are Mexican!
Illegal immigrants are criminals that have no respect for this country, its people or laws. The words you use to imply that only illegal Mexican immigrants are being targeted is BS
I am an immigrant that "legally" came to America in 1960, and obtained my citizenship by going through the "legal" process of learning to speak English, studying the government process, and willingly giving up my previous citizenship. When these criminals enter this country by any sneaky means they can find, I find it to be a personal insult, as well as people like you who will defend someone who has violated the law.
Finally, you take away something from the young lady on the front page of today's paper, who was looking forward to receiving her citizenship certificate after working hard to enter this county "legally", and become a proud new member of the United States of America.
LC Today, if you were any of the things which you say you are--legal immigrant and naturalized citizen--you would know more about American history and government than you apparently do. The fact is that this diatribe reveals that you do not know what you are talking about because you do not understand what I am talking about.
DAV

Las Cruces, NM

#4 Mar 12, 2011
Dear Mr. Ph.D man.
The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key word there is CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. The 14th Amendment was passed so that any Black person born in this country was a US CITIZENS. Being a liberal/independent that you are, the US Constitution is a map that YOU can follow in any direction that suits you.
wassup

Silver City, NM

#8 Mar 12, 2011
Hay's spouts his typical far-left drivel. Thankfully, there is a growing majority of rational, thinking people who will eventually take back control of this wonderful country. Case in point, the 2010 elections.
Think about it

Albuquerque, NM

#9 Mar 12, 2011
I tend to be more libertarian so states rights are important to me.

Hays mentions two situations in his article, the immigration law passed in Arizona and the Health Care Law that is being challenged in court by many states.

The former is the Federal Government failing to live up to it's responsibilities, the later is the Federal Government trying to impose on the people that for which it has no authority.

States rights are a part of our system that is intended to prevent both of the above conditions.

If the federal government fails in its duties, then the states must take over. A state that loses blood and treasure to a condition resulting from the lack of properly enforced laws by the federal government has not only the right but the responsibility to assume jurisdiction over that condition.

Immigration laws similar to the Arizona law are being considered in many states. Some are as comprehensive as Arizona, other less so, but all such legislation is being considered as a result of the failure of the federal government to do it job.

Secondly, the Federal Government was constructed as a limited government. Imposing a health care mandate on it's citizens is not a part of what our federal government was fashioned to do.

When the Federal Government oversteps it's authority, then the states again have the right and responsibility to protect the rights of their citizens.

When arguing for the Health Care legislation, the poor are always brought up to justify such legislation. Medicaid already covers those individuals. Medicaid covers those who are mentally or physically disabled. Medicaid covers the children.

The states have not only a constitutional concern, they have a financial concern with this legislation. Just this week the Secretary of Health and Human Services testified that the funding of the health care bill was taking advantage of double dipping.

The saving from Medicare are not being taken from Medicare, thankfully, yet are being counted as money toward the health care plan. In other words, they are counting the same 500 billion dollars twice. Not only was this money counted twice, other monies are also counted twice.

Guess who will end up paying for the 500 billion dollars that does not come out of medicare to fund the health care bill? You, me and the state will pay.

The health care bill is front loaded. It collects taxes for four years before it starts to provide benefits. That does make it look like a good financial bill in the first 10 years. But how many of you can't figure out that this means it takes ten years of funding to provide six years of benefits.

What happens in the second ten years? A quick look at medicare will answer that question. Or try Social Security, where is that money you and I have contributed for the last 4 or 5 decades? It looks like an IOU from Uncle Sam. Congress, our federal government, has spent it.

The states are not stupid. They can see the financial problems with the current federally funded and run health programs. They want no more of this type of federal program.

But I have a solution. Put all government employees in the government run health care program, medicaid. If you add all the premiums from the government employees to their employer's health care plan, medicaid, I bet it would be, at least, more solvent.

Then let anyone who wants to purchase from that plan the option to do so. It's silly to say, you just got a .50 cent raise so you no longer qualify. A little common sense could go a long way towards solving the health funding problem.

Without trampling on states' or individual rights.
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#10 Mar 12, 2011
DAV wrote:
Dear Mr. Ph.D man.
The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key word there is CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. The 14th Amendment was passed so that any Black person born in this country was a US CITIZENS. Being a liberal/independent that you are, the US Constitution is a map that YOU can follow in any direction that suits you.
You begin your quotation after the first sentence of The 14th Amendment, which defines "citizens of the United States." The sentence reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Moreover, the courts have ruled that this amendment applies to all people, not just slaves. My question is why you find it necessary to lie? My answer is that your politics trumps truth. You LIE by omission. Do people like you who scorn Ph.D.'s have an inalienable right to lie?
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#11 Mar 12, 2011
Think about it wrote:
I tend to be more libertarian so states rights are important to me.
Hays mentions two situations in his article, the immigration law passed in Arizona and the Health Care Law that is being challenged in court by many states.
The former is the Federal Government failing to live up to it's responsibilities, the later is the Federal Government trying to impose on the people that for which it has no authority.
States rights are a part of our system that is intended to prevent both of the above conditions.
As the Most High Supreme Court Justice, you have a Constitution all your own and a history of the United States all your own. We the People are very grateful to you for duly informing us of the facts and settling all these questions for us. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Think about it

Albuquerque, NM

#12 Mar 12, 2011
Michael L Hays wrote:
<quoted text>
As the Most High Supreme Court Justice, you have a Constitution all your own and a history of the United States all your own. We the People are very grateful to you for duly informing us of the facts and settling all these questions for us. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
You're welcome.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#13 Mar 12, 2011
DAV wrote:
Dear Mr. Ph.D man.
The 14th Amendment states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key word there is CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES. The 14th Amendment was passed so that any Black person born in this country was a US CITIZENS. Being a liberal/independent that you are, the US Constitution is a map that YOU can follow in any direction that suits you.
Dear Mr. DAV man,

The 14th Amendment was passed so that ALL PERSONS born or naturalized would be guaranteed the rights of citizens of the United States and prohibited any state from abridging those rights. You might also note that under the provisions of the 14th Amendment "all persons" within the jurisdiction of the United States share a right of due process of law. The author and chief sponsor of that Amendment, John A. Bingaman wrote, ""National law must protect the priviledges and immunitites of all the citizens as well as aliens in the Republic. It must prevent any state from abridging or denying the inborn rights of every person in its jurisdiction, each person being created in the image of the Lord." Bingaman further wrote, "Your Constitution provides that no man, no matter what his color, no matter under what sky he might have been born, no matter in what disasterous conflict or by what tyrannical hand his liberty may have been cloven down, no matter how poor, no matter how friendless, no matter how ignorant, shall be deprived of life or liberty or property without due process of law--law in its highest sense, that law which is impartial, equal, exact justice."

“This will not end Well”

Since: Oct 10

Ebony Catacomb

#14 Mar 12, 2011
The prototype for the final language of the Declaration of Independence was likely the Virginia Declaration of Rights that was adopted in June of 1776. It read,
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”
In analyzing this statement, we need to assume that words were intended to have meanings. First, the statement says broadly that all men, by nature, are equally free and independent. It does not say the government or society has to make them equal or do anything at all to achieve equality. It says they already are that way by nature. And, by that nature they have inherent rights. Once again, it doesn’t say that the government or society has any role in the matter. In fact, quite the opposite because in the very next breath, the statement explains that these natural rights cannot be deprived or divested (removed) as part of the deal in entering into a state of society. All this says, quite clearly, is that you should not and indeed can not give up your personal individual rights as part of the price of admission. The state can’t take these things away from you! It does not say that the state has to give these things to you or make them happen! That would be silly. The state needn’t and can’t give you something that is inherent in your nature. Then, to explain in detail, the Declaration clarifies that the state can not take away your right to the enjoyment of life and liberty, but it doesn’t say the government is responsible for making your life enjoyable or liberated of all responsibility. It says the state can not take away your means of acquiring and possessing property, but it does not say that the government is responsible for giving you any property. Finally, the state can not take away the right you have for pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety, but it does not say the state is responsible for making you happy and safe. Actually, this argues for small government that does not intrude excessively in peoples lives and by that intervention deprive them of their natural rights to pursue their goals and passions.

“This will not end Well”

Since: Oct 10

Ebony Catacomb

#15 Mar 12, 2011
Part 2: The Declaration of Independence resonates with words expressing the Creator's endowment to all people: "inalienable rights" including "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
The actual text reads,
“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The direct reference to property is gone from this final version of the Declaration, but that was more of a practical desire to remove emphasis rather than to effect a material change. In fact, it may have been removed to avoid battles over the ability of the new state to raise money by taxation or may have been concern over the status of slaves as “property” and other sticky implications. But the main message that these rights are “self-evident” means they are natural rights not bestowed upon people by the state and this is reinforced by the notion that this endowment comes from the Creator, not the state. This of course also means that these are rights that the state must keep its hands off of, just like in the original June 1776 Virginia Declaration. It absolutely does not say that some government bureaucrat is supposed to step in the middle of the process between men and their creator and decide who gets how much life, how much liberty and how much happiness. In fact, all the Declaration says is that the government may not infringe on your right to pursue happiness. It bestows no right or obligation on the state or government to make anyone happy. None, whatsoever.
In other words, small government that does not interfere with rights is good (i.e., in keeping with the founding fathers’ intent), big government that tries to control all human endeavor and maximize its own power while taxing productive members of society is bad. These things impede the pursuit of happiness.
Sane Sage

Placitas, NM

#16 Mar 12, 2011
Noehman Eihaland wrote:
The prototype for the final language of the Declaration of Independence was likely the Virginia Declaration of Rights that was adopted in June of 1776. It read,
“That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”...
Virginians were smart enough to know that implicitly excluded from such highfalutin silliness was their property: those African or Negro heathens.

Damn Yankees want to believe that pretentious, pompous flowery gobbledygook let them assert their own damn states rights! We ot our own and they include slavery! Now and forever!
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#17 Mar 12, 2011
Noehman Elhaland, I respond to two of your tendentious points.

One, the specific reason why consideration of property was omitted from the Declaration is that its drafters recognized that defining property as an "inalienable right" made the collection of taxes problematic. The issue was a legal one, not a practical one.

Two, nowhere do the Declaration or I state that government grants inalienable rights; it states that the purpose of government is to "secure" those rights--a very different matter.

Both of your mistaken points represent the efforts of those who appeal to original documents to twist their clear meanings to political purposes. DAV tried the same thing by omitting the definition of what he recognized as the "key word "key word[s]" from the Amendment he quoted only in part. People who lie for political purpose intend to destroy democracy, which requires the informed, not the misinformed, consent of the governed.

“This will not end Well”

Since: Oct 10

Ebony Catacomb

#18 Mar 12, 2011
Michael L Hays wrote:
Noehman Elhaland, I respond to two of your tendentious points.
One, the specific reason why consideration of property was omitted from the Declaration is that its drafters recognized that defining property as an "inalienable right" made the collection of taxes problematic. The issue was a legal one, not a practical one.
Two, nowhere do the Declaration or I state that government grants inalienable rights; it states that the purpose of government is to "secure" those rights--a very different matter.
Both of your mistaken points represent the efforts of those who appeal to original documents to twist their clear meanings to political purposes. DAV tried the same thing by omitting the definition of what he recognized as the "key word "key word[s]" from the Amendment he quoted only in part. People who lie for political purpose intend to destroy democracy, which requires the informed, not the misinformed, consent of the governed.
I don't disagree with you on your point regarding taxation but would point out that slavery and associated "property" rights were also a contentious issue. While some founding fathers, such as George Washington were slave owners, others strongly disapproved of it. In this regard, I am reminded of the opening sentence of Abraham Linconl's Getttysburg Address, which reads, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." So it would appear that Honest Abe sure thought there were some founding fathers that believed in equality.

I also don't disagree that the Declaration desires to "secure" those rights, and as I discuss at length, that is a very different proposition from actively attempting to grant those rights. Given that the founding fathers were setting about to establish a government, secure individual rights correctly meant avoiding the oppression of an all too powerful and interventionist government like the one they were getting away from in the first place.

And if you want civil discourse, which you obviously do not, you should try not impugning other people's character, calling them liars, or ascribing motivations that you have dreamt up. What's the deal with immediately going in to name calling mode as soon as someone has the audacity to not buy your personal theories on the operation of the universe?

Since: Sep 08

Albuquerque, NM

#19 Mar 12, 2011
"So it would appear that Honest Abe sure thought there were some founding fathers that believed in equality." Honest Abe didn't beleive in equality, but he was a good politician and an excellent wordsmith.
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#20 Mar 12, 2011
Noehman Eihaland wrote:
<quoted text>
[clip] Given that the founding fathers were setting about to establish a government, secure individual rights correctly meant avoiding the oppression of an all too powerful and interventionist government like the one they were getting away from in the first place.
And if you want civil discourse, which you obviously do not, you should try not impugning other people's character, calling them liars, or ascribing motivations that you have dreamt up. What's the deal with immediately going in to name calling mode as soon as someone has the audacity to not buy your personal theories on the operation of the universe?
Your statement "secure individual rights correctly meant avoiding the oppression of an all too powerful and interventionist government like the one they were getting away from in the first place" is your interpretation, your assertion without argument, and, I believe, not likely. The growth of government, mostly as allowed by court interpretation, would suggest that its powers were implicit in its language.

I did not impugn DAV as a liar. I impugned a specific statement as a lie. The difference is enormous, and I recognize it.
Post_Censored

Brighton, MI

#22 Mar 12, 2011
Looks like Dr Hays and partner PlacentaRoy made the Topix censors work overtime on this column as there are quite a few posts missing. Guess they didn't like being proved WRONG AGAIN!!!
LLC

Goodyear, AZ

#23 Mar 12, 2011
Seriously, none of you would last a week with ovaries and a vagina.
Michael L Hays

Las Cruces, NM

#24 Mar 13, 2011
Post_Censored wrote:
Looks like Dr Hays and partner PlacentaRoy made the Topix censors work overtime on this column as there are quite a few posts missing. Guess they didn't like being proved WRONG AGAIN!!!
Actually, I make no one work on censoring anyone's views. My only involvement is to complain when someone uses my name or an approximation of it, invariably to state views not mine. When a subject like this one comes up, the right-wingers who pretend to love America's freedoms, especially of speech, take the opportunity to get angry, ugly, deceitful, and irrational. DAV (#4) is a good example of downright dishonesty, and Not Confused (#21) is a good example of infantile bile at its best. As long as conservatives can cower behind anonymity, I can count on them to demonstrate their ignorance and indecency.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Las Cruces Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
las cruces sun news sucks! 7 hr Stopdapaperfool 1
News Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10) 18 hr More 6,866
Gang problems in Las Cruces (Sep '07) Sat Suicidel freak 209
In pain Fri Robcar 1
King Obama gets slapped down twice Fri Bloodonhishands 1
Demo rats leadership II Thu Bloodonhishands 1
demo rats leadership Jun 23 Bloodonhishands 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Las Cruces Mortgages