States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which
In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.
In conclusion, the federal state should definitely have the power to make decisions on marijuana, abortion, and gay marriage. These are all things that fall under the umbrella of state law at the moment, but that should be changed. The varying states’ interests and laws keep peoples’ full rights out of their hands. In order to keep the United States’ promise of equal rights and protections under the law, the U.S. needs to take control of these three controversial
The Bill of Rights did not extend to the States when it was initially passed and ratified. The Fourteenth Amendment was established to prevent States and local governments from abusing the natural rights of citizens granted by the constitution. It states that no State shall make or enforce any law that shall diminish the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. In other words, within the legislative branch, the Fourteenth Amendment grants congress the power to keep States or local governments from enforcing or passing laws that are unconstitutional. This constitutional provision was necessary to express how States and local governments would enforce their respective laws and what limitations their criminal procedures would have. It is important to understand that the principle responsibility of the government is to the citizen; otherwise the government ceases to be legitimate. The government can only fulfill this responsibility if it is consistent in the enforcement of its laws on every level. The Fourteenth Amendment ensures no person is deprived of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law" and that no person be denied of equal protection of the
However, the majority of the laws that determine the legality of hate crimes, the federal government has left the states to decide. While, the constitution does give the states the power to legislate their own laws, issues such as hate crimes and marriage laws differing in each state have created rifts. Subsequently, under the current laws in place, the state must give up their jurisdiction on hate crimes willingly, in fact, they must specifically request that jurisdiction be taken away from them (Dept. of Justice). This poses a problem, to where the federal government could be powerless in stepping into a major situation, simply because a state is too stubborn to let them onto the case.
One reason I believe the states should have the power to do what they think is best for their states right now was because these official are in this state and know what the people want and what they need in the state. See these political offical hear what the people want unlike right now the government tries to do what is best for all the people but some of it affects other states. If the states had the power to decide then all the states would be better and more prosperous. There have been case where the federal government has bullied the states into changing their mind to what they want. Such as in Louisiana they officials wanted to change the legal; drinking age to 18 years old because it
A controversy arose between Ogden, who had obtained the license from Fulton and Livingston, and Gibbons, who had obtained his license through the United States government. Ogden petitioned the New York Court to “enjoin” Gibbons, his formal partner, from continuing with this business in that state. The Court favored Ogden and granted the injunction and Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the right for Congress to have vast powers. According to the Supreme Court, Congress can regulate who can enter into a monopoly and this case made a distinction between interstate and intrastate within a state. Although the federal government has not been specifically delegated the power to regulate commerce within a certain state that does not mean that the federal government cannot regulate a states commerce. When the Commerce Clause has a broad interpretation, intrastate regulations are often included. Commerce is more than just buying or selling; it is intercoursing, which according to this case does include such stipulations as navigation. Interpreting commerce in a broad sense has thus established what is known as a Federal police power. Police powers refer to or identify the inherent authority of the state government to regulate individually liberty, freedom for health and welfare and safety. The Federal government does not have police power, but it can be seen as evidence in this case how the Federal
In conclusion, state law and federal law are very similar as, they are each meant to dictate a measure of safety for the citizens of the United States of America. According to the United States Constitution federal law, which is dictated, allows the federal government the power to make laws for the people and for the country as a whole. State laws are meant to allow each state to be allowed to govern them and handle the issues within their states. This power was given to them from the Bill of Rights that was also outlined in the Constitution (FindLaw, 2012).
Within 24 hours after passage, Brenda, a civil rights attorney, brings a cause of action in federal court to have the new regulation ruled unconstitutional. The federal court immediately rules that the state law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and issues an injunction against its enforcement.
Instead of the federal law, states took it into their own hand to make their own. It may seem comedic but some states made their own sort of “wacky” laws. Some of the laws are countless and it seems as if states took advantage of the Tenth amendment to just create their own regulations. In Alabama it is illegal to drive while blindfolded, and in Florida it is Illegal to sell your children, and in Arkansa it is prohibited to pronounce “Arkansas’’ incorrectly. Most of
The federal government and the states deal with the law enforcement. The Bill of Rights applies to the national government, not to the states. Each state had their own Bill of Rights that were very similar to the federal government bill of
The men who wrote the Bill of Rights, having just escaped a controlling country, wanted to make a final check on the government that they had just created (Richardson 2). They accomplished this with the Second Amendment which gives U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms. And more specifically, the supreme court has decided that people as individuals have the right to keep and bear arms rather than just a collective militia i.e. the coast guard (1). Also, the Fourteenth Amendment prevents any stage from making or enforcing an law that threatens the rights of a U.S. citizen (14th amendment 1). This means that state governments can not pass a law that infringes upon the Second Amendment (McDonald v. Chicago).
It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.
Do your constitutional rights protect you from state laws? In 1989 Texas v. Johnson, Johnson had burned an American flag and Texas state law protects the American flag from being burned when the flag burner knows it will seriously offend others. Johnson was then arresting and tried, then the case went all the way to the Supreme court. Johnson claimed he was expressing his right to free speech. Flag burning conveyed a political message. Preserving the flag was related to the suppression of expression. There was no breach of peace. Johnson burning the flag was indeed free speech and he is protected by the 1st Amendment in this instance.