Pro-States Rights Versus Government On A Federal Level
A desire for some form of federalism establishing division of powers between the states and the national governments emanated from the deliberations between anti-federalists and federalists at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The government, in the view of the anti-federalist, was to be accountable to the states that formed it, while the states would be accountable to people. Small and confined territories, in the view of the anti-federalist, would be better in executing republican principles for the latter to be effective, in addition to reducing or eliminating chances of despotism (Drake & Nelson, 1999). In the quest to assuming the responsibility to citizens, states therefore may be assumed as should have the mandate to demand rights befitting their citizens.
The fight for states right has had impact on the politics of the United States with it causing the Civil War of 1812. The topic of interposition and nullification between the federal authority and the states’ rights has given rise to debate in the United States. The constitution establishes federal governmental laws as the Supreme Law of the land and it is required that judgment in the states level should respect to the Supreme Law. A stronger state law has been preferred over the federal government authority because there has been a need to defend the rights of particular interests in these states, and which do not correspond to the interests of the other states. Matters of interests where demand for superior states laws and matters of nullification have arisen cuts across financial such as tax obligation to individual matters. For example, the citizens of South Carolina State felt they had a right to protect themselves against federal tariff acts of 1828 and 1832. There was therefore sought ordinance of nullification to these laws.
The Kentucky Resolutions allowed that states should govern themselves and considered that the federal laws would not stand to bind states in any way if they assumed undelegated powers. In this case, nullification would be granted. The danger that states would become independent of each other rather than working together for the interest of the country, if there was lacking a central authority stipulated in the federal laws. Thus the feeling to this argument is that the government through the federal law must have power over the states laws and rights. The issue of competition between two or among many states regarding rights should also be felt in regard to allowing states’ rights to undermine the federal laws. Therefore, it would be necessary to have a federal authority ready to force the states’ to comply with work together for the benefit of the country (Stoddard, 2007).
The concept of States’ rights over matters is stipulated in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S constitution which reserves powers to the states where such power is not delegated to the United States or prohibited to the states. Federal laws have been challenged in history of the United States regarding the rights of the states to slavery. This caused the federal government to exist to form only rules and regulations and not laws touching on the basic policies of the states. In fact, states have ever threatened to withdraw from the Union for search of state sovereignty. Succession came to be justified as a revolutionary right by its advocates (States’ rights, 2002).
States have moved ahead to claim various rights and challenge the authority of the federal government where they have felt infringement of their populations or the unfairness of the law to the local states. This may be allowed on the basis that people have different opinions and the respect to the fact that different people in different states are faced with different conditions such as number of the citizens and investment preferences. Some of the sates are exposed to illegal immigration more than others and therefore taking responsibility on the state level may lead to the denial of adequately quality services to citizens of the United States. Under these conditions, the federal government may be made to assume responsibility. The state of California for example filed suit to commit the United States to taking care of the illegal immigrants by offering the cost of education, medical charges and imprisoning of illegal aliens. In this respect, a state is bound to provide better services to its citizen and therefore may have to seek for rights to be acquitted of such responsibilities. Such issues of population, crime, illegal immigration, employment, for example, are not equally faced around the United States. Alaska once sought its right for 100 million of its land from the federal authority and filed a case. Issues of security rights have also caused concern. For example, Montana sought to prevent the federal authority to perform background checks on gun powders citing lack of manpower, lack of time and non-popularity of guns in the state (APFN). Therefore, it would be correct to argue that federal authority must allow rights of states because of the existing indifferences amongst states, which cannot allow application of uniform laws. Besides, various states must have be provided with a right and ground to adventure and seek excellence on their own where they federal regulations put an unfair limits to such excellence.
Processing your request, Please wait....
