Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak
Exactly. Did some reading up on the Civil Rights movement lately. JFK hesitated to send federal forces into Alabama in 1961, to protect "Freedom Riders" because he was afraid it would be seen as a usurpation of "States Rights". But he ultimately came to the realization that the state government was so corrupt as to be in bed with the KKK......so he had no choice, he had to act to ensure the safety of the riders and others there to support them as Americans first.
States Rights, carried to extremes, can and have been disastrous in the past.
At what point does the federal government step in and break the will of a tyrannical state government, to protect the rights and well-being of individual American citizens?
That is the question we should be asking.
But, half the country seems to see it backwards. They want to protect the bigots, the ruthlessly greedy and the bullies. It's their "Patriotic Duty", I hear. 
Dave |
There are two possibilities for the Federal Government 'stepping in.'
You've got Article 7 of the Constitution, which includes the 'Guarantee Clause:'
Quote:
|
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government
|
There Supreme Court punted the only time a case on this came to them, in the 1840's, saying what is 'republican' is a political question, to be decided by Congress. Or, perhaps, by the executive? I don't see the basic definition as being so controversial;: a defacto representative democracy. The federal government laid out in the Constitution would be an example.
The other, of course, would be the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. But frankly I like the Guarantee Clause in the case of a rogue, tyrannical government, as opposed to a basically OK government that is just overreaching in a particular area.