Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #11  
Old 07-10-2014, 12:41 AM
donquixote99's Avatar
donquixote99 donquixote99 is offline
Ready
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.