War between the states...modern version

United States
June 18, 2010 4:01pm CST
You could call it a war between the states and federal government this time. And instead of it playing out in a field of battle it is being waged in the court rooms. Several states are sueing the federal government over the healthcare reform bill. The federal government has announced they are going to sue Arizona over their new illegal immigration bill. I imagine after other states pass similar legislation as the Arizona bill that the feds will also being sueing those states. It seems that the war is over who has the power to do what. Who has the right...the federal government or the state government. And it seems to be spreading from just one topic to number of things. So what do you think of this new "war". Who do you think will win...state's rights or federal rights? Do you think this will become the new trend...don't like what the feds do just sue them...don't like what a state does..sue them. Man lawyers are going to making a mint on all of this...at tax payer exspense on both sides. Give me your take on this new trend. Is it a waste of time?
1 person likes this
9 responses
• United States
19 Jun 10
The only winner will be the lawyers. I do find it funny how republican hate lawyers until they need them. Nothing makes me laugh more than people who want tort reform, but then want to sue because they don't like what the government is doing. Can you say Hypocrite?
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
19 Jun 10
Do you know what torts are debater? They are completely different from, and have nothing to do with challenging unconstitutional laws.
• United States
19 Jun 10
I understand that, but you need lawyers to argue these cases. And republicans want to make it so they make less, so using the same right wing logic around doctors and Obamacare, there is no doubt that they make less, there will be less of them, thus a shortage. Or is the right wing logic incorrect?
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
20 Jun 10
Well any politician, on EITHER side, who claims to be against lawyers is most likely full of $hit. A large number, if not the majority, of our congressman and senators are lawyers. The issue many have with Tort reform is that people can sue for ungodly sums and lawyers walk away with a lot of that money. If a baby's collarbone is broken during birth, a doctor and the hospital he works at could be sued even if he did his job to the best of his ability. Tort reform has largely been about putting a cap on those sums making it less profitable to sue hospitals and thus less likely to happen. Outside of torts lawyers are generally paid what they're worth in competence, rather than how much they can bilk out of someone. Johnny Cochran for example was worth every penny he charged his clients and I would oppose any legislation that could put a cap on what he or someone like him could charge. If a lawyer isn't worth the amount they charge, people will hire someone else.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
19 Jun 10
I received an email that claimed that New Hampshire has proposed a resolution basically challenging the Federal Government saying they will not follow any law other than those outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution. I have not been able to verrify this but have heard it from a number of different sources that NH and other states are passing laws to challenge the Federal Government. There is also a new focus on the Ninth and tenth Amendments to the Constitution. http://www.usconstitution.net/
• United States
19 Jun 10
Do report back when these resolutions actually get as far as a state government disregarding federal law, and let us know how that works out for them.
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Jun 10
Well, I would say my state law defying Bush's little gem, "REAl ID" is working out just fine 3 years in to it.
2 people like this
@eileenleyva (10964)
• Philippines
18 Jun 10
lil, that is not good. Your country is a bastion of democracy. And we know that democracy is governed by the people. The Arizona case might be a precedent to something more chaotic. I do hope this does not happen.
• United States
18 Jun 10
That is problem with these laws going before a court. Laws are suppost to decide by representatives of the poeple. Which means the people decide the laws. Courts do not have to take into consideration how the public feels about a law...they can do what htey want. And the public can not turn around and fire them (supreme court) if htey do something the majority of us don't agree with.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
19 Jun 10
Well first off, we're not really a democracy. That's a common misconception. We are a constitutional republic. If we were a democracy, then there wouldn't be any issue with the Arizona law since the majority in that state AND throughout the country support it. The idea of the supreme court not being fired by or voted on by the public is to protect them from succumbing to mob mentality when their job is to judge the constitutionality of laws and bills. Basically, they should NOT take into consideration how the public feels about a law, but rather how it matches up against the constitution.
@TTCCWW (579)
• United States
20 Jun 10
The fight between state and the feds have been in court from the beginning of this great experiment. The idea of taking it to court is to settle the problem. I happen to live in a state that probably has had more lawsuits against the Federal government then any other and I do have a problem with the idea that the tax payers have to pay for both sides of the lawsuit. That said, there is no better way to solve the issue.
@xParanoiax (6999)
• United States
20 Jun 10
On one hand, my heart flutters at the possibility that REAL dialogue may result from this trend. Not Arizona's bill per se, but what it's going to inspire. Fed vs State. The people vs Big Brother. As a newsblogger of three years now, I've been dying to push people in the direction of thinking about and talking about saying NO to bad bills from our larger body of government. Real ID is an excellent example of where this trend started. It seems like it's really gonna pick up, though. I wouldn't call anything that might inspire thought and discussion that's needed, a waste of time. I admit though, that the Feds suing a State government...makes me nervous. I don't LIKE Arizona's bill, there's plenty of people who don't...but I believe in the constitution and in the principle of freedom. Just because I don't like a state's legislation, doesn't mean I want it to be FORCIBLY overturned. I will always side with the states first...because that's how it's supposed to work. We, the people, and all that. If the people decide that a bill is necessary, no matter how unpleasant it might be...the federal government HAS to abide by it. Even if it goes against their own agendas. It's dangerous for the big government to win over the little government...every state must have its sovereignty, because if it doesn't then the people DON'T have power. The states aren't always gonna make the best decisions, but that just means that the people have to hold them ownselves responsible. I DOUBT that this will have bad repercussions for the whole country, therefore...the feds need to stick their noses OUT of what isn't their business. Who do I think will win? I don't honestly know. I'm uber out of the loop with my inconsistent access to the internet lately. But I'd HOPE that it would be the States, for all of our sakes. Even if the concept of "fair play"...government sues, states sues, for equal measure's an interesting idea...I doubt it would end up being equal in the end. Things work the way they work for a REASON.
@laglen (19782)
• United States
19 Jun 10
I think the states (the people) will win in the end. If the courts uphold the federal gov, ignoring the wishes of the people, I believe will end up in a LOT of job openings. I worry that this will not end peacefully.I truly do hope it doesnt come to that. But I don't see a compromise coming.
@spalladino (17925)
• United States
19 Jun 10
I don't believe that the states sueing the federal government over the unconstitutional mandate in the healthcare bill is a waste of time but I do believe the suit against Arizona's new legislation is. As xfahctor has predicted, there will be a lot of problems associated with the feds winning over the states since I doubt the states will back down.
@xfahctor (14128)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
19 Jun 10
Deep down I think we have to realize this will not end with the courts. On some (ok...lots) of issues it SHOULDN'T end with the courts. If the law is blatantly unconstitutional, then even if the courts rule it isn't, I think you will see states continuing to defy federal authorities and (like Utah and Wyoming), arresting federal agents for enforcing unconstitutional laws. Anyone who has been here for a while knows I have been predicting a civil war for a few years now. this next war will be a police enforcement type war that will go on until we get a government that respects the constitution.
@dboman (457)
• United States
19 Jun 10
I think this is a great opportunity for Constitutional recovery and the recovery of State's rights. The federal government has slowly eroded personal and state's rights for nearly a hundred years in the name of "progress" and through judicial activism. Finally, states and the American people are fighting back. Unfortunately, with this White House, I expect the federal government to win. While we do have 5 people on the Supreme Court who actually rule according to the Constitution...the Executive and Legislative branches have risen in power so much that it may not be enough. To answer your questions, I'll pay a LOT of money to get my rights back and to reduce the size of government...so it is worth it to me and DEFINITELY not a waste of time on the states' parts. As for the federal government...I don't see Constitutional basis for many of the things they do and definitely not for the Arizona issue.