My Contemporary Issues class wrote a statement on the board :
"State lawmakers have the right to make laws that are in the best interest of their citizens even if those laws violate the laws of the U.S. Constitution"
AGREE OR DISAGREE
My homework is to find 5 reason's why i disagree with the satement.
I have 2.
1. If this were an active statement a state would be able to take away our 1st Amendment-Freedom of Speech, religion, and expression. By living in that sate you would no longer have that right if the above statement were true.
2. If the states could make laws that violate or oppose the U.S. Constitution then that would violate the 14th Amendment which states that all men are to be treated equally and have the same opportunities.
Please help me and give me 3 more.
2007-09-11 09:55:50 · 7 answers · asked by Josh C 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The constitution was pieced together by our very intellectual forefathers, and violating it is not only unwise, but it is disrespectful.
If the constitution can be violated, checks and balances can be abolished, thereby leading to tyranny and other undesireable forms of government.
All people in America are entitled to the rights guaranteed by the constitution. If some states violated the constitution, then Americans would no longer be protected by it in some states, and certain state laws could contradict eachother (or the constitution). For example, slavery can be reenacted, and based on history, that can lead to secession of some states that chose to violate the constitution.
Hope this helps. Usually I don't like to do others' homework for them, but I like your question. Also you're obviously making an effort.
2007-09-11 10:02:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the founding fathers ever fathomed that states would restrict their own people. The Bill of Rights was written because the states were leery of the federal government having too much power.
But that said, the Bill of Rights is clearly a set of restrictions placed upon the federal government.
And the 14th amendment, I think, means that states have the same restrictions as the federal government.
I don't know. But I do think that if a state restricts your freedoms, you can simply move to another state if you feel strongly enough.
But if the federal government restricts your freedoms, where are you to go?
2007-09-11 17:01:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If state laws could override the US Constitution then there the US would cease to exist and the states would be different countries in there own rights, it is the US Constitution that binds the states together.
2007-09-11 17:00:34 · answer #3 · answered by Insane 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Federal laws supercede state laws when state laws directly conflict with federal laws, the constitution, or treatise of the United States.
2007-09-11 17:01:03 · answer #4 · answered by Eisbär 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A state could try to tax goods coming into the state for sale. It might (emphasis on might) be good for their state, but it would screw with the US economy as a whole and could spark trade disputes between the states.
2007-09-11 17:03:51 · answer #5 · answered by Michael C 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Disagree, because federal law trumps state law.
2007-09-11 17:01:29 · answer #6 · answered by Hillary 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because "In the Best Interest" is too vague for people to agree on and thus, prone to abuse.
Who is to decide our best interest? I know I would not want the some politician deciding my best interest.
2007-09-11 17:01:12 · answer #7 · answered by JandJ 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋