More validation on why I hate the 10th Amendment

[EnergizedLib]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/republican-congressional-candidate-says-we-need-to-go-after-gay-marriage/ar-AA12DgnS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=c5ce16e2c7b04feb9263229c50bae60f#comments

Do people not realize the slippery slope that goes along with leaving everything to the states? Maybe, just maybe, the Founding Fathers got this wrong? Hence why the 14th Amendment was a good idea and thankfully has allotted for more federal legislation and court rulings in favor of civil rights.

I have never seen a Republican argue states should have the right to do X that benefits the citizen. They want X to take away marriage equality, to take away interracial marriage, abortion, to take away contraceptives and birth control. The 14th Amendment specifically bars states from making laws denying people equal protection, and Congress *shall have the power* to enforce this amendment via legislation.

So, maybe this wasn't a power of Congress by the time the 10th was ratified, but it is one now because our Constitution may be amended and the 14th Amendment is an amendment. And as I've said before, I believe abortion (making one's own healthcare decisions) to be one an unenumerated right in the Ninth Amendment, and since the Ninth Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights and the Incorporation Doctrine shows the Bill of Rights also apply to the states, that means states can't encroach on Ninth Amendment rights, hence Dobbs being decided incorrectly.

I have yet to also hear from somebody who can justify why they should be allowed to vote on other people's marriages and rights. Would you want us to vote on your marriage and telling you who you can't marry even if you're two consenting adults?

Remember that states rights gave us the Civil War, slavery, Jim Crow, segregation and authoritative state legislatures that are banning abortion without putting the measure on the ballot (Indiana), which is gaslighting. Let the people decide - the people did decide for 49 years to have an abortion or not have an abortion. What those people did, either way, is none of their business.

Human rights, civil rights, individual liberties are role of the federal government. Whereas you make the argument with abortion that this pertains to a potential life, telling somebody your marriage is valid in one state but not another doesn't make any sense.

When people care more about states rights than individual liberties, when they feel people shouldn't be free in all 50 states, you know, as in the *United* States of America, then we're not free, and we're not great.

States rights have always been in bad faith. I truly wish the 10th could be repealed and the federal government may pass legislation like the codifying of Roe and Obergefell into law without worry of any challenges, as states rights mean localized tyranny.

[onecaliberal]

1. The states that don't want people to vote should be cut from all federal funding.

Period.

[EnergizedLib]

2. Bingo

The biggest domestic threat to liberty, aside from arguably the illegitimate SCOTUS, isn't the federal government, but state legislatures.

[Grins]

3. Big mistake the founders made...

And not the only big mistake, but becoming a country made up of 13 little independent self-absorbed “nations” is certainly one of them!

It took a secession(s) and civil war before we could have a common currency and national bank. And so many more that hindered national development.