Does anyone actualy believe that there is still such a thing as states rights?
489805
Certainly within the Founders True Intent of the Constitution, States rights were recognized.  With the Union federal government winning of the civil war and the application of the 1868 14th Amendment (justified in Texas v. White [1869] since it never met Constitutional ratification requirements), States came under the power of the federal government and States rights began to diminish.  \n\nThrough the years the federal government has increasingly intruded into what the Founders would have considered as the Constitutional territory of the States.  One of the primary roles of the States (prior to the Civil war) was to protect the rights of its citizens relative to actions of the federal government through an action termed State Nullification.  In this function a single State legislature could decide that federal action was not Constitutional and nullify it in that single State.  \n\nTo get this back where it once was, a Constitutional Amendment would have to be ratified noting the Sovereign role of the States and their power to nullify federal action.
1116365
Right is right. 'Rights' are inalienable. 'Wrongs' need to be righted.\n\n'Rights' are not priviledges. They are not earned.\n\nBut, I aggree that freedom isn't free.
84259
The concept that people have this *right* is an ethical question and I support the position that all have this right.\n\nWhether people actually have it is a legal question based on the laws of their country. China, for example, has government policies in place that restrict the information the inhabitants can freely receive.\n\nIn India, there are domestic rights organizations that are vigilant in protecting and preserving the citizens perceived rights including that of information. (1)\n\nEvery country has a segment that would restrict information and any of the other qualities that are considered *rights*. Regardless of political party there are essentially two kinds of people; those who wish controls and those who do not want controls.
363842
Yes I am open minded enough to do that. However I more believe the spoken word and actions that are done by people in control. For instance the repuglicans say they back the constitution when in fact they are taking rights away almost every election, and it is the democrtatic party that stands more for the bill of rights.
106227
Gee, if there were only some kind of, oh I don't know, CONSTITUTION... or BILL OF RIGHTS.\nSeems like that would help.
973090
It is our constitutional right to do so.\n\nThe last time that this was tried it brought about the Civil War.  Is this really what you want?
606324
No.  That right is reserved for citizens and legal residents.\n\nThey do not have "civil rights."  They have "human rights."  This is an important distinction.  Also, to infer that the Constitution is bestowing rights on illegals is like assuming that illegals have the right to bear arms and vote.  "The people" in the Constitution very specifically means "the citizens" of the USA.\n\nWikipedia\nCivil Rights\nCivil rights are the protections and privileges of personal liberty given to all citizens by law. Civil rights are distinguished from "human rights" or "natural rights"—civil rights are rights that are bestowed by nations on those within their territorial boundaries, while natural or human rights are rights that many scholars claim ought to belong to all people.
1070670
To say a war about states' rights to have slaves was not a war about slavery is kind of, um, ridiculous.
394888
The Ameroica Civil war was about state rights
518012
Last time I checked there was more than one 'State' in our lovely country.\n\nGet it right.
344164
Yes, they have a constitution, however I do not believe it is like ours.
908703
It isn't about rights as Americans it is about human rights. The answer is a resounding no. Our country is based on a rule of law and the president and his goons have found a way to circumvent it. This is for now, with the democrats in power we could see a return to law and order.
1126740
One other guy was close when he said that the supreme court gave some certain rights to this. But the  problem is some states took that too far.\n\nI read over some of the answers and either ppl didn't understand your question or their states don't do what you are referring to. Mine does so I get it.\n\nBottom line: they should NOT have this right. I agree with you completely on the right of passage being interfered with.
111405
Let's not be naive, what is right or legal will not stop those with power from learning what they want to know. Our technological advances in the field of communications have presented an irresistible opportunity for those with power to abuse our rights. Our only hope for the future is that these powers are somewhat benevolent torward us. The only place you can know,... really know, that you have privacy, is the thoughts in your head.
163124
I suspect your question is rhetorical, and you know the answer is no.  Natural rights are what we have just for being human beings, such as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, AMONG THESE (not all of them) are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.\n\nPrivileges are just that; something which is granted by an authority and can be taken away by that authority.  Name one privilege the U.S. government has granted to all citizens?  The "right" to vote is actually a privilege, since it can be taken away by the government, and is if you are convicted of a felony, if you swear allegiance to another country, probably other reasons.
123500
Definitely, the constitution of this once great country has become a joke, your rights are guaranteed to you only as long as it is convenient.
181730
no they have less rights.  they are allowed to exist only by grant of the gov't.  They are required to follow rules that would be unconstitutional if applied to individuals.