what we call the group of people who favored "state rights" in the constitutional period?
606078
There wasn't anyone of any importance really that didn't favor State's rights over the rights of a Federal Gov't.\n\nDo you know the reason for the Constitution, what it does? Most people haven't read it since High School, if then. It only grants one right to the people, and is not about us, although it was designed to protect us against big Federal Gov't. The whole thing is laid out to limit the powers of the Federal Gov't. It is the only lawful authority the Federal Gov't has. Read the Consitution as the sight in Sources.\n\nDid you know that our Constitution almost didn't get signed into action? Do you know what our Forefathers feared most? They did not fear Britian or India or China or Spain or the Dutch, or all of them together. They feared that the Federal Gov't they were authorizing would gain more power than any one or all States. So they broke our Gov't into three branches, and spelled out the only authority of our Federal Gov't. \n\nBut it still almost didn't get signed. The only way they were able to get enough votes, was if they added the clause of seccession. If any state ever wanted to, they could withdraw from the Union.\n\nEveryone blames the South for the Civil War, but all they were trying to do was lawfully withdraw from the Union, along with some northern states. Lincoln went to war to settle the argument. There were a lot bigger issues at stake than slavery. It was about Federal control over the STates.\n\nThe Contitution got signed, but we didn't enforce it. There was nobody to police the police. And you can bet, when they added the Amendments to the Constitution, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed," was there for one reason: politicians only fear two things: public opinion and guns.
43757
Sometime in the 1960's when they were granted the right to vote and considered "people"
793293
because a long time ago, before you were born it was these united STATES of america.\n\nthat meant that the state was who you pledged aligence to, \nstates have fought for their rights over a national government since the founding of this country, and truth be known, states always won.  it wasn't until the national highway act of WW2 that states were all too happy to sell their rights for federal funding, and that is how states lost their rights.  \n\n(you see it is in many ways like right now)\nThen:  states gave up their rights to the federal government for money\nNOW:  people gave up their rights to the federal governeent for something that they were supposed to provide in the first place:  protection, you know kinda like the mofia
971132
haha im in advanced history \nfederalist favored the constitution\nbasicaly they were the first political party  \nso  c\nbecause they wanted a new constitution
333360
In the summer of 1787, delegates from 13 new American states, recently British colonies, met in Philadelphia to write a constitution for a unified nation. By September, they had produced a document that then began to circulate among the state legislatures for ratification. The new constitution provided a blueprint for how the national government would function, but it did not contain a section specifically outlining the rights of individual citizens. A public debate quickly arose. Advocates of the draft constitution argued that guarantees of individual rights were not needed. Others, however, aware of the explicit rights guaranteed in earlier documents such as the British Bill of Rights (1689) and the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, believed that some specific provision stating the rights of individuals was necessary.\n\nAt the height of the debate, in December 1787, Thomas Jefferson, then serving as ambassador to France, wrote a letter to his friend James Madison, one of the chief authors of the new constitution. "A bill of rights," Jefferson wrote, "is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."\n\nJefferson's position gained advocates, and a compromise was reached. State legislatures agreed to ratify the draft document with the understanding that the first national legislature meeting under the new constitution would pass amendments guaranteeing individual liberties. That is precisely what occurred. By 1791, these 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, had become part of the supreme law of the land.\n\nMuch about this controversy at the very beginning of the American experiment in democracy prefigures later developments in U.S. politics and constitutional law. Intense views on both sides were moderated by a complicated, yet highly pragmatic compromise. Also significant is that Jefferson saw explicit limits on government power as a necessity. In fact, the Bill of Rights can be read as the definitive statement of that most American of values: the idea that the individual is prior to and takes precedence over any government.\n\nAs the title "The Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights" suggests, this book is our effort to explain how the core concepts of individual liberty and individual rights have evolved under the U.S. legal system down the present day.\n\nIt is intended for a great variety of readers. One obvious use is in secondary school or university classrooms. To that end, we are creating an on-line Discussion Guide with accompanying questions and background references. Please look for it on the World Wide Web at: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/\n\nA non-American reader may well ask, "But what does all this have to do with me? In my country we have a different legal tradition and there is no bill of rights."\n\nIt is true that the U.S. Bill of Rights is the historical product of a particular time and place. It arose out a long British tradition of enumerated rights within the British legal system that governed the American colonies. Some would say it has unique application to the circumstances of the United States.\n\nYet many others believe that the American Bill of Rights has transcended its historical roots. The concept of individual rights can be seen as one of the building blocks in any civil society. And in many times and many places, the Bill of Rights has served as beacon to those living under tyrants.\n\nConsider the post-1989 revolutions that ended Communist control of Eastern Europe. Looking back on these events, Adam Michnik, the Polish journalist and Solidarity leader, posed the question of which revolution has been a greater inspiration for modern Europeans — the French Revolution or the American Revolution. His answer is unequivocal.\n\n"The American Revolution," says Michnik, "appears to e
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.
142023
Governments have specific rights.  Most of the Bill of Rights ammendments dealt with individual rights.  To allow the specific government rights (eminent domain comes to mind right away) the 10th ammendment was passed ot allow state governments to exercise their powers
45087
People want their rights.
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.
579119
The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.
14348
Common misconception. They concentrated on...\n\nStates' rights!
68818
Civil liberty is a synonym for civil rights.
1027920
Yes, for not all people in the United States are citizens (immigrants, etc.), and yet these people must be afforded protection under the law of the country when they are in this country.\n\n(In the past, abolitionists like Lysander Spooner had even argued that "the people" included those being held in slavery, and that therefore slavery was inherently unconstitutional.)
31103
The founding fathers, writers of the constitution.
671943
false sense of freedom. fuks over the minority, because majority wins it doesn't mean they are right
973093
I agree about our Constitution. This nation was the first nation in the modern world where it was openly acknowledged that no one possesses perfect foresight, so our body of laws had to be flexible enough to accommodate future Americans and their future issues, but solid enough and based upon firm enough principles that they would not be changed on a whim. The principles upon which our system was founded were (and are) so cutting edge that they have become a model for many countries where liberty and equality are at issue. Under the ideals upon which this country was founded, it is easy to see why we are held up as the model against which other countries measure themselves. However, the ideal and the reality sometimes are just far enough apart to reflect duplicity to those looking for c hinks in our collective armor. Suffice it to say that ours is the most effective system operating for most intents and purposes, inconsistencies notwithstanding.
994297
No. But most people who have any political interests fall somewhere along that spectrum.\n\nHowever, it is not the only spectrum. In fact, some models don't even consider it a single spectrum.\n\nFirst, you have the question of federal-vs-state. Conservatives originally believed in a small federal government and maximum states rights, while liberals wanted a strong centralized government. The Republican party has pretty much abandoned that conservative goal in the past decade, but it remains a significant aspect.\n\nYou also have the question of group-rights vs individual rights. This is where civil liberties versus community/national interests conflict. A conservative wants to afford protections for society, including strong national defense and homelands security. Liberals may value these things, but not at the expense of individual civil rights and liberties. That's another spectrum.\n\nThere are other spectrums, but you get the idea.  Democrats are big-government, individual rights. Republicans (nowadays) are big-government, group security. Federalists are small-government, group security. Libertarians are small-government, individual rights. Just to name a few.\n\nOf course, how fanatic you are about any of these goals is yet another wholly different scale. Moderates are those who are still willing to listen to other people, and haven't become trapped fanaticism.\n\nPersonally, I think the world needs more moderates, and less fanatics.