State Vs. Federal Issues

[Conan71]

Borrowing from the topic on partial birth abortions:

"Most all of the nonsense that gets codified by the feds should be state issues. Jefferson would be pissed."

Enlighten me:

What is the litmus test for what should be a states right or federal issue?

The CRA's were very heated between state or federal, abortion, immigration is a football being passed back and forth now.  Sorry I can't think of all the others at the moment.

What determines who should have the legislative jurisdiction?  Common sense?  The Constitution?The Constitution doesn't seem to be an overly clear road map on state v. fed based on all the issues which have been taken before the Supreme Court for interpretation.

[iplaw]

Unfortunately we lost the battle long ago vis-a-vis state's rights and the supremacy of the federal government about 30 years after the country was founded when the deabte emerged over the creation of a federalized banking system, and it perpetuated from there.

There is no way to reanimate the 10th amendment, we're too far gone.

[Conan71]

All fine and good, but who really makes the determination, other than the supreme court  whether or not something is a state or federal issue.

The CRA's and immigration make sense to me as to why they should be federal issues due to black people being U.S. citizens and that their rights should be uniform from state to state.  I think immigration would be since it's a national security and commerce issue.  Though in the absence of federal action, I get why states are taking charge at the state level.

Now, why is abortion still being argued as a state or fed'l issue and what would be the test for future legislation not related to these examples?  Just curious how the process works.

Just curious.  I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's my father's not mine. []

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

All fine and good, but who really makes the determination, other than the supreme court  whether or not something is a state or federal issue.

The CRA's and immigration make sense to me as to why they should be federal issues due to black people being U.S. citizens and that their rights should be uniform from state to state.  I think immigration would be since it's a national security and commerce issue.  Though in the absence of federal action, I get why states are taking charge at the state level.

Now, why is abortion still being argued as a state or fed'l issue and what would be the test for future legislation not related to these examples?  Just curious how the process works.

Just curious.  I've got a law degree hanging on my wall, but it's my father's not mine. []

If I remember correctly it's an issue (usually) of interstate commerce.  If something affects interstate commerce (which is everything potentially) it falls under the federal system.