States' rights in the context of "Model Penal Code"

Play Trivia Questions online!

or

Skip to study material about States' rights in the context of "Model Penal Code"

Ad spacer

⭐ Core Definition: States' rights

In American political discourse, states' rights are political powers held for the state governments rather than the federal government according to the United States Constitution, reflecting especially the enumerated powers of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The enumerated powers that are listed in the Constitution include exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are contrasted with the reserved powers—also called states' rights—that only the states possess. Since the 1940s, the term "states' rights" has often been considered a loaded term, a euphemism, or a dog whistle because of its use in opposition to federally-mandated racial desegregation and, more recently, same-sex marriage and reproductive rights.

↓ Menu

>>>PUT SHARE BUTTONS HERE<<<
In this Dossier

States' rights in the context of Regionalism (politics)

Regionalism is a political ideology that seeks to increase the political power, influence and self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions. It focuses on the "development of a political or social system based on one or more" regions, and/or the national, normative, or economic interests of a specific region, group of regions or another subnational entity, gaining strength from or aiming to strengthen the "consciousness of and loyalty to a distinct region with a homogeneous population", similarly to nationalism. More specifically, "regionalism refers to three distinct elements: movements demanding territorial autonomy within unitary states; the organization of the central state on a regional basis for the delivery of its policies including regional development policies; political decentralization and regional autonomy".

Regions may be delineated by administrative divisions, culture, language and religion, among others. Regionalists' demands occur in "strong" forms (such as sovereigntism, separatism, sovereignty, secession and independence), as well as more "moderate" campaigns for greater autonomy (such as states' rights, decentralization or devolution). Strictly speaking, regionalists favour confederations over unitary nation states with strong central governments. They may, however, embrace intermediate forms of federalism. Proponents of regionalism usually claim that strengthening the governing bodies and political powers within a region, at the expense of a centralized government, will benefit local populations by improving regional or local economies, in terms of better fiscal responsibility, regional development, allocation of resources, implementation of localist policies and plans, competitiveness among regions and, ultimately, the whole country, consistent with the principle of subsidiarity.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of Nullification (U.S. Constitution)

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal laws that they deem unconstitutional with respect to the United States Constitution (as opposed to the state's own constitution). There are similar theories that any officer, jury, or individual may do the same. The theory of state nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts, although jury nullification has.

The theory of nullification is based on a view that the states formed the Union by an agreement (or "compact") among the states, and that as creators of the federal government, the states have the final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact theory, the states and not the federal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal government's power. Under this theory, the states therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that the states believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions in 1798.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of Conservatism in the United States

Conservatism in the United States is one of two major political ideologies in the United States, with the other being liberalism (more specifically, modern social liberalism). Traditional American conservatism is characterized by a belief in individualism, traditionalism, capitalism, republicanism, and limited federal governmental power in relation to U.S. states, although 21st century developments have shifted it towards right-wing populist themes.

American conservatives maintain support from the Christian right and its interpretation of Christian values and moral absolutism, while generally opposing abortion, euthanasia, and some LGBT rights. They tend to favor economic liberalism, and are generally pro-business and pro-capitalism, while more strongly opposing communism and labor unions than liberals and social democrats. Recent shifts have moved it towards national conservatism, protectionism, cultural conservatism, and a more realist foreign policy.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799 in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional those acts of Congress that the Constitution did not authorize. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict construction of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively.

The principles stated in the resolutions became known as the "Principles of '98". Adherents argued that the states could judge the constitutionality of federal government laws and decrees. The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 argued that each individual state has the power to declare that federal laws are unconstitutional and void. The Kentucky Resolution of 1799 added that when the states determine that a law is unconstitutional, nullification by the states is the proper remedy. The Virginia Resolutions of 1798 refer to "interposition" to express the idea that the states have a right to "interpose" to prevent harm caused by unconstitutional laws. The Virginia Resolutions contemplated joint action by the states.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of Paleoconservatism

Paleoconservatism is a political philosophy and a strain of conservatism in the United States stressing American nationalism, Christian ethics, regionalism, traditionalist conservatism, and non-interventionism. Paleoconservatism's concerns overlap with those of the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s as well as with paleolibertarianism.

The terms neoconservative and paleoconservative were coined by Paul Gottfried in the 1980s, originally relating to the divide in American conservatism over the Vietnam War. Those supporting the war became known as the neoconservatives (interventionists), as they made a decisive split from traditional conservatism (nationalist isolationism), which then became known as paleoconservatism. Paleoconservatives press for restrictions on immigration, a rollback of multicultural programs and large-scale demographic change, the decentralization of federal policy, the restoration of controls upon free trade, a greater emphasis upon economic nationalism, and non-intervention in the politics of foreign nations.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of Bank War

The Bank War was a political struggle that developed over the issue of rechartering the Second Bank of the United States (B.U.S.) during the presidency of Andrew Jackson (1829–1837). This resulted in the shutdown of the Bank and its replacement by state banks.

The Second Bank of the United States was chartered for twenty years as a private institution with exclusive authority to operate on a national scale. While its stated purpose was to stabilize the American economy through a uniform currency and stronger federal presence, critics questioned whom it truly served. Supporters claimed that the Bank helped regulate prices, extend credit, provide a reliable currency, and offer essential services to the Treasury. However, Jacksonian Democrats and other opponents highlighted troubling examples of favoritism, alleging that the Bank catered to wealthy merchants and speculators while sidelining farmers, artisans, and small businesses. They pointed to the Bank's use of public funds for risky private ventures and its entanglement in political affairs as evidence of undue influence. For many, its blend of public authority and private profit was unconstitutional and eroded democratic ideals and state sovereignty. To its detractors, the Bank was a symbol of elite privilege and a potential threat to individual liberty.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of John Tyler

John Tyler (March 29, 1790 – January 18, 1862) was the tenth president of the United States, serving from 1841 to 1845, after briefly holding office as the tenth vice president in 1841. He was elected vice president on the 1840 Whig ticket with President William Henry Harrison, succeeding to the presidency following Harrison's death 31 days after assuming office. Tyler was a stalwart supporter and advocate of states' rights, including regarding slavery, and he adopted nationalistic policies as president only when they did not infringe on the states' powers. His unexpected rise to the presidency posed a threat to the presidential ambitions of Henry Clay and other Whig politicians and left Tyler estranged from both of the nation's major political parties at the time.

Tyler was born into a prominent slaveholding Virginia family. He became a national figure at a time of political upheaval. In the 1820s, the Democratic-Republican Party, at the time the nation's only political party, split into several factions. Initially a Jacksonian Democrat, Tyler opposed President Andrew Jackson during the nullification crisis as he saw Jackson's actions as infringing on states' rights and criticized Jackson's expansion of executive power during Jackson's veto on banks. This led Tyler to ally with the southern faction of the Whig Party. He served as a Virginia state legislator and governor, U.S. representative, and U.S. senator. Tyler was a regional Whig vice-presidential nominee in the 1836 presidential election, which Democrat Martin Van Buren won. He was the sole nominee on the 1840 Whig presidential ticket as William Henry Harrison's running mate. Under the campaign slogan "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too", the Harrison–Tyler ticket defeated Van Buren.

↑ Return to Menu

States' rights in the context of James Buchanan

James Buchanan Jr. (/bjˈkænən/ bew-KAN-ən; April 23, 1791 – June 1, 1868) was the 15th president of the United States, serving from 1857 to 1861. He also served as the secretary of state from 1845 to 1849 and represented Pennsylvania in both houses of the U.S. Congress. Buchanan was an advocate for states' rights, particularly regarding slavery, and minimized the role of the federal government preceding the American Civil War.

Buchanan was a lawyer in Pennsylvania and won his first election to the state's House of Representatives as a member of the Federalist Party. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1820 and retained that post for five terms, aligning with Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party. Buchanan served as Jackson's minister to Russia in 1832. He was elected a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania in 1834 and served for 11 years. He was appointed to serve as President James K. Polk's secretary of state in 1845, and eight years later was named as President Franklin Pierce's minister to the United Kingdom.

↑ Return to Menu