I am not talking about States at all, States are governed by their own constitutions.
Nor I am talking about the 10th amendment, while ti does play a part so to the Body of the Constitution, which Article one Section 8 provides a list of powers granted to the Federal Government, and the 9th amendment also plays a role, many people forget about the 9th
Further you are simply proving Madison correct, Madison was opposed to the bill of rights because he believed they were unnessarty and a danger. the first 10 amendments forbid the government from doing things they did not have any power to do in the first place. Madison correctly observed that by including them it would give the appearance of enumerated rights, it would give people like you the idea that if it was not forbidden by the bill of rights then it was fair game.
>What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments?
Their own individual constitutions, which each state has some better than others, most are not followed as written just like the Federal Constitution is not
>>And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers
Well that is revisionist history, Jim Crow laws where government mandates not voluntary actions by individuals
>just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right.
Freedom of Association is an important right. The proper response to those businesses it to boycott and create competing for a business to drive them out, not to force them to transact with you. I have never really understood why people support that. If there is a business that hates me I would rather they were upfront about it so I can give my money to a business that wants me as a customer, I do not need the government to force them to do business with me, which they will likely give me poor service and I will walk away with a product or service I am not satisfied with
The problem with the Jim Crow area was segregation was mandated by government and no boycotts or competing businesses were possible
>Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
Entire Books have been written on the liberty we have lost, from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror, to countless other actions by the government to chip chip chip away at liberty in the name of Safety or "For the children" or countless other justifications
You write "Nor I am talking about the 10th amendment".
Earlier you wrote "if the Constitution does not Grant the power to the Government then that power is Reserved for the States and the people".
That looks very much like the 10th Amendment, so how are you not talking about that amendment?
You interpret my views as: "it would give people like you the idea that if it was not forbidden by the bill of rights then it was fair game"
That is not my position. Privacy is not an enumerated right. I think there is an unenumerated right to privacy.
Since your summary of my views is not my views, I think you do not understand my position.
You write "Their own individual constitutions" prevented the US states from each being authoritarian governments.
What specifically of those constitutions prevented authoritarian governments?
How were many of the US state constitutions not authoritarian governments with respect to the rights of black people? In addition to slavery, I'll point to the Oregon constitution, which stated "No negro, Chinaman or mullato shall have the right of suffrage".
You write "Well that is revisionist history".
Pardon? You think the support for racial discrimination in the US was only based on Jim Crow laws, and required the support of the government to enforce?
> There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, said he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, "the fundamental question [...] is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers".
Should Rolleston have had the liberty to reject black customers?
You viewpoint seems to be that if there weren't government laws supporting segregation, then there wouldn't have been a problem. But ... there were. The state constitutions allowed it. Hence the ridiculousness of only considering authoritarianism on the federal level.
You write "Entire Books have been written on the liberty we have lost", but I don't think you've grasped my question. I'll try again.
Earlier you wrote "it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty".
This suggests that there was some point where we had respect for individualism and liberty.
When was this point?
Was it when we had slaves? Is it when women didn't have the right to vote? Is it when Native Americans were treated as wards of the government?
I fully agree that the War on Drugs is one of many things to "chip away at liberty". But we've also added to liberty. Your statement suggests that there was a lost golden era of liberty, which I strongly reject .. unless you were a rich, white, land-owning Protestant man.
When did we have respect for individualism and liberty?
Nor I am talking about the 10th amendment, while ti does play a part so to the Body of the Constitution, which Article one Section 8 provides a list of powers granted to the Federal Government, and the 9th amendment also plays a role, many people forget about the 9th
Further you are simply proving Madison correct, Madison was opposed to the bill of rights because he believed they were unnessarty and a danger. the first 10 amendments forbid the government from doing things they did not have any power to do in the first place. Madison correctly observed that by including them it would give the appearance of enumerated rights, it would give people like you the idea that if it was not forbidden by the bill of rights then it was fair game.
>What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments?
Their own individual constitutions, which each state has some better than others, most are not followed as written just like the Federal Constitution is not
>>And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers
Well that is revisionist history, Jim Crow laws where government mandates not voluntary actions by individuals
>just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right.
Freedom of Association is an important right. The proper response to those businesses it to boycott and create competing for a business to drive them out, not to force them to transact with you. I have never really understood why people support that. If there is a business that hates me I would rather they were upfront about it so I can give my money to a business that wants me as a customer, I do not need the government to force them to do business with me, which they will likely give me poor service and I will walk away with a product or service I am not satisfied with
The problem with the Jim Crow area was segregation was mandated by government and no boycotts or competing businesses were possible
>Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
Entire Books have been written on the liberty we have lost, from the War on Drugs to the War on Terror, to countless other actions by the government to chip chip chip away at liberty in the name of Safety or "For the children" or countless other justifications