From: "Tanj" 

So, how are the states to be labs testing the constitution?  First kick out
all the Americans who went there under the assumption that the constitution
and freedom to move within the union was basic?  Then, having done that,
heck why not secede?

I agree that local variation is valuable and protected, but the union does
have a constitution, and the states individually benefit from the strength
of the whole, and that whole is founded on the constitution.  The
constitution is admirably brief, contrast it with any other part of the
legal system it is miniscule, and most parts of it were closely argued.  It
seems reasonable that such a brief set of rules might be needed to keep the
union as one people.

- Tanj

"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:3925b07f{at}w3.nls.net...
>
greggstrom{at}earthlink.net>
wrote in message
> news:3924ba31{at}w3.nls.net...
jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> > news:3924b578{at}w3.nls.net...
>
> > Though the law often has little to do with logic, I would see other
> > provisions of the First Amendment enjoying the same protection at the
> state
> > level....
>
> I think this is has been established through a (long?) series of Supreme
> Court decisions, but I don't think it is intrinsic to the Constitution as
g>.
>
> Ah'm a suthuna, son, and think the states do have rights.
>
> The problem with the idea of state's rights is the homogeneity of American
> culture; the states are no longer the "laboratories" for
self-government
> that the founders envisioned.
>
> I think majority attitudes in most states differ very little on
"hot-button"
> issues like drugs and homosexual marriage, and so some people looking for
a
> place where their particular predilictions are sanctioned have trouble
> finding one.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5