From: "John Cuccia" 

Tanj,

First of all, the "Americans who went there" wrote the
Constitution .

The states weren't meant to test the Constitution, which, as originally
written, was meant to *limit* the powers of the federal government.  I
think the founders intended to give the states the freedom to test varioius
forms of representative government for themselves.  That's why the articles
(mentioned by Bill Lucy) of various state constitutions, declaring one
religion or another to be the state-approved variety,  were legal within
the scope of the US Constitution at the time they were written.  That's not
possible today, given the expanded scope of federal influence.

As noted in an exchange in this thread between Bill and Steve Durrett, the
Supreme Court didn't really start extending the scope of that influence
over the states until this century.  Today, of course, the feds control
nearly everything through tax/spending policies.

"Tanj"  wrote in message
news:3926f641$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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
>
jcuccia{at}bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:3925b07f{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> > "Gregg Strom/BRYX Int'l"
 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