The United States Constitution and the Rights of State and Federal Governments

Throughout the past couple of centuries, the United States of America (U.S.) has changed the way the government works dramatically. In a number of ways, the U.S. has converted from a federation or a constitutional republic into a unified country that works together, and each state is not sovereign. The way the Constitution of the United States lays the foundations for the union describes that each state is sovereign and free. The way Modern-day U.S. is being run, states are not sovereign and look up to a higher power which is the federal government.

A number of Supreme Court cases have ruled in favor of the federal government taking numerous rights away from the state-level governments. For example, Roe v. Wade took a right to have an abortion from the state governments, and Obergefell v. Hodges took the rights of same-sex marriage away from them, as well. With these changes in the federal government, the roles of the states have also converted drastically. State governments are not sovereign as they were when the constitution was drafted. A large part of the reason the U.S. was created was to keep the states free while appointing certain rights and privileges to a common federal government that ruled above the states in certain situations and circumstances.

First, if any amendments should be added, the constitution should take power away from the federal government and return it to the state governments. There should be a section added to amendment 10 of the constitution that reads, “all rights should remain in the State’s interests no matter the circumstance with the exception of a problem with state and national security.” Also, when determining whether a court case is constitutional, Supreme Court Justices should decide the outcome on whether the constitution literally says the circumstance; they should not apply their opinions, read between the lines, or decide what would benefit their popularity or beliefs. For example, the court decision on the Obergefell v. Hodges court case should not have gone to the Supreme Court because it is a state problem.

The ruling on the case was that same-sex marriage was protected by the Due Process Clause, which says that everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment, which says that everyone has equal protection of the law. In neither clause does the constitution have the right to declare that same-sex marriage should be regulated by the federal government. The idea of “Judicial Creativity” has been used multiple times in countless supreme court cases. State governments do not need to be sovereign, per se, but needs to have power restored to them to keep their culture, heritage, ideals, and values.

A wonderful thing about keeping state rights is that if a person does not agree with the policy or idea, they can move to a different state that has different fundamental beliefs. Article IV, Section 2 gives everyone protection in all states, so they can move to another state (U.S. Const. art. IV, sec. 2). With this change, the states will gain more power, and there will be a weaker national government, and the people will be represented better because most of the power will be more locally and more centralized within the state and passed down to local governments.

In my opinion, this is the best solution to a number of problems because people can move to other states freely without any judgment if the citizens disagree with the laws. With that being said, all states will have to acknowledge the other state laws and recognize that if something is legally documented by the state government, such as a marriage license, it is allowed, even if it is illegal for the said state government to issue. I believe that the likelihood of this happening today grows with the increase in republican nominees. If a democratic supreme Court Justice dies, and a more republican justice enters the council, swinging the judges’ votes from 4-5 to 3-6, this change in power of the courts could sway the vote into allowing states to secede, I do not think it will pass and allow states to secede because the states, especially Texas, are valuable and important for the U.S. economy.

Second, there should be a limit on how long a territory can remain without becoming a state. Currently, the United States has five inhabited territories, the oldest being Guam and Puerto Rico, which started in 1899 during the Spanish-American War. For 119 years, the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and Guam have been protected and funded by the United States. In 1900, American Samoa was claimed by the United States, and for 118 years, it has been a territory. In 1917 the U.S. Virgin Islands were bought through a treaty with Denmark. In 1978, the Northern Mariana Islands became territories. The constitution needs to be amended to limit the time a territory can remain a territory without becoming a state.

The advantages of being a United States territory are that they are protected from foreign entities and gain natural-born citizenship, which is spelled out in the Citizenship Clause and the Jones Act of 1917, with the exception of American Samoans who are American Nationals (Weare 136), have a delegate with a voice in Congress who cannot vote, and can travel throughout the United States and territories without a passport, on the other hand, they do not pay federal income taxes, are not represented well in Congress, and “They [can only] vote in U.S. Congressional Elections and presidential primaries” (Murriel, PRI.org). The constitution needs to set a territory time limit that after 50 years of being a territory, it must be accepted into the union and granted statehood unless the territory wants to secede from the United States.

The time limit to be a territory should be 50 years because it gives the territory time to improve its economy to better benefit the U.S., implement federal laws, and time to draft a state constitution. This time frame will also help with cultural shock in the indigenous population. With the addition of new states, interstate commerce would grow, and access to more tropical agricultural products would also increase. Also, with adding new states, the economy would change every few years, increasing money made in the states from interstate and exported goods. The increase in trade among the states will not only boost the state economies, but it will lower the debts of our national government.

In my opinion, this would be the best idea because then, as states, the people cannot complain about not being able, and they can be treated as an equal entity like the other states with the same government treatment. The likelihood of this happening in our life actually could happen. Even though the topic is not well known in the news or in Congress, I believe on the day, that one day the light will be shown on our territories and how we need to treat them more equally by turning them into states. Third, the states should be given the right to secede from the union. In the court case Texas v. White, the court ruled that states cannot unilaterally secede from the union, meaning without consent of the federal government or other foreign or domestic involvement.

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said that the constitution “in all its provisions looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States” (Britannica.com). In the constitution, there is not anything said about seceding from the union, so naturally, most people would describe this as a state right from the 10th amendment (U.S. Const. Amend. 10). In my opinion, I believe that the states should have the right to secede from the union. If the idea were to come up in the state legislature, I think that the people should vote, and if 2/3rds of the people vote are required for secession.

Depending on the severity of why the state wants to secede, I believe it should be up to the state to determine when the secession will officially take place, but it must be within five years from the date of the declaration to secede. Within those five years, the states will have time to develop an economy, sovereign government, military, and foreign and domestic alliances. While during the period of pre-secession, the state must be treated as a territory, so they would not have a right to vote, did not pay federal income tax, and were not represented well in the government, but they were still protected by the U.S. for the temporary period in case of foreign invasion.

The likelihood of this happening in our lifetime is prominent. With the right mixture of Supreme Court Justices, I believe that they could sway the vote into allowing states to secede from the union and create new counties. Also, the United States needed to conquer Mexico and Canada. Creating states from these countries will greatly increase the production of agriculture, the economy, and the self-sufficiency of the U.S. and also will increase the land area for urbanization and military bases. With the addition of Mexico, drug cartels and illegal trafficking will decrease because of the increase in the jurisdiction of peace officers. The Mexican natives will also not have a reason to illegally immigrate to the U.S. because they will be citizens.

Creating states out of Mexico will increase revenue for the federal government because of the federal income tax. Extending the border north into Canada will also increase how much money goes into the federal bank to decrease the debt the U.S. has. Overtaking their country will give us another major benefit for the maple syrup industry. According to statistica.com, in 2014, more than 310 million Canadian Dollars were brought into Canada from exporting maple syrup only, which translates to about 233 million U.S. Dollars (statistica.com). The increase in diversity would change a lot of how our government works and would definitely increase the number of democratic states and voters. While bringing in Mexico will increase the number to where they are not a minority, also bringing in Canada will even the numbers relatively equal. In my opinion, this technique would work great for advancing our military and becoming even more of a world power with a larger land mass.

While it is a good idea to bring Canada and Mexico into the union, the threat of gerrymandering exists and would definitely be disputed in Congress. In our lifetime, the likelihood of this happening is slim to none chance because the united states relations with Mexico and Canada are relatively good, and conquering them would create tension with a number of other countries due to the alliances we and they have made across the Atlantic Ocean and in other foreign counties. When the world becomes more globalized, this idea will probably happen. As cultures blend, the likelihood of an actual war with lots of casualties decreases. Last, States should have stricter voting laws. At each polling location, there should be a two-part check to identify the voter to counteract and hopefully end voting and identification fraud. Another thing that can counteract this is having laws on illegal immigrant children.

In the constitution, it says that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, but I believe that children born in the U.S. by illegal immigrant parents should be protected by the U.S., but when they turn 18 years old, they should go through the same process that an immigrant would go through to receive citizenship and their right to vote. Forcing illegal immigrants’ children to go through the citizenship process will give the parents a better opportunity to legally become citizens if they want. On the other hand, if a parent brings over a child, the whole family should be deported and should not receive any state funding or help from the state or federal governments. The idea of having children who are born on U.S. soil receives temporary protection, and the opportunity to become legal citizens could happen in our lifetime.

In my opinion, I do not think that the government will pass this law. I believe that if a democratic best-case scenario in the House of Representatives, Senate, Presidency, and the Supreme Court were to happen, the democratic party would pass a law that would give every illegal immigrant amnesty and allow them to vote because the majority of Mexican-Americans and immigrants tend to vote democratic and it will benefit their party’s ideas. In conclusion, first, Supreme Court Justices should determine their decisions based on what the constitution actually says without bringing in judicial creativity.

Second, the federal government should regulate how long a territory can remain a part of the U.S. without it becoming a state. Third, the constitution does not say anything about states not having the right to secede from the union, and I believe that if it is in the state’s best interest, they can, with a people’s vote for at least 2/3 of the population for secession. Also, the U.S. should take over Mexico and Canada to bring in more revenue to help decrease the national debt.

Taking over these two countries will increase the size of the U.S. dramatically, which will give more land for agricultural and industrial projects and companies, more land for people to live on, and it will also increase the number of people in the united states, which will increase revenue into the government and it would also lower the federal income tax. Last, the U.S. should give the states the right to restrict the polling identification process and the right to create their own laws that regulate funding for illegal immigrants and the children of illegal immigrants. Some of these ideas are likely to happen in our lifetime, while others are unlikely to happen.

Works Cited

1. “Maple Syrup Industry- Statistics & Facts,” Statistica.com, https://www.statista.com/topics/2341/maple-syrup-industry/ Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica.
2. “Texas v. White” Britanica.com, https://www.britannica.com/event/Texas-v-White Murriel, Maria.
3. “Millions of Americans can’t vote for president because of where they live.” PRI.org, November 1, 2016. https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-11-01/millions-americans-cant-vote-president-because-where-they-live U.S. Constitution Weare, Neil.
4. “Citizenship in U.S. Territories: Constitutional Right or Congressional Privilege?” Centro Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, Spring 2017, pp. 136-163.

Cite this page