In the balance: Just how far can the federal government intrude on states' rights?

More and more people are talking about states' rights.

The subject comes up in all sorts of ways -- gay marriage, Obamacare, school policies, you name it and someone has thought of it.

So when you hear it, understand why it is such a hot topic and why so many see it as a pivotal discussion in the new world we live in.

The founding fathers envisioned a federal government that was not overpowering and all-consuming. That smacked too much of the monarchy from which they escaped.

So, they put in safeguards, check and balances that kept no branch from getting too much power and too much say.

And among those safeguards is the idea of states' rights.

The basics? That there are certain decisions that cannot be commanded from Washington. That states should have the right to determine how they will handle some issues that do not fall under the heading of those inalienable rights outlined in the Constitution.

In other words, no state can make a law that violates someone's civil rights, because those are guaranteed in the Constitution. That is why no state can say blacks or women cannot vote or put unnecessary restraints upon that exercise of their rights. The Constitution says so.

That is a simplified version, the actual application is much more complicated than that, but you get the gist.

That is why so many people are paying such close attention to the gay marriage debate. The Supreme Court is being asked to basically decide if the right for two men or two women to marry is a civil right guaranteed in the Constitution. And if it is, then no state could make a law that prevents the rights guaranteed to a married couple under federal law.

Opponents say, the decision to recognize gay marriage should belong to the residents of a state. If California's citizenry wants to recognize gay marriage, then they should vote it in. But that should not affect how Texas or North Carolina decides.

Again, all simplified, but you get the basic idea.

And in this debate and many others, you get the concern. How much say should the federal government have in the conduct of a state's daily business? Should there be an overarching power that determines how all states should act? How much should a state be compelled to do?

It is a critical concern and one you should pay close, close attention to as the second term of the Obama administration continues.

You will be asked many more times to decide where you stand.

The concept is a basic one: Should states be permitted to make their own decisions and the residents of that boundary be able to determine what standards they wish to apply to their citizenry?

The argument will appear in everything from the death penalty to health care -- and it is an issue upon which your freedoms rely.

It all goes back to that battle hundreds of years ago by a group of patriots who wanted to have a say in their own destiny, who did not feel they needed a monarchy to tell them how to conduct business, whom to tax and what their rules and regulations should be.

They felt the power was in their citizenry itself -- with some reasonable limitations and with some checks and balances built in.

As these debates continue, we need to keep that vision of liberty in mind and remember it as those freedoms to choose are chipped away.

Stopping the ebb means paying close attention to the bits and pieces and making sure that states' rights remain a part of this law of the land.

Published in Editorials on April 6, 2013 11:22 PM