I think where we are seeing things differently here is in the meaning of "citizen", and the implications of citizenship. Without doubt being a US citizen has great meaning and offers us significant rights and resopnsibilities. But as citizens of our states and cities, we also enjoy rights and have responsibilities not provided by the United States.

Ok, I suppose that is within the definition of "citizen", though I've never heard it used that way in the US. Usually people claim US citizenship, and only residency in their state and city. Certainly I, as a US citizen and Florida resident, have more rights in Iowa than a Mexican citizen and Iowa resident. Similarly, I can be a citizen of both the USA and Canada, but I cannot be a resident of both Iowa and Florida.

The intent of delegating is to provide the states with the power to manage their own affairs in areas that have no direct impact on federal responsibilities.

I won't go so far as to claim knowledge of the intent of the constitution, but it does seem to be structured in such a way that the states were given authority so long as what they did would not effect other states, that power being given to the federal government. It really was more of a state A vs. state B split where the federal government was a referee, than a states vs. federal split.

Reader, all you've done is simply replaced the notion "member" with the word "citizen". Your definition is so broad as to essentially be meaningless in this discussion.

If specific rights and responsibilities are simply delegated, one would expect some consistency to them

There is certainly a high consistency in the way States handle, say murder and a host of other crimes that are delegated to the state authority. The fact that this is delegated is clear from the notion of appeal which has clear delineations of authority at each level of the hierarchy. The reason some appeals stop at the state supreme court and don't proceed to the federal court system is because the system has delegated authority in well proscribed areas.

The intent of delegating is to provide the states with the power to manage their own affairs in areas that have no direct impact on federal responsibilities.

Obviously. But this isn't the only reason. Delegation is also a very effective means of distributed control. Centralized systems have well known problems which are overcome by decentralization. This is where the variation comes in which you believe is evidence that there is no delegation. The US is highly diverse and the framers realized that solving local problems locally and global problems globally makes for a very nimble system which allows diversity to thrive. But this doesn't mean the authority isn't delegated. Indeed, it's proof positive that the states only have authority which is delegated from the federal system.

There are situations where the US Government speaks as one voice, and others where 50 voices speak.

Then you are simply making a distinction without a difference.

But you also have county and municipal governments and laws, do you consider yourself a citizen of your county and municipality as well?

Of course.

Birth or naturalization.

Exactly. Nothing extraordinary has to happen for you to be a US citizen if you are born somewhere in the United States. A birth certificate (usually issued by a municipality) is adequate.

Citizenry in a state is similar, although the process of naturalization has been nicely made unnecessary and instead only residency is required to gain citizenship within a state (or municipality).

I think where we are seeing things differently here is in the meaning of "citizen", and the implications of citizenship. Without doubt being a US citizen has great meaning and offers us significant rights and resopnsibilities. But as citizens of our states and cities, we also enjoy rights and have responsibilities not provided by the United States. To simply say they are "delegated" is unflattering to the Framers who were careful to ensure that the balance of delegation and state identity were intertwined. If specific rights and responsibilities are simply delegated, one would expect some consistency to them, but there is not, nor is there an intent for them to be. The intent of delegating is to provide the states with the power to manage their own affairs in areas that have no direct impact on federal responsibilities.

The states should not be misunderstood to be an extension of the US Federal Government, but (as appropriate) are the embodiment of it. There are situations where the US Government speaks as one voice, and others where 50 voices speak.

It is worth remarking that the US Congress has in some cases bypassed the spirit of the Constitution by forcing states to conform to its whim on areas that are "delegated" through extortion (by withholding Federal road money and such).

As Michael points out above, literally *everything* you are pointing to in defense of this belief is due to the fact that Iowa is a state in a much larger organization, and these rights you speak of as "citizenship" are not given by Iowa, but by the federal government, through its agency in Iowa and other states.

That you seem to believe otherwise is rather disturbing.

If not, what exactly is the point of having a state government at all? Why have any state laws, or state officials?

But you also have county and municipal governments and laws, do you consider yourself a citizen of your county and municipality as well?

Why are there extradition laws between states?

Because no state is subservient to another, but all are subservient to the union. In order for one state to make another take some action, the federal government acts as the common authority.

If someone in my family is killed, I expect the state of Iowa, not the United States, to do justice.

Only if your family member and the killer were in Iowa. Interstate crime is usually a federal matter. Again, this is just a delegation of responsibility, you can take your case all the way to the US Supreme Court if you wanted to, because you are a citizen of the union.

The state of Iowa grants me extensive protections that the United States does not and will not provide. I have privileges in tuition rates at state schools not enjoyed by those from other states. I enjoy rights to hunt and use state lands to a degree not enjoyed by those from outside the state.

Your state can pass laws that supplement US laws, but not ones that contradict them. Similarly, it can choose to spend it's tax revenue on residents of the state. I'm not sure about limiting access to public lands to residents, that seems outside the authority of the state, what exactly does Iowa do for residents in that respect?

What makes one a citizen of the United States? A passport? A Social Security Card?

Birth or naturalization.

Do you literally believe you're a "citizen" of Iowa in exactly the same sense you are a "citizen" of the United States?

Indeed I do. If not, what exactly is the point of having a state government at all? Why have any state laws, or state officials? Why are there extradition laws between states?

What makes one a citizen of the United States? A passport? A Social Security Card?

I vote in Iowa, pay taxes in Iowa, and enjoy the benefits and protections offered by Iowa. When I travel outside of Iowa, the driver's license issued by Iowa is respected not just within the United States but also in many countries as identification, proof of age, and proof of my ability to drive a car. If someone in my family is killed, I expect the state of Iowa, not the United States, to do justice. The state of Iowa grants me extensive protections that the United States does not and will not provide. I have privileges in tuition rates at state schools not enjoyed by those from other states. I enjoy rights to hunt and use state lands to a degree not enjoyed by those from outside the state.

I owe loyalty to both the state of Iowa and the United States of America.

What else is there to being a citizen?

LoL. I guess you have a passport to visit Colorado, right? If not, then you're just using "citizen" in the sense that "we're all citizens of the world".

Do you literally believe you're a "citizen" of Iowa in exactly the same sense you are a "citizen" of the United States?

you are not a citizen of any particular state

My state's (Iowa) constitution says otherwise.

Ever haerd of the 10th amendment?

The 10th amendment doesn't give state law supremacy over federal law, it just delegates powers not specified in the Constitution to the Congress. So long as a federal law is constitutional (i.e. within the constitutional powers of Congress to pass), then no state law may take precedence over it.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here Bit

Clearly....

are you basically saying that any federal law is an infringement on state's rights

Any which go outside the constitution, in it's original meaning, yes.

Again, are you saying that state laws cannot or should not be over-ruled by federal law? If so, why bother giving congress legislative authority at all, if adherence to those was strictly voluntary in the states?

Ever haerd of the 10th amendment?

What you're really doing by overiding the principle of states rights to get to the abolishment of slavery (In pursuit one may kindly assume, of the principle of individual rights) is giving up the idea of principle, in favor of the idea of arbitrary actions to get to a desired outcome.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make here Bit, are you basically saying that any federal law is an infringement on state's rights, and that the constitution didn't originally give the federal government this authority?

The solution itself has becoe a problem, in that the size of government is well out of control, which will end in NOBODY"S indiviual rights being respected... and to a large degree, this is already occurring.
...
I submit to you this is a situation that would never have occurred, had the individual states's rights been respected as laid out in the pre-war constitution.

Again, are you saying that state laws cannot or should not be over-ruled by federal law? If so, why bother giving congress legislative authority at all, if adherence to those was strictly voluntary in the states?

Well, first off, who cares? It's exactly like saying "What you're really doing is overriding the principle of states rights to preserve forced rape as a punishment in Sharia law." That is precisely the argument you're continuing to use. It's morally reprehensible even if the principle is right. History is replete with people making flowery and scholarly arguments for all sorts of reprehensible and despicable things - Yoo on torture is only the most recent example of such obvious BS being dressed up in high principles.

Secondly, any process which is democratic is not "overriding", it's called democracy. To claim otherwise, which is the premise of your argument, is simply BS. In a democracy, there are winners and there are losers. The losers don't just get to unilaterally withdraw simply because they lost. And simply losing in a democratic process doesn't mean the side that one was using unprincipled shortcuts.

The solution itself has becoe a problem..

You are arguing ex post facto, which is a third grade playground debate tactic, but is completely immaterial.

The problem was the unprincipled shortcuts taken to get there... the result of which we still haven't come to grips with.

What unprincipled shortcuts? Your mere assertion that things were done incorrectly is not evidence. As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the process was proceeding in a democratic fashion - it was the south that decided to take an unprincipled shortcut, take their ball and go home. You can argue all you want from the premise that the constitution was a treaty amongst nations, but again you're basically in the same league as David Duke - fine company for an intellectual argument, but they're your bedfellows. All your wacky theories and ex post facto reasoning isn't going to change the fact that it was treason in defense of slavery.

However, it's the actual issue, not the principle, which is the problem.

No, Hal. These are really two different issues and two different principles are in play. one of them is states rights, and the other is the rights of the individual.

Clearly, slavery involves the latter. Trouble is, however, that you're blowing up one valid principle to shortcut your way to another, which ends up in the end beinga solution for neither.

What you're really doing by overiding the principle of states rights to get to the abolishment of slavery (In pursuit one may kindly assume, of the principle of individual rights) is giving up the idea of principle, in favor of the idea of arbitrary actions to get to a desired outcome.

The solution itself has becoe a problem, in that the size of government is well out of control, which will end in NOBODY"S indiviual rights being respected... and to a large degree, this is already occurring. As I quoted Heston as saying, the other day:

There is now no aspect of American life, public or private, that the federal government does not invade, instruct and finally coerce to its will. Farm and factory, home and school, university and research center, club and playground—all are overlaid with a spidery network of laws, guidelines, restrictions and Draconian penalties that stifle the spirit, the energy, the creative capacity of what was once the freest nation on earth. In this hemisphere, now that Ortega and Noriega have fallen, the collectivists’ sentiments discredited around the world fly best, I fear, in Cuba and Washington, D.C.

I submit to you this is a situation that would never have occurred, had the individual states's rights been respected as laid out in the pre-war constitution.

The elimination of slavery was certainly a desired outcome. It speaks well of those who pursued it. The problem was the unprincipled shortcuts taken to get there... the result of which we still haven't come to grips with.

Say that we have a nation formed under Sharia law. Say that part of nation - the majority of the nation - is democratically moving to eliminate forced rape as a punishment for women. In response to this, a portion of the nation decides to succeed - on the principle of federalism and autonomy of the states, naturally.

The point is that what is the line in the sand, the straw that broke the camel's back, the issue which pushed them over the edge was SLAVERY. There were hundreds, if not thousands of other issues which had exactly the same abstract impact that y'all are arguing above. The south had no apparent problem with those issues. Rather, the problem was that slavery was going to be abolished in the country, and they couldn't brook with that.

You can argue, in retrospect, as you are wrt states rights, individuals rights and bizarro rights (the rules Bithead believes are in play). But when you let every other issue slide and choose SLAVERY as your stand - the issue you're going to fight and war against your brother's for.

Well, it says everything about your principles. Like the thought experiment I proposed above, if your rallying cry is to preserve slavery, then no matter your lofty principles that you provide in retrospect, the foundation of your argument is rotten to the core.