This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind. Here's his
Mastodon, his
Twitter, and his
Instagram, as well.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Though one could argue that this fight had already happened with McCullough v. Maryland, the Nullification Crisis, and the Civil War.
(Overlook the contradiction with the 10th Amendment)
Might makes right, remember?
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of relative power between the states and the feds in 1800, 1900, and 2000. It’s no secret what the trend is, but the details might be interesting.
As Robert said, I suspect the change really happened with the Civil War. Until then, the states had been pretty much semi-sovereign with respect to internal affairs. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment established the idea that rights were not merely things the federal government was prohibited from interfering in, but rather were things that all Americans were entitled to, which is closer to the notion of civil rights we have today.