LEADER 04061nam 2200649 a 450 001 9910823286903321 005 20240416154705.0 010 $a0-674-07042-9 010 $a0-674-06796-7 024 7 $a10.4159/harvard.9780674067967 035 $a(CKB)2670000000330040 035 $a(StDuBDS)AH25018200 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000783256 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11416542 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000783256 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10752106 035 $a(PQKB)11066499 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3301177 035 $a(DE-B1597)178013 035 $a(OCoLC)1004875437 035 $a(OCoLC)819323260 035 $a(OCoLC)840440989 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780674067967 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3301177 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10640099 035 $a(OCoLC)923119104 035 $a(EXLCZ)992670000000330040 100 $a20120411d2013 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur||||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 14$aThe fallacies of states' rights /$fSotirios A. Barber 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aCambridge, Mass. $cHarvard University Press$d2013 215 $a1 online resource (245 pages) 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 $a0-674-06667-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aIntroduction: America's oldest constitutional debate -- Why the states can't check national power -- John Marshall and a constitution for national security and prosperity -- The implications of Marshallian federalism -- Why states' rights federalism is impossible to defend -- John C. Calhoun's false theory of the Union -- States' rights as rights only to participate in national processes -- Why Marshallians should (but may not) win the states' rights debate. 330 $aThe idea that "states' rights" restrain national power is riding high in American judicial and popular opinion. Here, Sotirios A. Barber shows how arguments for states' rights, from the days of John C. Calhoun to the present, have offended common sense, logic, and bedrock constitutional principles. To begin with, states' rights federalism cannot possibly win the debate with national federalism owing to the very forum in which the requisite argument must occur-a national one, thanks to the Civil War-and the ordinary rules of practical argumentation. Further, the political consequences of this self-defeating logic can only hasten the loss of American sovereignty to international economic forces. Both philosophical and practical reasons compel us to consider two historical alternatives to states' rights federalism. In the federalism of John Marshall, the nation's most renowned jurist, the national government's duty to ensure security, prosperity, and other legitimate national ends must take precedence over all conflicting exercises of state power. In "process" federalism, the Constitution protects the states by securing their roles in national policy making and other national decisions. Barber opts for Marshall's federalism, but the contest is close, and his analysis takes the debate into new, fertile territory. Affirming the fundamental importance of the Preamble, Barber advocates a conception of the Constitution as a charter of positive benefits for the nation. It is not, in his view, a contract among weak separate sovereigns whose primary function is to protect people from the central government, when there are greater dangers to confront. 606 $aFederal government$zUnited States 606 $aStates' rights (American politics) 607 $aUnited States$xPolitics and government$xPhilosophy 615 0$aFederal government 615 0$aStates' rights (American politics) 676 $a320.473/049 686 $aMG 70000$qBVB$2rvk 700 $aBarber$b Sotirios A$0595672 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910823286903321 996 $aThe fallacies of states' rights$93923439 997 $aUNINA