000			04027cam a2200385Ki 4500
001			ocn819323260
003			OCoLC
005			20240726105318.0
008			121126s2013 mau ob 001 0 eng d
040			_aNT _beng _epn _erda _cNT _dYDXCP _dUMC _dEMU _dE7B _dJSTOR _dOCLCF _dCOO _dOCLCO _dOCL _dOCLCO _dOCLCQ _dOCLCO _dOCLCQ _dEBLCP _dDEBSZ _dOCLCO _dUIU _dOCLCO _dOCLCQ _dOCLCO _dAZK _dOCLCO _dGZM _dTVG _dJBG _dAGLDB _dMOR _dPIFPO _dNRC _dMERUC _dOCLCQ _dIOG _dDEGRU _dDEBBG _dCHVBK _dZCU
020			_a9780674067967 _q((electronic)l(electronic)ctronic)
043			_an-us---
050	0	4	_aJK311 _b.F355 2013
049			_aMAIN
100	1		_aBarber, Sotirios A. _e1
245	1	0	_aThe fallacies of states' rights /Sotirios A. Barber.
260			_aCambridge, Mass. : _bHarvard University Press, _c(c)2013.
300			_a1 online resource
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_adata file _2rda
504			_a2
505	0	0	_aIntroduction: America's oldest constitutional debate -- _tWhy the states can't check national power -- _tJohn Marshall and a constitution for national security and prosperity -- _tThe implications of Marshallian federalism -- _tWhy states' rights federalism is impossible to defend -- _tJohn C. Calhoun's false theory of the Union -- _tStates' rights as rights only to participate in national processes -- _tWhy Marshallians should (but may not) win the states' rights debate.
520	0		_aBarber shows how arguments for states' rights from John C. Calhoun to the present offend common sense, logic, and bedrock constitutional principles. The Constitution is a charter of positive benefits, not a contract among separate sovereigns whose function is to protect people from the central government, when there are greater dangers to confront.
520	0		_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.
530			_a2 _ub
650		0	_aFederal government _zUnited States.
650		0	_aStates' rights (American politics)
655		1	_aElectronic Books.
856	4	0	_uhttps://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=502796&site=eds-live&custid=s3260518 _zClick to access digital title | log in using your CIU ID number and my.ciu.edu password
942			_cOB _D _eEB _hJK _m2013 _QOL _R _x _8NFIC _2LOC
994			_a92 _bNT
999			_c96111 _d96111
902			_a1 _bCynthia Snell _c1 _dCynthia Snell