Answering from a U.S. point of view: Yes.
The federal constitution guarantees certain rights that the states cannot take away, but the states can grant their citizens additional rights. The state courts are responsible for enforcing those additional rights; federal courts cannot enforce state law.
No. A state constitution can provide different protections or better protection, but do not protect a person from prosecution by the federal government.
For example, the Washington state constitution will allow certain felons to have a concealed weapon permit. The permit shields the person from prosecution for being a felon in possession of a firearm in any Washington State court, but the person could still be arrested and charged in a federal court.
Certainly. However, it cannot negate any rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
For example, the U.S. Constitution guarantees every person both Due Process and Equal Protection. Meanwhile the Constitutions of some states deny both Due Process and Equal Protection to loving, committed same-sex couples by denying them access to marriage.
Eventually the latter clauses in state Constitutions will be declared unconstitutional, just as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in the 1960s that preventing inter-racial couples to marry was unconstitutional.
A promise to protect individual rights. Apex :D have a nice day~
- Provide school and education- Provide protection- Police- Provide safety- Fire departments- Give a driver licence- Approve zoning and land use
The United States Constitution protects an individual against punishments which are deemed to be "cruel and unusual." This protection is included in the 8th Amendment to the Constitution and has been interpreted to include prohibition against torture and certain forms of capital punishment.
The Declaration of Independence doesn't provide protections to any state. Florida is one of 50 states therefore it is protected under the laws and constitution of the United States.
In the U.S. Constitution, it signifies one of the reasons that the individual states are banding together in a union: to provide an effective, unified military force to protect all of the states together (as opposed to each state fielding its own military to protect itself independently).
full rights to everyone regardless of color
In the United States, the Constitution of the United States protects individual liberties in its first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights. Liberties protected by the Bill of Rights include: the freedom of speech, religion, press, the right to assemble and to petition the government, the right to bear arms, protection from quartering troops of the United States military, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to a trial by jury, protection from double jeopardy, and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.
Yes, each state has its own individual constitution, but they all comply with the United States constitution.
The antifederalists opposed the constitution because their leading argument, however, centered on the constitutions lack of protection for individual rights. Gabriel Marrerothe anti federalists didn't want the union to have a strong central government, but wanted more power for the individual states. the constitution was lacking a Bill of Rights, which is why the anti-federalists agreed when that was later added.
States were given the power to provide and support education.
Amendment X states that powers not delegated in the Constitution are reserved to the states. This is why the Federal Government does not the power to intervene and it is up to individual states.
Because the states sent representatives to vote on the Constitution, and therefor did not need to be viewed by the individual states.