States Rights: What do you think?

[Orangeinton]

For the past three-hundred years, the United States has been quarreling about the same old issue: States Rights. I have put a lot of thought into the topic, and, based on my biases(my opinion may not be the best), that the States need to receive more rights, and, most of all, State law should definitely supersede Federal law. Developing this theory however, does indeed, put up quite a bit of controversy. There is always the argument that the Federal government is the only thing keeping the Union together, and that it is dire that the Federal law reigns supreme, but, what if the current domestic policies are not the best? What if the constitution needs to be edited and once again, amended?

What do you think?????

[Laerod]

I disapprove of segregation and slavery, ergo I find the concept of states' "rights" downright distasteful.

[Orangeinton]

I disapprove of segregation and slavery, ergo I find the concept of states' "rights" downright distasteful.

How so?

[Urran]

The Civil War was fought over States Rights, not slavery, (the north couldn't have cared less and slaves weren't freed until later) so it proves that large numbers of people are willing to die for them....

[Udinia]

The whole "state's right supercede federal rights" has been tried before, it was called. The Articles of Confederation, it was a total failure.

[Arkolon]

How could a state acquire a right?

[Ifreann]

States don't have rights. People have rights, states have powers.

[Orangeinton]

The whole "state's right supercede federal rights" has been tried before, it was called. The Articles of Confederation, it was a total failure.

Very true, but there are some controversial arguments to that.

[Skinia]

States' rights is a means to an end, nothing more. If it fails, then it should go.

[Mavorpen]

The Civil War was fought over States Rights, not slavery, (the north couldn't have cared less and slaves weren't freed until later) so it proves that large numbers of people are willing to die for them....

That's not entirely accurate. All events leading to the Civil War, were, in fact, over slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union and the South fought to remain separate. These had their root in slavery.

[Laerod]

I disapprove of segregation and slavery, ergo I find the concept of states' "rights" downright distasteful.

How so?

Segregation and slavery are terrible things.

The Civil War was fought over States Rights, not slavery, (the north couldn't have cared less and slaves weren't freed until later) so it proves that large numbers of people are willing to die for them....

You shouldn't lie. The Civil War was started by the South specifically over the "State Right" of slavery. Very specifically.

[Orangeinton]

These are all logical statements, but where does the Federal government's power cross the line?

[Laerod]

These are all logical statements, but where does the Federal government's power cross the line?

Versus state governments? Considering that the federal government has been historically less oppressive than state governments, I don't see why it needs to be curtailed in favor of the latter.

[Orangeinton]

How so?

Segregation and slavery are terrible things.

The Civil War was fought over States Rights, not slavery, (the north couldn't have cared less and slaves weren't freed until later) so it proves that large numbers of people are willing to die for them....

You shouldn't lie. The Civil War was started by the South specifically over the "State Right" of slavery. Very specifically.

This was a small reason however. It was mainly about the two economies becoming very different, the cultures of North and South were gradually becoming distant, and the South in general did not like the Federal government superseding their laws.

[Skinia]

These are all logical statements, but where does the Federal government's power cross the line?

It doesn't matter. Neither should infringe on individual freedom. If states' rights infringe on freedom, the feds take over and vice versa.

[Mavorpen]

Segregation and slavery are terrible things.

You shouldn't lie. The Civil War was started by the South specifically over the "State Right" of slavery. Very specifically.

This was a small reason however. It was mainly about the two economies becoming very different, the cultures of North and South were gradually becoming distant, and the South in general did not like the Federal government superseding their laws.

That's not a small reason. The two economies becoming different was because of, say it with me, slavery.

[Maineiacs]

States don't have rights. People have rights, states have powers.

This. If state law can supersede Federal law, than there might as well be no Federal government at all. We might as well Balkanize ourselves into 50 separate countries, at which point state government becomes Federal government, and the process repeats ad absurdum.

[Arkolon]

These are all logical statements, but where does the Federal government's power cross the line?

States that put up legislation that contravene Federal law cannot be permissible. Whatever is considered Federal law is a matter you the people can vote on.

[Orangeinton]

These are all logical statements, but where does the Federal government's power cross the line?

Versus state governments? Considering that the federal government has been historically less oppressive than state governments, I don't see why it needs to be curtailed in favor of the latter.

But there have been incidents where in at least my opinion, the Federal government still crossed the line.

[Mavorpen]

Versus state governments? Considering that the federal government has been historically less oppressive than state governments, I don't see why it needs to be curtailed in favor of the latter.

But there have been incidents where in at least my opinion, the Federal government still crossed the line.

And that's why we have the Supreme Court.

[Laerod]

This was a small reason however. It was mainly about the two economies becoming very different, the cultures of North and South were gradually becoming distant, and the South in general did not like the Federal government superseding their laws.

The declarations regarding the reasons of secession disagree. Aside from which the South was perfectly fine with the Federal government superseding state laws so long as it was done in the North.

[Ifreann]

Versus state governments? Considering that the federal government has been historically less oppressive than state governments, I don't see why it needs to be curtailed in favor of the latter.

But there have been incidents where in at least my opinion, the Federal government still crossed the line.

Specifically?

[Servica]

This is entertaining. Though it's a real shame I don't have access to popcorn at the moment...

[Orangeinton]

This was a small reason however. It was mainly about the two economies becoming very different, the cultures of North and South were gradually becoming distant, and the South in general did not like the Federal government superseding their laws.

That's not a small reason. The two economies becoming different was because of, say it with me, slavery.

Also,the resources that the two regions relied on were different, but ultimately, it was the Southern states becoming tired of Federal law superseding theirs.

[Laerod]

Versus state governments? Considering that the federal government has been historically less oppressive than state governments, I don't see why it needs to be curtailed in favor of the latter.

But there have been incidents where in at least my opinion, the Federal government still crossed the line.

Which is rather irrelevant since state governments do so with far greater frequency or severity.