States Rights: What do you think?

[Chestaan]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

States have rights. States can elect their own officials, raise their own taxes and pass their own laws. Unless the federal government intervenes or the Supreme Court strikes down a particular law then the State in question has that power or right, which is the point of the amendment.

You see, that post was pretty much irrelevant, as this is a discussion on whether or not states SHOULD have these rights. Unless you are trying to say that because something is in the constitution that it is automatically correct?

[Densaner]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

States have rights. States can elect their own officials, raise their own taxes and pass their own laws. Unless the federal government intervenes or the Supreme Court strikes down a particular law then the State in question has that power or right, which is the point of the amendment.

Pretty sure it says powers there.

Right -

adjective

A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

[Lalaki]

I won't step into the realm of the tenth amendment and whether or not states have rights/powers.

However, my opinion is that we should be more flexible as to which services can be controlled at the federal level. There are some things today that would be handled better at a national level instead of a state level.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

wtf does "states' rights" have to do with social contract

Decentralization = self-determination

[Genivaria]

Pretty sure it says powers there.

Right -

adjective

A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

Yeah, States don't have that.

[Ripoll]

Pretty sure it says powers there.

Right -

adjective

A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

States are a legally recognized entity

[Densaner]

Right -

adjective

A moral or legal entitlement to have or do something.

Yeah, States don't have that.

Yeah. They do. States are recognised in the Constitution. The tenth amendment is explicit in that it describes the fact that the US States have powers. US States are not local governments. They have dual sovereignty with the federal government, their own legal systems, constitutions and elected officials. It was the states that formed the union, not the other way round.

[Salandriagado]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

States have rights. States can elect their own officials, raise their own taxes and pass their own laws. Unless the federal government intervenes or the Supreme Court strikes down a particular law then the State in question has that power or right, which is the point of the amendment.

Those are powers and responsibilities. They are not, in any way, rights. Rights are the sole purview of actual people (regardless of certain of the sillier facets of American law defining things that blatantly aren't people as people).

[Salandriagado]

How strict constitutionalism is in anyway still accepted is beyond me, but frankly the elastic clause suggests otherwise. The founders were aware of the need to develop new solutions to old problems and realized that sometimes in order to uphold the liberties of man a Government must be actively aware and engaged in day to day issues not as a micro managing bureaucratic mess (which strict reading of anything, would seek to do the very thing its critics deny), but as a reasonable and responsible leader.

Well, would you prefer the alternative of a government NOT bound by any law?

If by "any law" you mean "a constitution in the American sense", then sure, it's working out just fine over here, and has been for centuries.

[Densaner]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

States have rights. States can elect their own officials, raise their own taxes and pass their own laws. Unless the federal government intervenes or the Supreme Court strikes down a particular law then the State in question has that power or right, which is the point of the amendment.

Those are powers and responsibilities. They are not, in any way, rights. Rights are the sole purview of actual people (regardless of certain of the sillier facets of American law defining things that blatantly aren't people as people).

Look at the definition of the word "right". The state governments represent the people of a particular state and the officials of that state are elected by the people of that state. States have the right to do this or that unless the Supreme Court (Roe v Wade) or the Federal Government (Civil Rights Act) say otherwise. The US is a federal system. That means the states have sovereignty over their jurisdictions in all areas not touched by the federal government or supreme court.

[Salandriagado]

Those are powers and responsibilities. They are not, in any way, rights. Rights are the sole purview of actual people (regardless of certain of the sillier facets of American law defining things that blatantly aren't people as people).

Look at the definition of the word "right". The state governments represent the people of a particular state and the officials of that state are elected by the people of that state. States have the right to do this or that unless the Supreme Court (Roe v Wade) or the Federal Government (Civil Rights Act) say otherwise. The US is a federal system. That means the states have sovereignty over their jurisdictions in all areas not touched by the federal government or supreme court.

No, they have a responsibility for managing that area. That is not the same thing as a right. Picking an irrelevant alternative definition doesn't change that matter, any more than posting the definition of "right" as the opposite of "left" would.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I feel like "states' rights" is a weasel term political buzzards with no spines and their idiot flock with no balls or brains use as a way to say "I want x banned, but I don't want to lose popularity".

It doesn't help that worthless, pustulent cunts use it as a way to restrict civil rights.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I feel like "states' rights" is a weasel term political buzzards with no spines and their idiot flock with no balls or brains use as a way to say "I want x banned, but I don't want to lose popularity".

It doesn't help that worthless, pustulent cunts use it as a way to restrict civil rights.

When DOMA was still being enforced, "states' rights" was also used by evil godless Yankees as a way to say, "We want to destroy the sanctity of marriage without admit we're evil and godless."

[Anglo-California]

I feel like "states' rights" is a weasel term political buzzards with no spines and their idiot flock with no balls or brains use as a way to say "I want x banned, but I don't want to lose popularity".

It doesn't help that worthless, pustulent cunts use it as a way to restrict civil rights.

It also cuts in the opposite direction, like when states chose to ignore fugitive slave laws, prohibition on marijuana, gun restrictions, and bans on gay marriage.

States' rights simply means states' rights. It's not a right-wing conspiracy. It's a legitimate debate within any federal union.

[Nazi Flower Power]

I feel like "states' rights" is a weasel term political buzzards with no spines and their idiot flock with no balls or brains use as a way to say "I want x banned, but I don't want to lose popularity".

It doesn't help that worthless, pustulent cunts use it as a way to restrict civil rights.

It also cuts in the opposite direction, like when states chose to ignore fugitive slave laws, prohibition on marijuana, gun restrictions, and bans on gay marriage.

States' rights simply means states' rights. It's not a right-wing conspiracy. It's a legitimate debate within any federal union.

One of the problems with the neo-Confederate "states' rights" crap is that it is a distraction from any debate about actual states' rights.

States' rights are a beautiful thing. South Carolina's state government, not so much. This is why I don't live in South Carolina.

[Ifreann]

The trick is to have a small but powerful central government and powerful states. It isn't that states could reject federal government unless it was an obvious abuse of federal power. If the federal government dealt only with international relations, interstate trade, and defense. States would have a lot more areas to act and we would have lots of social experiments in the various states.

And if a state experiments with a system whereby certain people's rights aren't recognised, well those people can just leave and go to another state, right?

---

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

States have rights.

Which we conclude from an amendment which does not contain the word "rights"?

States can elect their own officials,

No they can't.

raise their own taxes and pass their own laws.

Which are powers.

Unless the federal government intervenes or the Supreme Court strikes down a particular law then the State in question has that power or right, which is the point of the amendment.

Which, again, does not contain the word rights.

[Margno]

The concept is eternally stained for its association with slavery, and should be relegated to the scrap heaps of history.

[Corunia and Mironor]

The concept is eternally stained for its association with slavery, and should be relegated to the scrap heaps of history.

I agree

[WestRedMaple]

The concept is eternally stained for its association with slavery, and should be relegated to the scrap heaps of history.

If the state part of the powers should be relegated to the scrap heap of history based on the connection some people draw between it and slavery, then it is only reasonable that the federal part should be relegated to the scrap heap based on the federal government's connection with genocide, massacres, and aggressive wars of conquest.

That leaves us with no government under the Constitution.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

The state's, by comparison, have a sterling record when it comes to miscegenation, taxation, civil rights, upholding the Constitution, and voting rights.

Wait a second...

"Miscegenation"?! I think we can all pretend for one second like we don't still live in the 1800s.

That's the term used in Portuguese... why Latin sounds bigoted, just out of curiosity?

[Big Jim P]

The trick is to have a small but powerful central government and powerful states. It isn't that states could reject federal government unless it was an obvious abuse of federal power. If the federal government dealt only with international relations, interstate trade, and defense. States would have a lot more areas to act and we would have lots of social experiments in the various states.

And if a state experiments with a system whereby certain people's rights aren't recognised, well those people can just leave and go to another state, right?

That is precisely what I am doing and why when I leave New York.

[Shadowlandrea]

I wish the US would break up into different countries and essentially operate as an EU.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I wish the US would break up into different countries and essentially operate as an EU.

We're capable of far greater things united than divided. Besides, I hate to think what shit some of the states would pull.

[Ifreann]

And if a state experiments with a system whereby certain people's rights aren't recognised, well those people can just leave and go to another state, right?

That is precisely what I am doing and why when I leave New York.

Yeah, I bet the state of New York is oppressing the shit out of you.

[Autonomous Titoists]

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

America was literally founded upon a weak central government and strong states that could support themselves. Slavery was everywhere don't act like it was centralized only to America. And if it weren't for Louis XIV Noir Code in 1685 it never would have been completely aimed at African slaves.