States Rights: What do you think?

[Nazi Flower Power]

They unduly restrict a citizens Second Amendment rights. They are also over-priced, over-taxed and over-regulated. I could go on, but you all have heard it before, and it is almost bedtime.

One could make the case Texas (or any southern state for that matter) underegulates and underfunds their programs...which is probably why poverty rates in the South and obesity rates are sky high.

Pick your poison, I guess.

I don't think the North-South difference in obesity is a function of state laws. All-you-can-eat buffets are legal AFAIK everywhere, but they are far more common in the South because people just have a different mentality about food.

[Nazi Flower Power]

How about if Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulclair become the PM of Canada next year that Blue states annex into Canada and Red states turn into the Confederate States of Jesusland.
I would be happy MN would be better off.

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

[The Cold Place]

I see it as a code word for "preventing people we don't like from having the same rights as anyone else without the federal government being able to stop us".

It only means that in the South.

And in Wisconsin.

[The Cold Place]

How about if Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulclair become the PM of Canada next year that Blue states annex into Canada and Red states turn into the Confederate States of Jesusland.
I would be happy MN would be better off.

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

That would make both the US and Canada look geographically hilarious.

[Maineiacs]

How about if Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulclair become the PM of Canada next year that Blue states annex into Canada and Red states turn into the Confederate States of Jesusland.
I would be happy MN would be better off.

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Maine first. We're closer.

[Freechrist]

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Maine first. We're closer.

Honestly i have already considered Maine "South Canada". (I live their).
So honestly it would not be much of a fight. More of a "yes please!"

[Nazi Flower Power]

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Maine first. We're closer.

You're supposed to be part of Massachusetts anyway.

[Nova Sumeria]

How about if Justin Trudeau or Tom Mulclair become the PM of Canada next year that Blue states annex into Canada and Red states turn into the Confederate States of Jesusland.
I would be happy MN would be better off.

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Canada gets all the population centers that don't actually do anything, while we keep the resources, industry, and military power. Sounds good by me.

Swap up for Ontario and the Northern Territories and we're golden.

[United Prefectures of Appia]

I'm okay with states' rights as long as they don't cross the line with the Constitution.

[Ifreann]

The states. Because that's the entire point. To give power to the states so they can violate the Constitution and the rights the people are guaranteed by it without interference from the federal government.

So the NSA spying, CIA Torture blacksites, Patriot Act, and the proposed and narrowly defeated CISPA/SOPA clones were all states initiatives?

Why do you ask? I'm talking about the evident, though not stated, purpose of the so-called states rights movement. Not the quality of the federal government.

State governments are more easily controlled by their citizens, plain and simple.

Plain, simple, and wrong.

It takes fewer voters to kick out unreliable politicians,

And just as few to elect unreliable politicians based on dreams of unregulated businesses and legal marijuana. And once elected those politicians can draw constituency boundaries around their voter base and gerrymander themselves a nice long career in power.

barrier of entry for candidates with actual integrity is lower,

Which I'm sure will keep out all the corrupt liars.

and smaller governments are easier to scrutinize and monitor for corruption.

If they let you scrutinise them. If the state government is actually small.

That was the entire point of my post.

Yes, I can see that.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Canada gets all the population centers that don't actually do anything, while we keep the resources, industry, and military power. Sounds good by me.

Canada wouldn't be annexing the dead weight poverty states of the South, meaning the US would be worse off.

[Camelza]

There are civil rights and human rights and many more rights, however "states' rights" is a rather ridiculous concept.

[Welskerland]

I agree with it to an extent. I don't think one law should be forced upon the nation is big as the U.S. California's interests may be different from Georgia's for example. What may be good for one state may harm the other.

If you banned guns nationally, how would Alaskans defend themselves from bears, for example?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I will not complain if Canada annexes Massachusetts.

Canada gets all the population centers that don't actually do anything, while we keep the resources, industry, and military power. Sounds good by me.

Swap up for Ontario and the Northern Territories and we're golden.

No, you don't get Ontario. Canada is using that.

[Grotaland]

Its called the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Canada gets all the population centers that don't actually do anything, while we keep the resources, industry, and military power. Sounds good by me.

Canada wouldn't be annexing the dead weight poverty states of the South, meaning the US would be worse off.

Shhh!!! If you tell them Massachusetts is valuable, then they won't support giving it to Canada! Don't tell anyone it has a working economy! It's supposed to be a secret!

[Nova Sumeria]

There are civil rights and human rights and many more rights, however "states' rights" is a rather ridiculous concept.

It's more of a debate on division of power. The US was built on Dual Sovereignty, meaning that the States within the Union were Sovereign and self-governing while the Union as a whole provides a united front for diplomatic, trade, and military purposes.

[Maurepas]

As the refrain goes, the Civil War was fought over States Rights*. The States Rights side also lost, and I feel rightfully so. It might be a purely fictional movie but I actually thought a quote from The Patriot to be quite fitting:

"Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"




*not mentioning of course the right in question being State's right to own slaves

[Maurepas]

There are civil rights and human rights and many more rights, however "states' rights" is a rather ridiculous concept.

It's more of a debate on division of power. The US was built on Dual Sovereignty, meaning that the States within the Union were Sovereign and self-governing while the Union as a whole provides a united front for diplomatic, trade, and military purposes.

Well the US under the Articles of Confederation were, but we figured out that system failed miserably, and the US under the Constitution is a Federalist system with a tiered system of powers, the Federal Government being on top and actually exercising Sovereignty, and trumping any laws or decisions at the State level.

[Nazi Flower Power]

As the refrain goes, the Civil War was fought over States Rights*. The States Rights side also lost, and I feel rightfully so. It might be a purely fictional movie but I actually thought a quote from The Patriot to be quite fitting:

"Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"




*not mentioning of course the right in question being State's right to own slaves

There was no states' rights side of the Civil War. "States' rights" actually means something when it's not being used as a code word for slavery, and the Civil War was not fought over states' rights.

[Maurepas]

As the refrain goes, the Civil War was fought over States Rights*. The States Rights side also lost, and I feel rightfully so. It might be a purely fictional movie but I actually thought a quote from The Patriot to be quite fitting:

"Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?"




*not mentioning of course the right in question being State's right to own slaves

There was no states' rights side of the Civil War. "States' rights" actually means something when it's not being used as a code word for slavery, and the Civil War was not fought over states' rights.

It actually was, tbqh, the roots go back further than you think. South Carolina had been fighting it politically for longer than you think, in one of the first States Rights issues was known as the "Nullification Crisis", led by none other than South Carolina. Calhoun developing many of the doctrines and tactics used by the South prior to, and being an inspiration to the Secessionist leaders during, the Civil War.

The issue was Slavery as I tried to humorously point out, but the tactic was States Rights. Unfortunately for proponents of the concept, as I also pointed out in a subsequent post, the idea is rooted in a pre-Constitutional America, and the US Constitution doesn't support the idea that the States can overrule or override the Federal Government.

[Nazi Flower Power]

There was no states' rights side of the Civil War. "States' rights" actually means something when it's not being used as a code word for slavery, and the Civil War was not fought over states' rights.

It actually was, tbqh, the roots go back further than you think. South Carolina had been fighting it politically for longer than you think, the one of the first States Rights issues was known as the "Nullification Crisis", led by none other than South Carolina. Calhoun developing many of the doctrines and tactics used by the South prior to, and being an inspiration to the Secessionist leaders during, the Civil War.

The issue was Slavery as I tried to humorously point out, but the tactic was States Rights. Unfortunately for proponents of the concept, as I also pointed out in a subsequent post, the idea is rooted in a pre-Constitutional America, and the US Constitution doesn't support the idea that the States can overrule or override the Federal Government.

I'm familiar with the Nullification Crisis. I'm also familiar with Northern states having their own states' rights issues -- refusing to catch and return fugitive slaves, discussing secession in 1803 and 1814, etc. States' rights is a real issue, but it's not one that makes a nice neat split between the North and the South the way slavery did. If you look at the behavior of Northern state governments during the Civil War, it's clear they didn't have much respect for federal authority either. It took a lot of prodding for Lincoln to get them to supply the troops he asked for because the whole system was just less centralized back then. "Nullification" rhetoric is a specifically Southern thing, but not all arguments in favor of states' rights are framed that way.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I believe in states rights on issues and powers that the Constitution doesn't address, as that was what's explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, I also believe in the supremacy clause, which is that if there are contradictions between federal and state constitutions (or if the States do something contradictory to the Constitution), then the federal constitution is superior, meaning that the states did violate the 14th Amendment, and it makes perfect for the use of federal power to enforce the constitution in the states.

However, I also believe in the states having the right to nullify federal laws that the courts find unconstitutional. If such a right was given, the state courts can find ways to nullify things such as the PATRIOT Act, DOMA, the suspension of Habeas Corpus and other unconstitutional acts. Sadly, that nullification right was taken away following the War of Northern Aggression, and perhaps another secession can restore the right of nullification of laws that state courts find unconstitutional.

[Maurepas]

It actually was, tbqh, the roots go back further than you think. South Carolina had been fighting it politically for longer than you think, the one of the first States Rights issues was known as the "Nullification Crisis", led by none other than South Carolina. Calhoun developing many of the doctrines and tactics used by the South prior to, and being an inspiration to the Secessionist leaders during, the Civil War.

The issue was Slavery as I tried to humorously point out, but the tactic was States Rights. Unfortunately for proponents of the concept, as I also pointed out in a subsequent post, the idea is rooted in a pre-Constitutional America, and the US Constitution doesn't support the idea that the States can overrule or override the Federal Government.

I'm familiar with the Nullification Crisis. I'm also familiar with Northern states having their own states' rights issues -- refusing to catch and return fugitive slaves, discussing secession in 1803 and 1814, etc. States' rights is a real issue, but it's not one that makes a nice neat split between the North and the South the way slavery did. If you look at the behavior of Northern state governments during the Civil War, it's clear they didn't have much respect for federal authority either. It took a lot of prodding for Lincoln to get them to supply the troops he asked for because the whole system was just less centralized back then. "Nullification" rhetoric is a specifically Southern thing, but not all arguments in favor of states' rights are framed that way.

True, and there were attempts at secession on the part of New England as well early on, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that the Civil War was primarily concerning the power of the Federal Government over those of the State Governments. And that, regardless of whether the aim is necessarily altruistic, the outcome of the war was the end of the idea that a State could override the Federal Government in any way.

[Tekania]

I think that states have no rights, people have rights. "States rights" is an argument used for the sole purpose as to deny people rights... as such state-rights proponents are enemies of the people. The highest form of traitor.