NationStates

Austreylia wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:
Did you come here to debate or just say "no u" because so far you've yet to actually argue anything.

I've posted an argument, if you look a few posts above.

I just don't think a take as ridiculous as "the constitution is obsolete and should be rewritten" even deserves a response that is more than a couple of words in length.

It's not a ridiculous take unless you're one of those weirdos that treats the Constitution like it's the Bible or something. The Constitution is about two centuries old and getting older by the second. It's hardly "ridiculous" to believe that a two century old document should probably be updated. It's not like we haven't amended the Constitution before.

That something is enshrined in the Constitution doesn't necessarily mean that said thing is innately good or even desirable. Federalism was necessary in a time when each state more or less wanted to go it's own way and do it's own thing. In the time since the Civil War, however, the need for states to police themselves has largely become obsolete. We presently live in an age where instantaneous communication is possible from one of the world to the other. The inherent necessity for Federalism, at least in the form it presently exists in within the United States, is no more. Maybe we don't need to abolish it altogether but it's fairly obvious that states do not need rights and whether they should even have them at all is debatable at best. Frankly our entire system needs drastic overhaul from the Fed. all the way down to the municipalities. And since certain states have decided to launch a crusade against the Right to Vote, I'd say we should probably start with getting rid of a state's right to decide how people vote. There are some things that states simply shouldn't be allowed to decide on their own. Like who you can marry or if blacks are people or not.

Punished UMN wrote:

Ifreann wrote:About that.

The actual writers of the constitution disagreed with that assessment, as does the Supreme Court of the United States

James Madison wrote:I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

Ol' Jim doesn't make any reference to any rights of the states either. Just powers.

Several court cases in recent decades have cited the tenth amendment to overrule legislation, moreover, the Tenth Amendment was explicitly a reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which was a sticking point in the negotiations for the ratification of the Constitution, which reads: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

A reference, perhaps, but not a restatement.

So in order to find the rights of the states in the US Constitution, we must look to:
The amendment which makes no reference to rights
Commentary about the Constitution which likewise makes no reference to rights
A reference to states rights which is not in the Constitution.

And yet the political belief that state governments ought to have greater power is consistently referred to as "states rights". As I said, this is a marketing ploy. It's a name used to make the idea sound more appealing.

Ifreann wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The actual writers of the constitution disagreed with that assessment, as does the Supreme Court of the United States

Ol' Jim doesn't make any reference to any rights of the states either. Just powers.

Several court cases in recent decades have cited the tenth amendment to overrule legislation, moreover, the Tenth Amendment was explicitly a reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which was a sticking point in the negotiations for the ratification of the Constitution, which reads: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

A reference, perhaps, but not a restatement.

So in order to find the rights of the states in the US Constitution, we must look to:
The amendment which makes no reference to rights
Commentary about the Constitution which likewise makes no reference to rights
A reference to states rights which is not in the Constitution.

And yet the political belief that state governments ought to have greater power is consistently referred to as "states rights". As I said, this is a marketing ploy. It's a name used to make the idea sound more appealing.

When the fellows who wrote the constitution talk about states rights within the context of the constitution you just might be wrong on the topic.

When do you admit you don't know what you are talking about?

Ifreann wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:The actual writers of the constitution disagreed with that assessment, as does the Supreme Court of the United States

Ol' Jim doesn't make any reference to any rights of the states either. Just powers.

Several court cases in recent decades have cited the tenth amendment to overrule legislation, moreover, the Tenth Amendment was explicitly a reference to Article II of the Articles of Confederation, which was a sticking point in the negotiations for the ratification of the Constitution, which reads: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

A reference, perhaps, but not a restatement.

So in order to find the rights of the states in the US Constitution, we must look to:
The amendment which makes no reference to rights
Commentary about the Constitution which likewise makes no reference to rights
A reference to states rights which is not in the Constitution.

And yet the political belief that state governments ought to have greater power is consistently referred to as "states rights". As I said, this is a marketing ploy. It's a name used to make the idea sound more appealing.

What are rights if not powers?

Lady Victory wrote:And since certain states have decided to launch a crusade against the Right to Vote

Yeah, the constitution doesn't need updating, or rewriting, or anything else.

And wanting voter IDs isn't a crusade against the right to vote.

Austreylia wrote:And wanting voter IDs isn't a crusade against the right to vote.

It's not *just* voter IDs. And the accepted IDs are specifically the ones that some minorities usually don't have. If you absolutely want voter IDs, you need to issue those IDs for free and without any undue administrative red-tape to everyone. If not it's a disguised tax poll, therefore a crusade against the right to vote.

We have voter ID here in France, but every French citizen above 18 can get an ID card for free, and needs it anyway for many other operations (passing any state exam, banking operations, getting a package from the post office, ...) so everyone has one.

But that's not what the GOP proposes. And they know there is no significant fraud done by the lack of ID, it's just a way to suppress vote of minorities.

Kilobugya wrote:

Austreylia wrote:And wanting voter IDs isn't a crusade against the right to vote.

It's not *just* voter IDs. And the accepted IDs are specifically the ones that some minorities usually don't have.

Why don't they have them? What prevents them from getting them?

Austreylia wrote:Why don't they have them? What prevents them from getting them?

That they cost money to get, money they don't have ?

Punished UMN wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Ol' Jim doesn't make any reference to any rights of the states either. Just powers.


A reference, perhaps, but not a restatement.

So in order to find the rights of the states in the US Constitution, we must look to:
The amendment which makes no reference to rights
Commentary about the Constitution which likewise makes no reference to rights
A reference to states rights which is not in the Constitution.

And yet the political belief that state governments ought to have greater power is consistently referred to as "states rights". As I said, this is a marketing ploy. It's a name used to make the idea sound more appealing.

What are rights if not powers?

If there's no distinction between the two, why are both terms used in the Constitution? Why are they called rights in some places and powers in others? Just an idle literary flourish? Could it perhaps be because...

Ifreann wrote:States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers.

---

Austreylia wrote:

Lady Victory wrote:And since certain states have decided to launch a crusade against the Right to Vote

Yeah, the constitution doesn't need updating, or rewriting, or anything else.

And wanting voter IDs isn't a crusade against the right to vote.

If the Constitution doesn't need to be changed then why has it been changed so many times? Were those mistakes?

Austreylia wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:
It's not *just* voter IDs. And the accepted IDs are specifically the ones that some minorities usually don't have.

Why don't they have them? What prevents them from getting them?

Money, transportation, time (since these places are often open only during work hours).

There's some merit in letting states decide things for themselves to prevent bureaucracy, but generally federal law should prevail as it reduces fractionalism.

SD_Film Artists wrote:There's some merit in letting states decide things for themselves to prevent bureaucracy, but generally federal law should prevail as it reduces fractionalism.

Then one can presume that you are opposed to states legalizing pot?

Elwher wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:There's some merit in letting states decide things for themselves to prevent bureaucracy, but generally federal law should prevail as it reduces fractionalism.

Then one can presume that you are opposed to states legalizing pot?

In a sense I am, as its illegal on the federal level. State law shouldn't contravene federal law.

Kilobugya wrote:

Austreylia wrote:Why don't they have them? What prevents them from getting them?

That they cost money to get, money they don't have ?

Yeah, nonsense again.

Austreylia wrote:

Kilobugya wrote:
That they cost money to get, money they don't have ?

Yeah, nonsense again.

How?

Elwher wrote:

SD_Film Artists wrote:There's some merit in letting states decide things for themselves to prevent bureaucracy, but generally federal law should prevail as it reduces fractionalism.

Then one can presume that you are opposed to states legalizing pot?

Nope, I think it's a good thing. Legal pot also doesn't undermine civic unity unless you believe conservative lobbies.

You could say that the ability of the state to make independent laws is fractionalism in itself, so in that way I disagree with it; like a dictator who agrees with all your political views.

Ifreann wrote:States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers.

This. The states should even have the ability to legislate on voting laws or where their boundaries go. That should be up to the central government and not the states

Great Algerstonia wrote:

Ifreann wrote:States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers.

Thats pure semantics. In that case, do you think the federal or state governments should have more powers?

Central government. There shouldn’t be a federal government as a federation is bad, unless it’s effectively useless ala the RSFR

Ifreann wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:What are rights if not powers?

If there's no distinction between the two, why are both terms used in the Constitution? Why are they called rights in some places and powers in others? Just an idle literary flourish? Could it perhaps be because...

Ifreann wrote:States don't have rights. People have rights. States have powers.

And as has been explained to you, the Supreme court disagrees, there have been multiple cases where federal law has been struck down because it violates the states' rights to their internal affairs. There are certain policies and ways of achieving policy that the federal government does not have the power to do because it interferes with the states.

Punished UMN wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If there's no distinction between the two, why are both terms used in the Constitution? Why are they called rights in some places and powers in others? Just an idle literary flourish? Could it perhaps be because...

And as has been explained to you, the Supreme court disagrees, there have been multiple cases where federal law has been struck down because it violates the states' rights to their internal affairs. There are certain policies and ways of achieving policy that the federal government does not have the power to do because it interferes with the states.

Which in my opinion is stupid as the federal government, which should be the central government, needs to control

Thermodolia wrote:

Punished UMN wrote:And as has been explained to you, the Supreme court disagrees, there have been multiple cases where federal law has been struck down because it violates the states' rights to their internal affairs. There are certain policies and ways of achieving policy that the federal government does not have the power to do because it interferes with the states.

Which in my opinion is stupid as the federal government, which should be the central government, needs to control

Its fine to have that opinion, I may or may not disagree with it but it's a position on the issue.

Just denying the existence of states rights because one doesn't like them is foolish, and not conducive to discussion. That is what PUMN is arguing against.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Which in my opinion is stupid as the federal government, which should be the central government, needs to control

Its fine to have that opinion, I may or may not disagree with it but it's a position on the issue.

Just denying the existence of states rights because one doesn't like them is foolish, and not conducive to discussion. That is what PUMN is arguing against.

Oh no I get that. Yes states currently do have rights and powers under the constitution. However I personally disagree with that and believe that they should just be Extensions of the central government

Thermodolia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
Its fine to have that opinion, I may or may not disagree with it but it's a position on the issue.

Just denying the existence of states rights because one doesn't like them is foolish, and not conducive to discussion. That is what PUMN is arguing against.

Oh no I get that. Yes states currently do have rights and powers under the constitution. However I personally disagree with that and believe that they should just be Extensions of the central government

I disagree and one of the reasons I disagree is I like the ability to reach out and touch people who make the rules. I would much prefer a devolved political structure.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:A federal election is a federal election. When states start changing shit around over a process that occurs nationwide on the same day, it messes things up, especially when said states are changing shit around because they're run by a gang of poor sports that won't stop crying and complaining because the guy they supported was too much of a clown and threw the election.

They'll be talking about voter fraud till the end. I guarantee you the last words of Greg Abbott when he's on his death bed surrounded by his family will probably be "Donald Trump so won the 2020 election. Fuck leftists."

Beyond federal level stuff, most powers should be devolved to the states. Local leaders know the situation on the ground best.

Probably more just general "Invisible dead illegal immigrant communist voters everywhere!" ranting.

They're more desperate and brazen about it now due to the need to appease the Trump death cult and their fear of losing power due to demographics, but voter suppression and ranting about massive voter fraud (that they can never find any actual evidence of) in every election they lose has been SOP for Republicans for decades.

Though the question is a bit misleading. Conservatives do not give two shits about "State's Rights" and their definition of "small government" has always been "the largest government we control".

Which is why you had all those 'small government' conservatives forever worried about 'government tyranny' spraying their shorts over a Republican President using a faux 'National Emergency' as justification to seize money that Congress wouldn't give him, and black bagging American citizens off the street because everyone knows graffiti artists are entirely too dangerous to take by normal means.

Of all the developed countries, America gives some of the most power to their individual states/provinces/municipalities and the most leeway by far. Exceptions might include semi-autonomous regions, like Quebec or Scotland, but barring that, I can't think of much else.

And sometimes, that's a great thing. Cities can enact local ordinances that benefit their populace that would simultaneously be irrelevant elsewhere. States can adopt laws and regulations that are prudent to them, even if they would be not prudent elsewhere. But, I think I've grown warier of America's increasingly decentralized approach to governance, especially in terms of how easy it is for State Legislatures to just jam through absolute dogshit laws that kneecap the right to vote. Other examples might include education funding & policies or healthcare access, but I'll focus on voting.

I think one could make an argument that decisions related to voting restrictions/laws/regulations should be a bit more centralized and unitary, but of course, the Catch 22 is that if the GOP got large majorities in the House/Senate one day, they could roll out a slate of discriminatory and anti-democratic voting laws on a federal level within the parameters of that hypothetical. That would be my concern.