Federal Supremacy vs States Rights

[Elwher]

The recent kerfluffle over the Voting Rights Act brings back an eternal question: Does a state have the right to enact laws in contravention to federal law?

Before giving a knee-jerk answer, consider how your answer applies to both civil rights and drug enforcement.

Being a big fan of the red-headed stepchild of the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment, I believe that a state should have supreme power over anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution (including the amendments) and that interstate commerce only occurs if a product or service crosses a state line.

[Ifreann]

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

[Great Algerstonia]

I am a strong proponent of state rights and especially local government rights, simply because I believe it is more efficient. I hold a belief that local governments and state government should have more funding and legislative freedom because they know and can serve their constituents the best- for example, in small-town Iowa, local government will be far more receptive to rural needs than federal government.

Another reasoning behind my support towards local government is because they are less affected by party politics (although this practice is eroding in some areas unfortunately.)

[Ethel mermania]

The tenth amendment needs an addition to it.

"We really mean it this time"

[Austreylia]

States don't have rights.

Yeah, that's not correct at all.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

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.

[Kilobugya]

I strongly disagree that states have "rights". People have rights. States don't.

Some things are more efficiently handled by local governments (state, cities, ...) and trying to decide everything centrally will end up creating too much bureaucracy and probably not take in consideration local conditions (climate, population density, ...).

But anything that has global consequences should be decided mostly - things like most tax laws, working conditions, environmental regulations, universal healthcare, gun control, humane justice reform and voting laws (at least for all federation elections).

On some topics states should able to go further than the federal government (more environmental regulations, highest working wages, ...).

[Austreylia]

I strongly disagree that states have "rights". People have rights. States don't.

Yeah, what you're saying is just nonsense.

[Anatoliyanskiy]

I strongly disagree that states have "rights". People have rights. States don't.

Yeah, what you're saying is just nonsense.

Care to back up your point with some reasoning? You cant just say "that's nonsense!" and expect everyone to agree with you.

[Great Algerstonia]

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?

[Kilobugya]

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

Except that many issues are global (such as environmental issues, or power grids/telecom infrastructure/long-distance transportation, or pandemic control), having different rules at different places can be used by corporations playing one state against another (minimal wage, maximal working hours, tax rates, ...) and many other things benefit a lot from economies of scale or positive externalities (health insurance, public research).

[Borderlands of Rojava]

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

Except that many issues are global (such as environmental issues, or power grids/telecom infrastructure/long-distance transportation, or pandemic control), having different rules at different places can be used by corporations playing one state against another (minimal wage, maximal working hours, tax rates, ...) and many other things benefit a lot from economies of scale or positive externalities (health insurance, public research).

So we should have someone who isn't from Washington telling Washington how they should solve their problems? My man, this is why the Soviet Union had alot of issues regarding starvation, because bureaucrats in Moscow were trying to run farming operations all the way across Russia without having the knowledge about how it was going in those far off places.

[Islamic Holy Sites]

States don't have rights.

Yeah, that's not correct at all.

Care to back up your claim?

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, that's not correct at all.

Care to back up your claim?

States' rights refer to the political rights and powers granted to the states of the United States by the U.S. Constitution. Under the doctrine of states' rights, the federal government is not allowed to interfere with the powers of the states reserved or implied to them by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

https://www.thoughtco.com/states-rights-4582633

[Ifreann]

States don't have rights.

Yeah, that's not correct at all.

In fact it is entirely correct. Let's skip the boring back and forth bit. You're going to say something to the effect of "Read the Tenth Amendment", because you've heard so-called states rights advocates talking about the Tenth Amendment. But I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the Tenth Amendment recently.

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.

No reference to rights at all. But imagine arguing for states powers. "We want more government power!" wouldn't play well with Republican voters, not when you say it openly. So instead they argue for states rights, because that sounds good, that can be sold as a noble and brave endeavour. But it's a lie. It's a marketing ploy.

---

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?

I think it's a relevant point. When people talk about states rights, they're peddling a lie. They're not fighting for anyone's rights, they're fighting to grant themselves more power. And when we look at who argues for "states rights" and when, we can see that the power they want is to derogate people's Constitutional rights. They want their state's government to have the power to ignore the supreme law of the United States.

[Austreylia]

Yeah, what you're saying is just nonsense.

Care to back up your point with some reasoning?

It's kind of what the constitution affords to them.

[Ethel mermania]

Yeah, that's not correct at all.

In fact it is entirely correct. Let's skip the boring back and forth bit. You're going to say something to the effect of "Read the Tenth Amendment", because you've heard so-called states rights advocates talking about the Tenth Amendment. But I'm guessing that you haven't actually read the Tenth Amendment recently.

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.

No reference to rights at all. But imagine arguing for states powers. "We want more government power!" wouldn't play well with Republican voters, not when you say it openly. So instead they argue for states rights, because that sounds good, that can be sold as a noble and brave endeavour. But it's a lie. It's a marketing ploy.

---

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

I think it's a relevant point. When people talk about states rights, they're peddling a lie. They're not fighting for anyone's rights, they're fighting to grant themselves more power. And when we look at who argues for "states rights" and when, we can see that the power they want is to derogate people's Constitutional rights. They want their state's government to have the power to ignore the supreme law of the United States.

The states have powers over its citizens and rights against the federal powers as enumerated by the constitution.

This is not a new concept. They are mentioned in the federalist papers. A federalist,, James Madison writes:


the Constitution maintains the sovereignty of states by enumerating very few express powers to the federal government, while “[t]hose which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

[Whitemore]

I'd say there needs to be a balance, the State isn't going to be 100% right on making political decisions for it's residences and will sometimes require Federal attention to make sure no ones rights are harmed. *stares at the South*

[Kilobugya]

So we should have someone who isn't from Washington telling Washington how they should solve their problems? My man, this is why the Soviet Union had alot of issues regarding starvation, because bureaucrats in Moscow were trying to run farming operations all the way across Russia without having the knowledge about how it was going in those far off places.

Actually the Soviet Union had less starvation issues than Tsarist Russia. But that aside, I'm not saying the federal government should micro-manage everything and tell to a farmer in the state of Washington exactly what crop he should plant in which land. But general rules that either create rights which should be universal or have global consequences, like minimal wage, or universal healthcare, or bans on dangerous pesticides, or mask mandates during a pandemic are much more efficiently decided globally yes.

Do you really oppose federal level $15 minimal wage or Medicare for All ? I though that's the kind of things you would support...

[Kilobugya]

It's kind of what the constitution affords to them.

Ok, I meant States shouldn't have rights. As for the constitution, the US constitution is in my view a totally obsoleted thing that makes no sense in the modern world and should be completely re-written.

[Whitemore]

It's kind of what the constitution affords to them.

Ok, I meant States shouldn't have rights. As for the constitution, the US constitution is in my view a totally obsoleted thing that makes no sense in the modern world and should be completely re-written.

You just made a lot of people upset with that statement.

[Ifreann]

It's kind of what the constitution affords to them.

Do please share with us the clause to which you are referring.

[Picairn]

While states' rights bring flexibility and allow states to experiment different policies in response to different circumstances as good testing grounds for federal policy implementation, this flexibility also brings inequality with regards to outcome.

Consider healthcare. 39 states have adopted the Medicaid expansion, while 12 states are still holding out (mainly Texas and the South). This means that there are (as of 2019) more than 2 million poor adults who are too "rich" to be eligible for Medicaid but still too poor to qualify for marketplace subsidies, producing a coverage gap full of uninsured people.

Therefore, I believe there should be more federal centralization to address national issues that states have failed to adequately solve.

[Kilobugya]

Ok, I meant States shouldn't have rights. As for the constitution, the US constitution is in my view a totally obsoleted thing that makes no sense in the modern world and should be completely re-written.

You just made a lot of people upset with that statement.

Well, I don't make people upset on purpose, but I will not refrain to express my position because it can upset people. And I come from a country that had like 10 Constitutions since after the US made its own, so really from my point of view that... fixation on a document written more than 200 years ago in a wholly different world looks like fetishism or blind worship more than anything else.

[Whitemore]

You just made a lot of people upset with that statement.

Well, I don't make people upset on purpose, but I will not refrain to express my position because it can upset people. And I come from a country that had like 10 Constitutions since after the US made its own, so really from my point of view that... fixation on a document written more than 200 years ago in a wholly different world looks like fetishism or blind worship more than anything else.

I don't disagree with what you said in regards to the U.S. Constitution being outdated btw. I'd also say that in some parts of U.S. Society it is heavily relied upon kind of like a religious document.