Federal Supremacy vs States Rights

[Austreylia]

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.

Again, total nonsense.

[Bear Stearns]

State governments in the US tend to be nepotistic and corrupt. The federal government is just downright evil. I'll take my chances with the state.

[Neutraligon]

State governments in the US tend to be nepotistic and corrupt. The federal government is just downright evil. I'll take my chances with the state.

Considering some of the state reactions to covid as well as what they are doing to voting rights I would claim that certain state governments are evil.

[Page]

I don't believe in a general principle of power distribution either way, I only judge individual disputes on their own merits. Feds enforcing voting rights: Good. Feds fucking with weed: Bad.

I think of it like there's a crazed murderer and a hungry grizzly bear: Ideally, they'll keep fighting and neither will ever win against the other and turn its knife or teeth on me, but sometimes depending on where you're standing, you want one of the two to be winning at the moment.

[Kilobugya]

I think of it like there's a crazed murderer and a hungry grizzly bear: Ideally, they'll keep fighting and neither will ever win against the other and turn its knife or teeth on me, but sometimes depending on where you're standing, you want one of the two to be winning at the moment.

I understand your analogy but you forget that there are more than the murder and the grizzly, but many other threats, like corporations, climate change and pandemics. And while the states and the feds fight each other, those can progress unchecked. Against those evil, until we have a completely different society ("communism" or "anarchy" or whatever) which can't be done in one day, we'll need to wield government power, and the paralysis between fed and states, or the ability to play one state against the other is doing lots of harm.

[Just-An-Illusion]

I'm bit neutral on this issue... But the last time we let states have rights we had a civil war. I think we need to balance the powers of both state governments and federal governments.

[Bear Stearns]

State governments in the US tend to be nepotistic and corrupt. The federal government is just downright evil. I'll take my chances with the state.

Considering some of the state reactions to covid as well as what they are doing to voting rights I would claim that certain state governments are evil.

The federal reaction to covid was evil. But go ahead and simp for citibank and amazon.

also doesn't the federal government drone strike children?

[Neutraligon]

Considering some of the state reactions to covid as well as what they are doing to voting rights I would claim that certain state governments are evil.

The federal reaction to covid was evil. But go ahead and simp for citibank and amazon.

also doesn't the federal government drone strike children?

True, Trump's federal reaction was shit, which then meant that state reaction was also even more shit. And local police kill children. Also, not simping for either.

[Punished UMN]

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...

Different economies have different needs. Even in the US, there are places where $15/hr is a decent wage, and there are places where it's starvation wages.

[Middle Barael]

I really don’t see the point of states rights.

For issues that affect a very rage area, the federal government should take care of it, and states should not be contravening this federal laws.

For issues that are more local, the individual municipal areas should control it, and be more autonomous in a sort of municipal confederacy.

States are too small to deal with issues on a big scale, but too big to deal with more local issues. I think they are useful as an intermediary between the federal and local levels, but I do not believe that states should have the same power as the federal government in any way. A municipally-decentralized nationally-unitary system would be the best

[Lady Victory]

States' rights are overrated tbh.

[Lady Victory]

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.

Again, total nonsense.

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

[Postauthoritarian America]

That question was pretty much settled in 1865. Hint: the states' rights side lost.

[Union of All Socialist Peoples]

The national government should have hardline power over the states, which are only to be puppets of the communist central system.

[Ayytaly]

Certain federal laws and policies should not be challenged by states, such as civil rights, taxes, and transport.

[Austreylia]

Again, total nonsense.

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.

[Kilobugya]

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.

Because saying people shouldn't be bound forever by rules decided by a few rich white men living a completely different world over two centuries ago is "ridiculous" ?

[Engadine Mcdonalds 1997]

In my opinion states rights is just an excuse to hold reactionary laws in place to subdue the will of the people. We constantly hear the clamouring's of the deep south about their 'states rights' (to either own slaves or disenfranchise African-Americans of political representation) but we never hear the 'progressive' states screech about 'states rights'. Solution? Forcefully drag these fucks into the 21st century kicking and screaming if they feel so inclined, we have always won anyways, why wait for the enemy to adapt?

[Exxosia]

I used to believe in states' rights, but over the past few years, I have given up on it. Basically any country that is large enough to have states, is too large to exist, so states rights are moot. The federal level will have too much power in general, so you either roll over and admit defeat or break the country into smaller nations.

[Adamede]

“States rights” is just the rallying cry of those who want to have state oppression be done on the state level.

[Ifreann]

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.

Any progress on identifying where in the Constitution states are afforded rights?

[Punished UMN]

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.

Any progress on identifying where in the Constitution states are afforded rights?

I know you're not American, but come on, Iffy:

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.

[Ifreann]

Any progress on identifying where in the Constitution states are afforded rights?

I know you're not American, but come on, Iffy:

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.

About that.

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.

[Ethel mermania]

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.

Any progress on identifying where in the Constitution states are afforded rights?

Since you missed it


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


I also quoted Madison on the issue, one of the fellows who wrote the thing, but I guess you ignored that too

[Punished UMN]

I know you're not American, but come on, Iffy:

About that.

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.

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

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.

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."