Federal Supremacy vs States Rights

[Ifreann]

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.

That there are matters over which the states have power and not the federal government does not constitute states rights. Not unless rights and powers are the same thing, which brings me back to the question about why the Constitution uses both terms.

[Punished UMN]

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.

That there are matters over which the states have power and not the federal government does not constitute states rights. Not unless rights and powers are the same thing, which brings me back to the question about why the Constitution uses both terms.

It's rights because the federal government has no authority to regulate the states in certain ways. For example, the federal government cannot expropriate state lands and cannot direct state governments.

[Mercatus]

States should be the only ones making laws regarding most issues in my opinion, so we can prevent the fuckheads in California from having a say in what everybody else can do. The only things the federal government should have authority in are foreign policy, the military, and a severely limited power to tax. When legislation is relegated to local bodies, I think that we would see a lot less political and civil unrest because people living on the other side of the country can’t be the deciding hand in what people on the opposite side can do. It’s better for everybody.

[Adamede]

States should be the only ones making laws regarding most issues in my opinion, so we can prevent the fuckheads in California from having a say in what everybody else can do. The only things the federal government should have authority in are foreign policy, the military, and a severely limited power to tax. When legislation is relegated to local bodies, I think that we would see a lot less political and civil unrest because people living on the other side of the country can’t be the deciding hand in what people on the opposite side can do. It’s better for everybody.

Thing is we tried that and it nearly destroyed the nation by causing the civil war, and the Erie’s of Jim Crow afterwards.

[Rusozak]

Rights of individuals should take priority above all else. States should only have rights over the Federal government for expanding individual rights, not curtailing them.

[Ifreann]

That there are matters over which the states have power and not the federal government does not constitute states rights. Not unless rights and powers are the same thing, which brings me back to the question about why the Constitution uses both terms.

It's rights because the federal government has no authority to regulate the states in certain ways. For example, the federal government cannot expropriate state lands and cannot direct state governments.

And why is that a right of the states and not a matter over which they have power and the federal government does not? Because "states rights" sounds better than "states powers"?

[Ethel mermania]

It's rights because the federal government has no authority to regulate the states in certain ways. For example, the federal government cannot expropriate state lands and cannot direct state governments.

And why is that a right of the states and not a matter over which they have power and the federal government does not? Because "states rights" sounds better than "states powers"?

They mean two separate things which has been explained and sourced repeatedly. But here we are.

[Elwher]

Rights of individuals should take priority above all else. States should only have rights over the Federal government for expanding individual rights, not curtailing them.

Every expansion of some people's rights is a curtailment of other people's. My right not to be shot curtails your right to shoot me. My right to smoke whatever curtails your right to not breathe in the smoke.

[Elwher]

States should be the only ones making laws regarding most issues in my opinion, so we can prevent the fuckheads in California from having a say in what everybody else can do. The only things the federal government should have authority in are foreign policy, the military, and a severely limited power to tax. When legislation is relegated to local bodies, I think that we would see a lot less political and civil unrest because people living on the other side of the country can’t be the deciding hand in what people on the opposite side can do. It’s better for everybody.

One other place I think the feds need to regulate is interstate commerce. However, in order to qualify as interstate commerce, goods or services need to cross a state line, intrastate commerce should be the province of the particular state. Other than that, I agree.

[Rusozak]

Rights of individuals should take priority above all else. States should only have rights over the Federal government for expanding individual rights, not curtailing them.

Every expansion of some people's rights is a curtailment of other people's. My right not to be shot curtails your right to shoot me. My right to smoke whatever curtails your right to not breathe in the smoke.

That's the kind of argument people trying to limit freedoms pull when they want to sound like the victim. It shouldn't be hard to distinguish active and passive rights. The right to not be murdered takes precedence over the right to murder someone. Of course something has to give, otherwise there is no law and we're in anarchy.

[Quyona]

Care to back up your point with some reasoning?

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

You cannot cherry pick what is correct and incorrect out of the constitution. Yes, the constitution says that states have rights, and that is not even the argument. The constitution also states that federal law must not be intervened. What would be the point if federal government anyway if states can do whatever they want??

[Holy Roman Empires2]

While it is certainly true that states can jam through Bill's that harm the state, such as gerrymandering and redrawing districts and such, why do we trust a federal government so much as to give the powers states have had, and ought to have. The nation of America was founded on many principals, and we did not always keep those principals, we often broke them for our own self serving intrests, but we still should hold the rights we were founded on in high esteem. One of those rights, is the right of self determination for states, including administering federal elections.

[Ethel mermania]

They mean two separate things which has been explained and sourced repeatedly. But here we are.

If you insist that both individuals and states have rights, you must then grant rights to everything in between: marriages, households, community associations, unions, businesses, corporations, in fact any collective which consents to be considered so by one individual. The idea that one system of law could protect all those rights equally to all the others is rather laughable.

Wouldn't it be easier to just say "people have rights, states have powers" and leave open the question of whether all collectives have rights?

Firstly Rights are either granted or implied by the state and given to whomever the state chooses to grant rights too. The right to privacy is very different from an individual to a business.

Secondly a right is a protection, a powet is an ability to act. I.e. you have a right to remain silent, a state has the power to incarcerate you

[Chan Island]

I love the idea of states rights and that people on the local level get to make their own decisions. However, I have been noticing more and more that the term is only ever brought up to justify evil shit done by an overly entrenched one party state government. Whether red or blue.

[Chan Island]

To further elaborate, last week we saw New York become the first state to pass a right to repair bill, and there was not a peep about states rights anywhere. Why? Because the right to repair is self-evidently and obviously a good thing, and supporters of that bill can readily defend it on its own merits. They didn't have to reach for states rights.

But in Georgia, Michigan, Texas and many other states, they have attempted or passed voter suppression laws that make it harder for their people to vote, and suddenly that *all* about states rights. Sanctuary cities where immigration law de facto loses all meaning? Suddenly that's all states rights too. Tyrannical restrictions on abortion, drugs, lifestyle, business and health? Oh my god, you'll never guess what arguments the supporters of these obviously bankrupt and demented ideas always reach for!

Heck, even very controversial good laws never get shielded by states rights. Colorado never attempted to justify legal weed with states rights- instead they talked about the many good things that the legalisation caused without having to resort to it. Only those who were suspicious of legal weed brought it up- in the context of why their own state shouldn't follow the lead of Colorado. Curious.

This is not an attack on the concept, by all means. I am generally a huge fan of federalism and local communities making their own rules. That's is almost self-evidently the most efficient way of doing things.

It's just really noteworthy and suspicious that the term only ever crops up when a state contemplates a law that cannot possibly be justified under its own merits. States Rights it feels like is increasingly a shield for the partisan, selfish or malicious actors in politics.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

Because in the chaos of 21st Century capitalism, more coordination problems and races-to-the-bottom is just what we need...

No. The principle of democracy going forwards should be that everyone has a right to vote on issues that affect them, even if they live halfway across the country or for that matter halfway across the world from where that issue nominally is.

States should only have “rights” in those arenas of human activity in which they are isolated from the surrounding world: that is to say, none at all. Regional and local governments should certainly hold a great deal of autonomy, but it should be the central government that has the competence-competence to decide where that autonomy ends.

[SD_Film Artists]

Every expansion of some people's rights is a curtailment of other people's. My right not to be shot curtails your right to shoot me. My right to smoke whatever curtails your right to not breathe in the smoke.

That's the kind of argument people trying to limit freedoms pull when they want to sound like the victim. It shouldn't be hard to distinguish active and passive rights. The right to not be murdered takes precedence over the right to murder someone. Of course something has to give, otherwise there is no law and we're in anarchy.

If you agree with the premice that something has to give, then does that mean you're "trying to limit freedoms" too?