"States rights" is almost always about taking away someone else's rights

[Hugabear]

Whenever you hear some right-winger talk about "state's rights", know that what they really want to do is restrict someone else's rights. Here's a short list of what "states rights" have been used for:

Slavery
Segregation
Opposing gay rights
Anti-choice abortion restrictions
Promoting religion

[Just Saying]

1. True story.

They know they can get more of their issues done because people just don't pay enough attention.

[handmade34]

2. k&r n/t

[Deep13]

3. yup. nt

[dsc]

4. of course one could argue that in the last election

they were used to grant marriage rights to WA, MD, and ME, as well as pot smoking rights to WA and CO. NY has used states rights to regulate Wall Street to a greater extent that Holder wishes to hold them accountable as well.

[former9thward]

5. It goes the other way also.

States rights have been used for gay marriage, medical marijuana, and before Roe v Wade abortion rights. You don't get to choose what issue you want states rights for. Either all or none.

[truebluegreen]

8. True. But generally speaking one party uses the principle to expand rights,

while the other uses it to restrict them. So there is a difference.

[former9thward]

10. Yes, but it depends on what is considered 'rights'.

States have expanded concealed carry rights over the last few years. You may not like that or you may.

[truebluegreen]

11. "...generally speaking..." nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. States rights cannot be used to restrict constitutionally recognized rights

as the court reaffirmed in McDonald v Chicago.

[truebluegreen]

14. I agree.

But if rights have been asserted but not confirmed by the courts, they can still be restricted by the states. And sometimes even when they have been confirmed they can be temporarily restricted until matters work their way through the system.

And, of course, sometimes the Court can simply make stuff up to suit themselves.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Concur, but as you back-handedly noted

rights confirmed by the court should remain so meaning the fears of the OP should be somewhat assuaged.

[truebluegreen]

17. +1

[tridim]

6. This goes well with this thread...

The Right’s Made-up ‘Constitution’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667891

[yardwork]

7. Plus keeping inter-racial marriage illegal

And keeping contraception illegal. That's why Supreme Court decisions were required. Connecticut wanted to keep contraception illegal in the 1960s.

[davidn3600]

9. Thomas Jefferson would say that a centralized government will eventually lead to tyranny

That a majority could gain power from a select number of states and then force their will on every other state violating the principles of the republic form of governance.

This was one big worry that the anti-federalists had.

I am not saying you wrong. You make an excellent point especially on the issues you listed. But the United States was not a country that was designed to have a powerful federalized system. Our government is supposed to work in pieces supported by the feds.

This is the reason the Supreme Court restrained themselves on ruling on the issue of gay marriage itself. They are trying to keep it a state issue. Even Justice Ginsberg has said that Roe v Wade was too broad and went too far.

Your point of view only works if you are in power. Think about a strong federal government with someone like Rick Santorum as president with a large GOP majority in congress.....I guarantee you that you will be demanding "state rights" just as much as the GOP is right now.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. Not always. Think about marijuana policy.

Should the states have the right to legalize medical marijuana or even recreational marijuana? Some of us think so, including the voters and/or the legislatures in the 20 or so medical marijuana states and the two states that have completely legalized it.

[Ter]

16. Like fireworks

I live in an abusive state that doesn't allow them. Not even sparklers or mats that do no harm if they blow up in your hand.

[starroute]

18. Or else they're really about "business rights" and the rest is just cover

A few years back I did some reading about the role of the States Rights Party in the 1948 election, when they ran Strom Thurmond for president. What I found was that even though they appealed to Southern whites with a pro-segregation platform, the real "states rights" issue had to do with who would have control over Gulf of Mexico oil leases. That was what got them the support of wealthy backers, not the racism.

In the same way, I'd suggest that you ask Cui Bono with regard to the current states rights issues and figure out who stands to get a lot richer if the federal government is deprived of authority over energy and other extractive industries, along with workers rights and environmental protections. (The Koch brothers might be a good place to start.)