Time to drop the "States Rights" lie.

[Cyrano]

The term "States Rights" was used by the South to continue the practice of slavery. Ronald Reagan used it when he campaigned, to send a message that the Republican "Southern Strategy" of racial bigotry was alive and well in the Republican Party.

Today, (and for years), politicians use it to duck hard questions. When asked about abortion, the convenient answer is "it should be left up to the states."

When asked about capital punishment, the convenient answer is "it should be left up to the states."

When asked about banning the teaching of Darwinism from schools, the convenient answer is "it should be left up to the states."

When asked about whether pigs should be allowed to have wings, the convenient answer is "it should be left up to the states."

It's past time we tore this thin veil of total bullshit away from our political discourse. We are either one country, or we are not. And for those naysayers, I'm not talking about the age that kids should get a driver's license, or whether or not there should be a law that the state budget must be balanced. If states want to make their own laws on insignificant issues that don't in any way infringe on basic rights, so be it.

The issues of which I'm speaking are those that impact every single person in this country regarding their most fundamental rights as human beings.

So if you do or don't believe in "States Rights," give it your best shot and let's hear your argument for or against it.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. The one issue to make conservatives drop the "states' rights" position:

Abortion.

They couldn't stand the idea of even one state being a sanctuary for harlots looking to murder their babies in their wombs.

In this situation, they would settle for nothing less than an amendment to the Constitution banning all forms of abortion.

[begin_within]

2. Bush killed "States' Rights" when he dragged the 2000 Florida election into a federal court.

[Cyrano]

8. Great point. It highlighted the hypocrisy of Scalia and Company.

[Xithras]

3. I vote not.

While I agree that the term "States Rights" is abused, the United States is too large and too diverse to be effectively ruled by one uniform set of laws. That's why we have states.

This nation would quickly break apart if state governments were eliminated and all power were escalated to the federal level.

[Mojorabbit]

4. An example was an earlier post today

where the feds overturned many states who wanted stricter auto emission codes.

[11 Bravo]

5. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I would suggest that you check out the 10th amendment ...

to the United States Constitution.

"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."

Yeah, the term has been misappropriated by a bunch or racist yahoos, but let's quit letting them continue to co-opt the language. That's my best argument.

[Cyrano]

6. Much has happened since the Constitution was written.

There is nothing there about social security, minimum wages, Medicare, Medicaid, or so much more.

[Bucky]

12. Right, because what you mention is legislation. The Constitution is more basic than that.

Social security, minimum wages, Medicare, and Medicaid are all covered under the general welfare functions of the constition--most importantly Congress's prerogative to legislate on matters of interstate commerce.

But on matters of law, the Founders believed that you needed to let localities pass their own laws. If that was true in a country of 4 million people in 13 states, it's certainly even more important to have local sovereignty in a country of 300 million in 50 states.

A government removed from the people it's legislating over is a threat to the rights of the individual. A locality is less likely to oppress its own communities. That was the core philosophy behind the Revolution and the Constitution. If you don't understand the importance of that, you need to go back to your high school civics teacher and ask for a full refund. You didn't get the knowledge you paid for.

[Cyrano]

15. And if some state wants to legalize slavery? -- What then?

[Bucky]

17. Okay, get your money back from your history and reading teachers too.

Slavery is outlawed by the Constitution. It's called the 13th Amendment, which Congress and the states passed because of some troubles they were having back in the 19th Century. You might have heard about it.

No amendment, not even the 14th, erased the necessary doctrine in local soveriegnty. State's rights still do exist. The balance has shifted this way and that with the times, but the states remain very much the laboratories of democracy.

The example of the shootdown of California's pollution regulations is a great case in point. The eventual groundswell for tightening pollution controls will come about in large part because California had the right to push for this legislation. Altho the cause of pollution control has lost one round, you should be informed that the issue will come back again and again in the little 50 laboratories until the people's will on pollution control triumphs. Bank on that.

If we didn't have our American mix of federalism, you wouldn't have that extra pressure from the states to deal with these problems and the solution would take a lot longer to get to.

[Cyrano]

20. You make some excellent points. My basic argument, however, still stands.

Take the issues of abortion, "creationism," polygamy, the death penalty, whether or not we are a "Christian Nation," the outdated electoral college, and too many more issues than can be listed here.

Would you really want some primitive notion of what we claim to be as a country practiced in some of the more backward states?

I don't have all the answers, but I think I have the question. And to state it in unequivocal terms: "We should be one country that grants to all citizens the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do no harm to others."

And that should apply on a national basis and not left to any state to decide whether or not they agree or disagree.

On edit: I am not being personally insulting to you and I would appreciate it if you would stick to the issue and leave out the "get your money back" type statements which serve only to alienate rather than to further a civil discussion.

[sandnsea]

7. It should be left up to the Constitution

Which gives the states certain rights to legislation - but not at the expense of the rights of individuals that are granted in the Bill of Rights.

[SweetThingy]

9. Your brand of facism ruined so many lives.

My friends evil crime: Helping sick people get the marijuana they need. California voters ok'd medical marijuana but the fed doesn't care. They treated him like he was running a vast criminal organization. Now he's facing possible prison time AND the sick get sicker.

Just so you know what you support.

[Cyrano]

13. I take offense at being called a fascist.

And I think that marijuana should be legal and the so-called "War on Drugs" should be done away with.

The reality is that, when Republicans are in control, they're all for telling everyone how and when to live or die. When Democrats are in control, marijuana is not even an issue.

This is a vast generalization, however, turn the argument around. If one state can say marijuana is legal, what's to stop another state from saying slavery is legal? I know this is an extreme example, but do you really believe there are places in this country in which outrageous laws wouldn't come about. Think back a few years when (I think it was a board of education in) Kansas tried to make the teaching of "creationism" a part of the curriculum.

[SweetThingy]

14. so should states have the right to decide their drug policy or not?

[Cyrano]

16. That's not a yes or no question. I believe in an enlightened government

that stays out of people's personal lives. Whether it's state laws, or federal laws that govern us, I believe that neither has the right to tell anyone what to do when it comes to their own personal welfare, well being and freedoms -- just so long as they do no harm to, or impose their will upon, others.

Having said that, I reiterate that the "States Rights" argument is total bullshit and that those who most often argue it would try their best to establish the death penalty for marijuana smokers.

[SweetThingy]

21. So you believe in a government that stays out of peoples lives

And you want a federal government that supercedes local voters. Kind of a contradiction.

[DCKit]

10. It's "only up to the states" until after the election...

then it's not so convenient.

Nearly half the states have passed medical marijuana laws, none of which can be enforced evenly due to the constant interference and harassment by the feds. Hell, here in DC they wouldn't even allow the vote to be counted until a judge ordered it.

Eminent domain is another personal pet peeve, but the list is extensive.

[screembloodymurder]

11. The Great Compromise

Why shouldn't CA be able to mandate cleaner air? We can all benefit from those states that forge ahead or we can all wait for those in denial. Bush has expanded his education program, it's "no state left behind" and TX don't want to learn.

[MasonJar]

18. This coin has another side for as NPR noted today, it is the states which are

often way ahead of the feds in new ideas, implementation and proposals. The governors are often way ahead of the pres (especially this pres.) The environment is one key area and so is voter/ machine laws. The feds, thanks to Georgie and the GOPers, are not supporting health payments for the poor children, but states are asking for it and doing what they can. ETC.

[Cyrano]

19. Yes, it's a strange era. The barbarians have taken over the federal

government and the more enlightened states are doing what they can to counteract their most outrageous crimes.

[Joe Fields]

22. Because all states are so dependent on federal matching funds for

so many different things, then they basically have given up their rights. How many times have we read where the feds didn't like a newly enacted state law, and so they would threaten to withhold federal money to that state. It's nothing less than greenmail.

[TahitiNut]

23. "States rights" became a 'talking point' of the GOP when the FIRST Republican President ...

... denied the sovereign 'right' of states to secede from the Union. (Coincidentally, of course, he also became associated with emancipation of slaves. Funny 'bout that.) Politics is often seen as the "art of the lie." The GOP took over 100 years to fully overcome the legacy of Lincoln - with the help of Southern Democrats who held a grudge against "carpetbaggers" for almost as long. Now that the legacy of those Southern Democrats is part of the GOP, they embrace carpetbaggers of all stripes and do their best to destroy economies in order to provide them with new sales territories all the time. This decade, it's Iraq and Afghanistan.

:shrug:

[I work for workers]

24. Read the Tenth Amendment:

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.

[Thothmes]

25. I am sure

that you could get an amendment to the Constitution nullifying the 10th amendment and turning the states into minor federal satrapies.

[WilliamPitt]

26. Gonna leave a lot of state and muni courthouses empty

...and gonna leave a lot of people to the tender mercies of the Federal Justice system.

States pay for roads.

And a lot of school budgets.

And when it snows, they pay for plows and plowdrivers and sand and salt.

If your house gets robbed, you really want to call the FBI?

Etc.

You're taking one thing and shrouding it over another. Yes, the states-rights Walace-in-the-door thing is crap. But states have rights, and state laws serve a lot of good purposes.

I voted for Prop. 215 in California in 1996. That was and remains a state law.