States rights

I have never been that much of a fan of states rights, even when I was a libertarian. I suppose that this tendency is maybe a result of living in a state that I'm wildly out of line with politically. Anyway, "States rights" has most often historically been a banner for those who merely want the federal government to get out of the way so that the states can violate the rights of individuals. I more interested in individual rights. Other than that, I really unconcerned either way. If something works best at the federal level, let it be done at the federal level. If a new policy that's subjective and uncertain, allow states to experiment with it. Even back in the days of the founding, I'm much more of a supporter of the Federalist, who wanted a more unified, efficiently run country that transcended old state divisions. Historically, too much decentralization has often lead to chaotic and weak countries, and I think that's one thing the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. However, somehow, there seems to be an ideological strain in modern times that wraps the anti-federalist ideas the founders were opposing in constitutionalist language, often selectively quoting the founders to distort their real meaning.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I have never been that much of a fan of states rights, even when I was a libertarian. I suppose that this tendency is maybe a result of living in a state that I'm wildly out of line with politically. Anyway, "States rights" has most often historically been a banner for those who merely want the federal government to get out of the way so that the states can violate the rights of individuals. I more interested in individual rights. Other than that, I really unconcerned either way. If something works best at the federal level, let it be done at the federal level. If a new policy that's subjective and uncertain, allow states to experiment with it. Even back in the days of the founding, I'm much more of a supporter of the Federalist, who wanted a more unified, efficiently run country that transcended old state divisions. Historically, too much decentralization has often lead to chaotic and weak countries, and I think that's one thing the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. However, somehow, there seems to be an ideological strain in modern times that wraps the anti-federalist ideas the founders were opposing in constitutionalist language, often selectively quoting the founders to distort their real meaning.
Click to expand...

This is retarded. The Constitution is clearly written for a weak federal government uniting free states with military protection, post offices, roads, standards of measurement, and guaranteed freedoms. Stop pretending otherwise.
 
Kel Tec RFB said:
While I agree with your sentiments (wall of text or not), like wise the founders created the 10th amendment for a reason as well. A federal government can, and in our case has, become fundementally disconnected with the complexity and multitude of different problems that each state may face. Of course the doctorine of states rights has been used by those interested only in surpressing our rights, but the same can be said for the doctorines of federal supremecy. Its why freedom requires constant vigilance.
Click to expand...

The states have the use of the courts to sue the federal government when they feel they ate being suppressed, it is the beauty of our system.
 
Emperor Lusgelnio said:
I have never been that much of a fan of states rights, even when I was a libertarian. I suppose that this tendency is maybe a result of living in a state that I'm wildly out of line with politically. Anyway, "States rights" has most often historically been a banner for those who merely want the federal government to get out of the way so that the states can violate the rights of individuals. I more interested in individual rights. Other than that, I really unconcerned either way. If something works best at the federal level, let it be done at the federal level. If a new policy that's subjective and uncertain, allow states to experiment with it. Even back in the days of the founding, I'm much more of a supporter of the Federalist, who wanted a more unified, efficiently run country that transcended old state divisions. Historically, too much decentralization has often lead to chaotic and weak countries, and I think that's one thing the founders had in mind when they wrote the constitution. However, somehow, there seems to be an ideological strain in modern times that wraps the anti-federalist ideas the founders were opposing in constitutionalist language, often selectively quoting the founders to distort their real meaning.
Click to expand...

That's mainly because the two biggest headers in your mind for states rights are the rights to oppress blacks and the right to own them. States do not have the right to oppress people any more than the federal government. Rights are rights regardless of location, as that's the very nature of individual rights.

However centralization isn't entirely possible in a country of near 340,000,000 and spanning 5ish time zones. The best centralized governments, and all centralized command structures, delegate authority to the lowest level needed for problem resolution.
 
Crashk said:
"When the Civil War broke out in 1861, shortly after Lincoln's inauguration as America's 16th president, he maintained that the war was about restoring the Union and not about slavery. He avoided issuing an anti-slavery proclamation immediately, despite the urgings of abolitionists and radical Republicans, as well as his personal belief that slavery was morally repugnant. Instead, Lincoln chose to move cautiously until he could gain wide support from the public for such a measure.

In July 1862, Lincoln informed his cabinet that he would issue an emancipation proclamation but that it would exempt the so-called border states, which had slaveholders but remained loyal to the Union. His cabinet persuaded him not to make the announcement until after a Union victory. Lincoln's opportunity came following the Union win at the Battle of Antietam in September 1862. On September 22, the president announced that slaves in areas still in rebellion within 100 days would be free...

After the Emancipation Proclamation, backing the Confederacy was seen as favoring slavery. It became impossible for anti-slavery nations such as Great Britain and France, who had been friendly to the Confederacy, to get involved on behalf of the South. The proclamation also unified and strengthened Lincoln's party, the Republicans, helping them stay in power for the next two decades."

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/lincoln-issues-emancipation-proclamation

Lincoln walked a tight rope. He needed the border states to win the war and needed to keep Europe out of the war. He also wanted black troops. History is never as black and white as conservatives see it.

This conservative brand of black and white thinking reminds me of the build up to the Iraq invasion. Remember a few yrs ago if you were against the war you were un-American? Remember when 'support the troops' meant supporting the neo con vision of middle east domination? Remember 'you're either for us or against us'? Narrow minded black and white thinking leads to extremes which is why the U.S. is in the mess it's in now. Free your mind your ass will follow.
Click to expand...

Considering the prevalence of sexual repression I tend to believe the opposite. Free your ass and your mind will follow. :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
drivers licenses issued in one state MUST be acceptable all states. Until recently if you were married in one state all other states had to accept them.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

marriage licenses are public records.
 
Socrtease said:
drivers licenses issued in one state MUST be acceptable all states. Until recently if you were married in one state all other states had to accept them.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

marriage licenses are public records.
Click to expand...

:hand:
 
States Rights is a very important part of American freedom. Originally, for example, it was a means of finding religious tolerance. In the last twenty years, it has had significance in several areas. Unfortunately, the South has largely destroyed States Rights. This is one of the principle reasons why I hate the South. It will be almost impossible for States to retain their autonomy, and the Federal government continues to run right over them, such as in the National Drinking Age mess (a battle, I will admit, that the South was actually on the correct side of). Thankfully, the federal government is so out of bounds on drug matters, that its possible we will see States Rights gain a minor victory in the near future.
 
Socrtease said:
drivers licenses issued in one state MUST be acceptable all states. Until recently if you were married in one state all other states had to accept them.

Article IV
Section 1.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

marriage licenses are public records.
Click to expand...

What about concealed carry permits? Business licenses? Professional licenses?
 
DamnYankee said:
What about concealed carry permits? Business licenses? Professional licenses?
Click to expand...
Don't know about those, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that a marriage obtained legally in on jurisdiction MUST be recognized in all others. Loving. v. Virginia. The Lovings, legal residents of Virginia, went to D.C. to get married, because inter-racial couples could get married in D.C. but not Va. Even though they left the state to avoid the Va. law the Court ruled that the marriage was valid in Va. IN SPITE of their bigoted law. Same full faith and credit argument applies in the case of same sex marriage.
 
Socrtease said:
Don't know about those, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that a marriage obtained legally in on jurisdiction MUST be recognized in all others. Loving. v. Virginia. The Lovings, legal residents of Virginia, went to D.C. to get married, because inter-racial couples could get married in D.C. but not Va. Even though they left the state to avoid the Va. law the Court ruled that the marriage was valid in Va. IN SPITE of their bigoted law. Same full faith and credit argument applies in the case of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
The SCOTUS has been wrong on many occasions. But assuming for a moment that this ruling is a correct interpretation of the Constitution, shouldn't it apply equally to all State licensing activities? Why should, say, an engineer, licensed in North Carolina, not be allowed to practice in California? Do the laws of physics change when you cross borders?
 
Socrtease said:
Don't know about those, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that a marriage obtained legally in on jurisdiction MUST be recognized in all others. Loving. v. Virginia. The Lovings, legal residents of Virginia, went to D.C. to get married, because inter-racial couples could get married in D.C. but not Va. Even though they left the state to avoid the Va. law the Court ruled that the marriage was valid in Va. IN SPITE of their bigoted law. Same full faith and credit argument applies in the case of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I saw film about that recently, there were many shameful things that occurred under the pretext of State's Rights.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117098/
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You were just moaning about the fact that you couldn't just set up as an engineer in California.
Click to expand...
Sure I could. They accept NY with comity. All I have to do is make application and pay a fee.

That argument, plus your earlier one, duly destroyed. :D
 
Last edited:
What about a state not allowing an atheist to serve in public office?

Would that be unconstitutional? Or would it be a matter of that state's rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top