States' Rights

Being a Canadian, I am always fascinated by the passion that I often see from my southern neighbors whenever they believe that the federal government is infringing upon states' rights. It just came to my attention again because I decided to do a bit of reading up on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or, Obamacare, to its detractors) to see what all of the fuss was about, and found out that states' rights are once again being brandished to fight it off.

That got me to do a little more thinking. What other issues have supporters of states' rights used the old chestnut to try to fight for or against? Here's what I was able to come up with, off the top of my head:

1) Fought for states' rights to allow human beings to be owned as property

2) Fought for states' rights to not let black kids go to school with white kids

3) Fought for state's rights to dictate to women what to do with their own bodies

4) Fighting for states' rights to discriminate against gays

5) Fighting for states' rights to deny their citizens access to a universal, national health plan

See the trend? It seems that everytime states' rights supporters decide to back something, they're on the wrong side of history. They are continually clinging to antequated traditions and have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present; they're fighting to preserve ideas that the rest of the developed world for the most part finds to be repugnant.

Thoughts?

As originally written, the US Constitution/Bill of Rights is supposed to dictate the limits of federal power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 10th 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.

---

In other words, if a power isn't in the Constitution the feds should keep their noses out of it. That power belongs to either the states or the general public. Not that it matters much these days, the interstate commerce clause trumps all.

The war on drugs is what you get when the federal government ignores the 10th.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

So, because bad people use a good (and horribly misunderstood) cause to promote (some) bad ideas you're going to toss the whole thing aside? I don't buy it. Clearly you were affected by an anti-States' Rights agenda before you ever took it upon yourself to investigate, which means that whole post is a sarcastic jibe at people who believe in States' Rights, and not any kind of meaningful insight at all.

But, I'll humor you. States' Rights is about self-determination, nothing more and nothing less. Its the idea that a distinct group of people should be able to govern themselves if their values and culture clash with distant masters. It is, in fact, the very same idea that brings you democracy or reasonable government of any kind--so don't knock the concept, because its a very sound concept. From a States' Rights point-of-view, the Federal Government is often trying (and succeeding, inch by inch, over time) to suppress a state's distinct culture, laws, and values in favor of something more easily governable and submissive. That point of view is not exactly wrong, either.

*Also, States' Rights has nothing to do with any of those issues. Oregon is a liberal hotbed, but we are constantly at odds with the federal government because of our distinct laws. I would support all of those issues that you say States' Rights-ers don't support. Socially Liberal thought and States Rights are far from mutually exclusive, and until you understand that then you don't understand states' rights at all. It is not an issue to be polarized between left and right, because both parties want to impose. Oregon's biggest problems came from Bush Jr.'s Republican administration--where's your stereo-type now?

---

Your second and third paragraphs were the kind of discussion I was hoping to see. Yes, my post was anti-states' rights (or, more accurately, anti-states' rights supporters) because of my limited knowledge of the issue. The only states' rights "fights" I know anything about have been ones that are, in my mind at least, totally indefensable.

I'd be interested to hear about some socially progressive ideals that are being fought for in the name of states' rights. A quick bit of internet research didn't bring any to light for me.

Yes it's true that state's rights has been used as an excuse to defend and promote bad policies, but the federal government has exerted it's authority over the states to pursue some pretty bad agendas as well. Like closing medical marijuana dispensaries that had been made legal by state governments, for example. And then there are times when the federal government neglects it's responsibilities which causes problems for some states, such as what happened with illegal immigration.

State governments are democratic institutions, and they are set up basically the same way as the federal government. It's not so clear cut as state government = autocratic regime, and federal government = benevolent democracy. Like or not, but the American populace, in certain states, is just a little more conservative than the rest of the developed world.

All those states arguments you bring up only came about after the war over the federal government's policy was lost. Before that slaves were interstate commerce, and segregation was a national policy until truman dismantled it in the military and then Brown vs Board of Ed. Later on.

It's not indicative of the philosophy of states rights, it's indicative that the last legal bastion that bigotry has is usually in the state legislatures.

Sometimes federal intrusion is necessary

Most states have delusions of granduer, all at one point or another thinking they would be better off without the other 49

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

A generalization if I've ever heard one. Reactionary sentiment takes root in lots of places, but there's certainly none in my state legislature*. My state's incredibly liberal agenda is hampered by the interference of the federal government on a regular basis--as is yours, on occasion.

You're falling for a really dumb trap--you're mistaking the flailing antics of reactionaries for something with actual meaning. States' Rights is about self-determination. All those other issues are about something else, and they only become tangled up in states' rights when someone decides the answer is overwhelming federal intrusion.

*okay, well.. I'm sure there's some.. but we're a super liberal state that has often been at the fore-front of states' rights issues--the Republican party's more radical elements are lucky when they have any kind of significant force in our legislatures.

---

I was not responding to you but the OP. What I am saying and what you are saying are actually in complete agreement. OP is trying to suggest something about the idea of states rights by associating it with prejudiced people who used it to support their arguments. The arguments that people tried to justify with "states rights" is not indicative of the philosophy behind states rights, which you point out, includes self determination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Whether they're delusional is beside the point. Whether the intrusion is deemed necesarry is also beside the point. Its democracy, its freedom, and its in the constitution. The fact that people are so picky about what parts of the constitution they want to follow is surely a negative sign of the times. We have a process for changing it, but these days apparently its cheaper to just pretend it was never written.

---

Certain moral obligations trump the constitution...like slavery and civil rights. "With all delibrate speed" goes allot faster when there's a federal bayonet at George Wallaces back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Certain moral obligations trump the constitution...like slavery and civil rights. "With all delibrate speed" goes allot faster when there's a federal bayonet at George Wallaces back

---

Wasn't the bayonet in his front when he stood in front of the schoolhouse?

Its all a matter of perspective but it is worth noting that the government was violating the constitution from the very moment they signed it

I disagree with the reasoning in the OP. The worth of an idea is not defined solely by the people who attach themselves to it. There have been plenty of state's rights proponents in the United States that have not used it as a cover for ulterior motivations, but they do not get very much attention as the nation currently views its history through a racial lens. A quick read of any modern US history book would lead one to believe this nation's history has been defined by one oppressed group's struggle after another and not much else. Through that distorted understanding, it is easy to see state's rights as a familiar villain, but there has been a whole strain of libertarianism throughout American history that has been wholly separate from racial issues.

Federalism, aided by a complete perversion of the 10th amendment, has led this nation down an increasingly unsustainable path. The healthcare bill is just another step in that direction. The federal government was meant to be small and outwardly focused. States were meant to be virtually autonomous societies of like minded people. If a citizen did not like the governance of one state, he could move to one that better suited his balance of personal freedom versus socialism. Such a scheme used to be regarded as a strength. Ideas like state mandated healthcare could be tested in the laboratory of the states and, if successful, could migrate to other states. If a state aquired overwhelming debt, that did not translate to the rest of the nation. These days, Americans are increasingly burdened by untested schemes dictated by Washington and the debt that is required to enact them - all of it inescapable. Are we really better off?

Look harder. I've just been reading about a major states rights rebellion in the abolitionist wisconsin due to the fugitive slave act and the dred scott decision.

Phone typing is awful

Something that I've always found hard to reconcile is the fact that those who often talk about states' rights (usually conservatives) are also those who talk about reducing the size of government. Surely it would make more sense for true conservatives to thus be Federalist in outlook, as it would thus be possible to reduce the level of bureaucracy by just excising one of those levels. It is quite a popular opinion in Australia to remove our states, and studies show that it would actually save money. So I am perhaps wondering if any of the conservatives here could help me to understand how they reconcile these two things?

How can we make West Virginia jokes if West Virginia goes away? ~D

State divisions play an important part in the moderation of the federal government. There are 3 branches of government, and each is controlled by a combination of the people and the states.

• The legislative branch - House representation is based on population and directly elected by the people. Senate representation is (supposed to be) the state governments' voice in the federal government. 2 per state, and prior to the 17th amendment Senators were chosen by the state governments. The 17th needs to be repealed as it has further marginalized state power, and to get election money and influence out of at least one chamber of Congress.
• The executive branch - President "elected" by the people, but with a skewed mechanism to prevent the tyranny of large states. The all-or-nothing electoral vote system most states use needs to be changed, but that can be fixed at the state level, the feds have no say in how those votes are determined. Appointments and treaties made by the executive branch must be vetted by the states, in the form of the Senate.
• The judicial branch - see above about appointments.

Getting rid of the state governments (and their role in the federal government) would be a bad thing, as this would skew power to the large population centers. Most fiscal conservatives also believe tax dollars are better and more efficiently spent locally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Getting rid of the state governments (and their role in the federal government) would be a bad thing, as this would skew power to the large population centers. Most fiscal conservatives also believe tax dollars are better and more efficiently spent locally.

---

Then why not two levels of government - federal and local? Representatives from rural areas will continue to look after rural areas and there would be enough people in rural areas to make sure that parties will still need to look after them to prevent the rise of a rurally-focussed third party. Besides, in reality the majority of people live in cities so why is it so terrible for cities to have the balance of power?

Since state governments are separate, individual entities, I think having them results in less unwieldy bureaucracy, not more. States are smaller in population and landmass than the country as a whole, so they're more in-tune with the wants and needs of their citizens, and can be run more efficiently. If the states and their governments were abolished it would be a disaster, the federal government is incompetent enough as it is, it doesn't need more responsibility on it's plate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Something that I've always found hard to reconcile is the fact that those who often talk about states' rights (usually conservatives) are also those who talk about reducing the size of government. Surely it would make more sense for true conservatives to thus be Federalist in outlook, as it would thus be possible to reduce the level of bureaucracy by just excising one of those levels. It is quite a popular opinion in Australia to remove our states, and studies show that it would actually save money. So I am perhaps wondering if any of the conservatives here could help me to understand how they reconcile these two things?

---

You might feel that money is wasted, but it is arguable as maybe you spend more on a single item but less on items that you don't want or need. Like leaving kids home while you pop over to the local market and pay $3.09 for a gallon of milk vs going to the supermarket further away with the kids, more gas and paying $2.29 for milk, $1.00 bubblegum for daughter, $1.00 beef jerky for son. Bulk only helps if what you are buying in bulk is useful to you.

Sometimes bulk is better. National defense for example. Strength in numbers. Other times bulk is worse. Trying to find a table at a nice restaurant for 40 people, last minute. Weakness in numbers. I'm terrible with analogies as I've been told on occasion. cost benefit analysis.

I'm sure that you'd prefer to decide what color to paint your house between you and your wife, rather than relying on the input of your entire town, even if you save money on paint that way.

I should have led with the second example. Pay more for the things you want/need - less or nothing on the things you don't. I can't imagine that approach costs more money long term.