States' Rights

[Strike For The South]

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

[Strike For The South]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[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?

[drone]

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

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.