Talk Elections

General Politics => Individual Politics => Topic started by: All Along The Watchtower on May 20, 2012, 02:57:58 PM



Title: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on May 20, 2012, 02:57:58 PM
Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: RI on May 20, 2012, 02:58:46 PM
An evil phrase used by people with evil ideologies.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on May 20, 2012, 04:49:24 PM
Positive, tho it has been tarnished by the uses to which it has been put.  But even in those cases, it served as a sort of safety valve, generally allowing volatile issues in which there was a strong sectional difference of opinion to be resolved more peacefully than otherwise would have been the case.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Antonio the Sixth on May 20, 2012, 05:34:12 PM
Systematically used as an excuse to restrict human rights.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: © tweed on May 20, 2012, 05:34:44 PM
has a poor history


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: ○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└ on May 20, 2012, 05:45:03 PM
Horrible phrase. Used extensively to advance right-wing causes, but ignored where it would help liberals, like Gonzales v. Carhart  or Bush v. Gore.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on May 20, 2012, 05:56:45 PM
While I agree with what it sometimes means, it's too associated with awful things in the past and it's easily misunderstood.  It's true as some critics have said "states don't have rights, people do."  At the same time, states play an important role in balancing the impulses of the national government to take power and infringe on those rights.  Federalism or subsidiarity are better terms.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on May 20, 2012, 06:17:49 PM
A phrase libertarians like to use to say that government restricting people's rights is okay, just as long that it's at the state level.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario) on May 20, 2012, 06:39:34 PM
Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.
^^


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Frodo on May 20, 2012, 06:43:07 PM
While I agree with what it sometimes means, it's too associated with awful things in the past and it's easily misunderstood.  It's true as some critics have said "states don't have rights, people do."  At the same time, states play an important role in balancing the impulses of the national government to take power and infringe on those rights.  Federalism or subsidiarity are better terms.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shua says it best.  The phrase itself may be too tightly entwined with the Confederacy and Jim Crow that it can never be fully restored, but the federalist principle behind it remains as crucial as ever in balancing against the power of the federal government. 


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: RI on May 20, 2012, 07:33:49 PM
Federalism is inherently a bad idea. Even without that history, it would be a terrible phrase.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Fmr President & Senator Polnut on May 20, 2012, 07:47:41 PM
In theory... potentially fine, as it's been practiced... pretty fricking awful...


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Phony Moderate on May 20, 2012, 10:25:23 PM
He was a decent poster.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: TJ in Oregon on May 20, 2012, 10:29:09 PM
meh

It seems to be used to dodge policy questions in a variety of circumstances, but still has its useful role in American politics. There are some perfectly valid reasons why states might have different laws.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: All Along The Watchtower on May 20, 2012, 10:51:03 PM

Albeit not as bad an idea as "Communitarianism." :D


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Redalgo on May 21, 2012, 12:34:36 AM
While I agree with what it sometimes means, it's too associated with awful things in the past and it's easily misunderstood.  It's true as some critics have said "states don't have rights, people do."  At the same time, states play an important role in balancing the impulses of the national government to take power and infringe on those rights.  Federalism or subsidiarity are better terms.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Shua says it best.  The phrase itself may be too tightly entwined with the Confederacy and Jim Crow that it can never be fully restored, but the federalist principle behind it remains as crucial as ever in balancing against the power of the federal government. 

Agreed, ya.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass! on May 21, 2012, 02:09:21 AM
Neutral. Remember that while states rights enabled states to retain slavery, they also allowed states to abolish slavery. Similarly states rights allowed abortion legality to gain a foothold, and has allowed gay marriage to gain a foothold.

As a matter of principle I prefer state action to federal action, simply because the US is so bloody diverse... it doesn't make much sense for Massachusetts, Hawaii, Utah and Georgia to be subject to the same socioeconomic policies...

I know a lot of leftwingers favour federal action as a means of keeping conservatism in check in red states... they should remember the same federal action curtails liberalism in blue states. If you have genuine confidence in your ideology you should feel comfortable delegating more authority to the states and letting the results speak for themselves.

Especially since red states are net winners in terms of federal revenue while blue states are net losers... more delegation of fiscal matters to states would be to the advantage of left leaning states financially.

It also happens to be more fundamentally democratic to have policy issues decided by 50 different units separately then it is for policy issues to be decided by one super unit combining those 50 units.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: They put it to a vote and they just kept lying on May 21, 2012, 05:26:40 AM
Freedom Phrase said the lone conservative libertarian as he was chased out of this thread.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: fezzyfestoon on May 21, 2012, 11:45:26 AM
The concept independent of its use in history is acceptable and even something I'd go so far as to promote, but like everyone's said so far, it's been used as a guise for some of the most unsavory political movements in our history.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Donerail on May 21, 2012, 12:04:32 PM
Neutral: Freedom Phrase in concept, Horrible Phrase in application.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: RI on May 21, 2012, 02:10:48 PM

Albeit not as bad an idea as "Communitarianism." :D

kthx. I am enlightened now.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Atlas Has Shrugged on May 21, 2012, 05:02:52 PM
The foundation of this countries freedoms. Imagine if the Southern states had power over the whole government in the 1840's and enforced slavery upon the North. States Rights restricted them to the South.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on May 21, 2012, 09:47:10 PM
Positive, tho it has been tarnished by the uses to which it has been put.

My position exactly.  It's a good idea distorted by some bad men.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on June 22, 2012, 04:25:57 PM
The people who used "states' rights" as an argument against civil rights legislation were abusing the phrase.  It was never relevant to desegregation because the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (passed shortly after the Civil War) stated that Congress could pass any legislation to ensure equal protection under the law.  I asked one of my PoliSci instructors this question and he said that by making these arguments, the Southern states were essentially calling for a return to the Articles of Confederation (the federal government before the Constitution), which was too weak and limited federal powers too much to be effective.  And for that matter, states' rights were originally created for a purpose much the opposite: it was intended to keep slavery confined to the South and prevent it from expanding onto a national scale.  Even today, you could give states all the rights you (or they) wanted and racial segregation is still NEVER coming back.  (Good riddance!)  I would agree with the opinion posted earlier that it was a good idea distorted and abused by some very bad (as well as a few well-intentioned, but misguided) people.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY on June 23, 2012, 10:28:31 AM
Normally it would be good, but I said horrible phrase because it's a modern-day code for racism.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: RogueBeaver on June 23, 2012, 11:54:23 AM
What Shua said.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Lief 🗽 on June 23, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Nothing is good about the term. The idea of state's rights is outdated and largely anachronistic in a twenty-first century political context, and the history of the term is obviously repugnant.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: BritishDixie on June 24, 2012, 09:00:40 AM
A good term. It is a ridiculous idea for the Federal Government to make laws on things such as enacting same-sex marriage, when the idea is repugnant to majorities in many states, just as it would be vice-versa.

Social, cultural and some economic issues should be left in state hands. Defence, overall economic management and justice should remain in Federal hands.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Oldiesfreak1854 on June 24, 2012, 01:03:20 PM
Normally it would be good, but I said horrible phrase because it's a modern-day code for racism.
It may have ben used as a racist term 50 or 60 years ago, but it isn't now.  Slavery and racial segregation are never coming back, regardless of how many rights you give states.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: morgieb on June 25, 2012, 12:05:16 AM
I'm not even sure whether it'll be right for the states to legislate on certain things, most social policies within reason should be left to individuals/etc. For economic policies, it should be up to the federal government.

The fact that states can make people do stuff but the federal government can't is contrary. How can (for example) states make people buy health insurance but the federal government can't?


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Win32 on June 25, 2012, 12:19:04 AM
Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.

States'-rights opposition to the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples to the contrary.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: freefair on June 25, 2012, 03:14:03 PM
Good Idea abused to evil. We do need some areas where federal government has no right t o interfere, but not in terms of applying the constitution to all people, which is what civil rights and emancipation was about.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: World politics is up Schmitt creek on June 25, 2012, 03:21:14 PM
Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.

States'-rights opposition to the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples to the contrary.

Although this really hasn't been the case since the Civil War, since you're making this argument are you familiar with Henry Adams's excellent (and entirely accurate) quote on the subject?

Quote from: Henry Adams, "John Randolph" (1882) pp 178-9
Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Torie on June 25, 2012, 05:48:16 PM
Putting aside its provenance as a Maginot Line of defense for slavery and racism, it is an historical relic which needs to be consigned to the ash heap of history. Granted as a prudential matter, for purposes of experimentation, one might wish to grant certain functions to states and localities.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: TNF on June 25, 2012, 07:56:29 PM
HP. State's rights is an anachronism in a world where the states aren't competing with one another, they're competing as the United States with the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, etc. Plus, State's rights has been used to justify every awful policy in American history. I'll take my chances with the federal government, thank you.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: 🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸 on June 25, 2012, 11:09:50 PM
Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.

States'-rights opposition to the Sedition Act and the Fugitive Slave Act are examples to the contrary.

Although this really hasn't been the case since the Civil War, since you're making this argument are you familiar with Henry Adams's excellent (and entirely accurate) quote on the subject?

Quote from: Henry Adams, "John Randolph" (1882) pp 178-9
Between the slave power and states' rights there was no necessary connection. The slave power, when in control, was a centralizing influence, and all the most considerable encroachments on states' rights were its acts. The acquisition and admission of Louisiana; the Embargo; the War of 1812; the annexation of Texas "by joint resolution" [rather than treaty]; the war with Mexico, declared by the mere announcement of President Polk; the Fugitive Slave Law; the Dred Scott decision — all triumphs of the slave power — did far more than either tariffs or internal improvements, which in their origin were also southern measures, to destroy the very memory of states' rights as they existed in 1789. Whenever a question arose of extending or protecting slavery, the slaveholders became friends of centralized power, and used that dangerous weapon with a kind of frenzy. Slavery in fact required centralization in order to maintain and protect itself, but it required to control the centralized machine; it needed despotic principles of government, but it needed them exclusively for its own use. Thus, in truth, states' rights were the protection of the free states, and as a matter of fact, during the domination of the slave power, Massachusetts appealed to this protecting principle as often and almost as loudly as South Carolina.
along with this, the Confederate Constitution explicitly guaranteed slavery in every state, but did nothing to allow for secession or even nullification.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Donerail on June 26, 2012, 10:29:08 AM
A good term. It is a ridiculous idea for the Federal Government to make laws on things such as enacting same-sex marriage, when the idea is repugnant to majorities in many states, just as it would be vice-versa.

Social, cultural and some economic issues should be left in state hands. Defence, overall economic management and justice should remain in Federal hands.

So if a state, say Alabama or Texas, wanted to enact a law reinstating racial segregation, that'd be a good idea, because it's "ridiculous for the Federal Government to make laws on [such] things"? It is a sociocultural issue...


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Tutankhuman Bakari Sellers on June 26, 2012, 03:57:30 PM
phase used to separate the Dixicrats of the 19th century from the Marxist heros of the 20th century like RFK, Barack Obama, Lyndon Baines Johnson that fought Nazies and Soviet Communism and terrorism.


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: BritishDixie on July 01, 2012, 02:34:21 AM
A good term. It is a ridiculous idea for the Federal Government to make laws on things such as enacting same-sex marriage, when the idea is repugnant to majorities in many states, just as it would be vice-versa.

Social, cultural and some economic issues should be left in state hands. Defence, overall economic management and justice should remain in Federal hands.

So if a state, say Alabama or Texas, wanted to enact a law reinstating racial segregation, that'd be a good idea, because it's "ridiculous for the Federal Government to make laws on [such] things"? It is a sociocultural issue...

The likelihood of this being..........


Title: Re: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Post by: Donerail on July 01, 2012, 10:57:12 AM
A good term. It is a ridiculous idea for the Federal Government to make laws on things such as enacting same-sex marriage, when the idea is repugnant to majorities in many states, just as it would be vice-versa.

Social, cultural and some economic issues should be left in state hands. Defence, overall economic management and justice should remain in Federal hands.

So if a state, say Alabama or Texas, wanted to enact a law reinstating racial segregation, that'd be a good idea, because it's "ridiculous for the Federal Government to make laws on [such] things"? It is a sociocultural issue...

The likelihood of this being..........

Close to nil, but that doesn't matter, because it could happen, even if most likely it will not.