Are state's rights more important than individual rights?

[Phony Moderate]

It's clear that certain people (you know who you are) on this forum hold this misguided view, that goes more or less like this:

"Tyranny is fine, as long as it's conducted at the state level!"

[dead0man]

no

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

False dichotomy.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

[perdedor]

Considering certain state's laws regarding abortion and marijuana possession, I would say that certain people certainly believe so. Of course the rational person would disagree.

[Free Palestine]

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

[tpfkaw]

Of course not.  I'm only in favor of "states' rights" inasmuch as it's a good legal strategy to take away power from the feds.  Of course, those same battles would then need to be fought at the state level.

Also:

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

rights are not prescribed by the constitution.  They are merely protected and guaranteed by the constitution.  Human rights are not a logical human construct.  They are innate and universal.  Whether or not we have a sheet of paper that guarantees those rights does not determine whether we should have them.  A state that wishes to infringe upon the rights of its citizens is tyrannical, constitution or no constitution.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

rights are not prescribed by the constitution.  They are merely protected and guaranteed by the constitution.  Human rights are not a logical human construct.  They are innate and universal.  Whether or not we have a sheet of paper that guarantees those rights does not determine whether we should have them.  A state that wishes to infringe upon the rights of its citizens is tyrannical, constitution or no constitution.

So who decides what these rights are then? Judges? Politicians? Bureaucrats? And if there is a natural right that isn't in the Constitution, what legal authority would you have to protect it, and to prosecute violators of it?

I personally agree with you that rights are "innate and universal," but the "sheet of paper that guarantees those rights" is the only way of making sure that it is clear what rights need to be protected. The Constitution gives the federal government a clear legal mandate to protect certain rights. If you truly believe that there is a certain right that is "innate and universal" but that right isn't in the Constitution, then engage in the political process, and help make it an amendment.

[Ban my account ffs!]

What's more important is that we follow the Constitution, because that is where rights are prescribed. If there is an issue that is not prescribed to the Federal government in the Constitution, than that issue is Constitutionally mandated to be handled at the state level. If that issue is so important that it transcends state lines, then a Constitutional amendment is needed to make the issue a Federal issue.

The Constitution was designed to limit the growing powers of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot unilaterally make a decision on issues. The Constitution is not a guideline, rather, it is the supreme law of the land that must be followed at all times.

rights are not prescribed by the constitution.  They are merely protected and guaranteed by the constitution.  Human rights are not a logical human construct.  They are innate and universal.  Whether or not we have a sheet of paper that guarantees those rights does not determine whether we should have them.  A state that wishes to infringe upon the rights of its citizens is tyrannical, constitution or no constitution.

So who decides what these rights are then? Judges? Politicians? Bureaucrats? And if there is a natural right that isn't in the Constitution, what legal authority would you have to protect it, and to prosecute violators of it?

I personally agree with you that rights are "innate and universal," but the "sheet of paper that guarantees those rights" is the only way of making sure that it is clear what rights need to be protected. The Constitution gives the federal government a clear legal mandate to protect certain rights. If you truly believe that there is a certain right that is "innate and universal" but that right isn't in the Constitution, then engage in the political process, and help make it an amendment.

I guess I reject the notion that human rights can only be guaranteed through democratic action.  I understand why we do it that way:  Because we are imperfect and peoples' rights will be exploited unless we protect them with violent force.  But I don't think we should be worshipping the constitution as if that piece of paper is the authority that gives us the rights we have.  It is merely a document that outlines certain basic rights that we have and that we charge our government to protect.

What scares me most, is this notion by the right, and the tea partiers in particular, that our rights are not actually universal and natural, but are subject to majority approval.  Many use the excuse that our rights are given to us by God and that anything they believe not to be God given should not be protected.

I forget the scale, but in a psychology class I had, I remember a scale of 6 levels of moral outlook.  Level 5 was as I described above:  That human rights are subject to majority approval, and that if the majority says it should be a certain way, then that opinion should apply to everybody.

Only level 6 stated that these rights are universal regardless of who "gave" them to us and that they ideally shouldn't be subject to majority approval (which is the case in the constitution).  The man who devised the scale believed MLK was probably the only person he ever knew that fully comprehended this.  But I digress.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

No (Normal)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I guess I reject the notion that human rights can only be guaranteed through democratic action.  I understand why we do it that way:  Because we are imperfect and peoples' rights will be exploited unless we protect them with violent force.  But I don't think we should be worshipping the constitution as if that piece of paper is the authority that gives us the rights we have.  It is merely a document that outlines certain basic rights that we have and that we charge our government to protect.

What scares me most, is this notion by the right, and the tea partiers in particular, that our rights are not actually universal and natural, but are subject to majority approval.  Many use the excuse that our rights are given to us by God and that anything they believe not to be God given should not be protected.

I forget the scale, but in a psychology class I had, I remember a scale of 6 levels of moral outlook.  Level 5 was as I described above:  That human rights are subject to majority approval, and that if the majority says it should be a certain way, then that opinion should apply to everybody.

Only level 6 stated that these rights are universal regardless of who "gave" them to us and that they ideally shouldn't be subject to majority approval (which is the case in the constitution).  The man who devised the scale believed MLK was probably the only person he ever knew that fully comprehended this.  But I digress.

most tea partiers are not making any such argument. the idea is that rights are given by God, yes. maybe there is an argument over what these rights are, but tea partiers are least of all people to believe that rights are given by the majority or by a government, either state or federal.
I don't know if you are confusing majority approval and the Constitution. these are not the same, and in fact most Constitutional issues arise when the Constitution and majority approval are believed to conflict.

[WillK]

If you truly believe that there is a certain right that is "innate and universal" but that right isn't in the Constitution, then engage in the political process, and help make it an amendment.

Why?   The Constitution already says that the people have other rights than those spelled out in the Constitution (see amendment 9). 

[Brandon H]

individual > state > nation > world

[??????????]

I don't think anyone here has made that argument.

[Frink]

Of course not.

[RI]

Human rights, that is, the interplay between individual rights and collective rights that serves to nurture human wellbeing and fulfillment, are the most, and ultimately singularly, important form of rights. The scope of human rights is not confined by artificial lines on a globe and would ideally be protected on the largest possible scale. To this end, the concept of states' rights is a hopelessly outmoded creation that serves little purpose when compared to the increased potency and scope of national, global, and, finally, universal 'rights' (to the extent that non-living entities can have rights).

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

universal rights are a great idea, but how are they protected? the rights in "states rights" aren't the same as individual rights - it is rather an understanding of a limitation of greater power on the part of the national government. without it there is really no point in having states at all - or counties or cities or towns. if we were all to live solely under the power of a single central universal ruling authority for the purpose of enforcing all rights, it is much less likely that our rights would actually be protected.

[RI]

universal rights are a great idea, but how are they protected? the rights in "states rights" aren't the same as individual rights - it is rather an understanding of a limitation of greater power on the part of the national government. without it there is really no point in having states at all - or counties or cities or towns. if we were all to live solely under the power of a single central universal ruling authority for the purpose of enforcing all rights, it is much less likely that our rights would actually be protected.

The notion of "states rights", as I've often seen in used, is that a state should be the ultimate authority, or at least the primary component of government in the creation of laws, and that we should let each individual state within a nation decide for itself what they want to do. From what I see, this method of governance is one that is intrinsically flawed by both taking a relativistic approach to the morality of law and by creating an inefficacy of action in the face of large scale crises and societal poverties. I favor the highest order of government possible that is capable of handling protection of universal human rights with the execution of such being carried out at the local level. States should not cease to exist, but rather they should exist as vehicles for carrying out the higher government's actions.

I suppose it really depends upon your view of the role and inherent nature of government. If you view the government as inherently evil or uncaring or corrupt or at least tending to be that way, then I suppose states rights is the way to go (or anarchy if you want to take it that far). I don't see it that way. From my perspective, government is a necessary feature of society whose purpose is to act in ways that best protect human wellbeing and rights. Government is not a force imposed on a society, but the tangible manifestation of societal will and collective action; it is a way for society to do more together than it could individually, and to do so in a manner that positively affects each member of itself. In this role, as a human institution made up of individuals seeking to protect societal and individual wellbeing, government has the moral responsibility to discharge this purpose. That is, it must both act in ways that preserve and increase societal and individual wellbeing and not omit actions that it could reasonably take to correct situations where human rights, individual wellbeing, and societal wellbeing are being undermined or subverted. A state should not commit acts that harm nor should they, to the best of their ability, allow harm to come through inaction any more than an individual should for government ultimately is nothing more or less than a collection of individuals enpowered by others.

By creating a situation where government exists on a very low level, we knowingly allow subversions of human rights or wellbeing to persist in states that either lack the resources or willpower to correct them, even if a larger entity could have easily corrected the problem. It is a promotion of complicit complacency.

[dead0man]

The notion of "states rights", as I've often seen in used, is that a state should be the ultimate authority, or at least the primary component of government in the creation of laws, and that we should let each individual state within a nation decide for itself what they want to do.

I don't think you're reading them right (or you're reading the wrong people).  When most of us talk about "state rights" we acknowledge that the Constitution is the end all be all of the law.  A state can't take away Freedom of the Press or take away our right to own firearms, the Constitution forbids that.  The things NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED in the Constitution should be left up to the states.  States should have every right in the world to have universal health care, but unless you amend the Constitution, it shouldn't be done by the Feds.  States should have every right in the world to legalize (or vice versa) LSD, but the Feds shouldn't.  States should be able to try different approaches to different situations and problems.  Other states can see if these things work (or not) and apply them to themselves (or not).

I know a lot of people don't like the "trial and error" method, I'm just explaining what most people (at least in my experience) mean when they talk about state rights.  If anybody else thinks I'm reading it wrong, feel free to correct.  I'm not saying this opinion is the end all be all of "state rights" and would be more than happy to get my learn on.

[RI]

I don't believe that the Constitution as it stands now is adequate to protect human rights and wellbeing, assuming a literal reading is used. While it is a start, it is only that.

[dead0man]

Examples?

[RI]

Examples?

If you take a literal, non-expansive-commerce/general-welfare-clauses reading of the Constitution, the powers of the federal government are highly limited, obviously. There is little ability for the American government to handle large scale issues of society such as poverty (especially structural poverty), economic calamity (no more monetary/fiscal policy or ability to reduce unemployment on a meaningful scale), public health problems, or resource crises, and it can not act in a morally just way as I defined earlier. Its ability to correct socioeconomic injustice is severely limited; it has the inability to ensure positive rights and to empower people to pursue their goals in an equitable manner.

The myth of states rights is that states are separate entities. Our problems transcend states (and nations). We live in a global world where the failings of even one state or nation can affect us all in a myriad of ways. If we don't work together, on the same page and toward a common goal, we won't get there. We won't solve our unsustainable private (and public I'll even admit) debt problems, our large scale misallocation of economic priorities, our hemmorhaging of manufacturing and low-skill jobs, our lagging scientific and technological expertise, our inevitable energy problems, and all the injustices and immoralities that reduce our country's, and our world's, ability to be what we promise it to be. If we have one direction, we might have a chance.

[dead0man]

Or we might all go to hell in the same handbasket because the ONLY ideas we used were wrong.  Just like in nature (genetic diversity), the best way to make sure somebody survives is to try as many different things as possible.

[Mint]

Government is not a force imposed on a society, but the tangible manifestation of societal will and collective action

Of course modern government is coercion. How are you going to deny something so obvious? That's almost as ridiculous as someone like SPC's position.