Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"

[Progressive Realist]

Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.

[realisticidealist]

An evil phrase used by people with evil ideologies.

[True Federalist]

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.

[Californian Tony]

Systematically used as an excuse to restrict human rights.

[© Tweed the Younger]

has a poor history

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Horrible phrase. Used extensively to advance right-wing causes, but ignored where it would help liberals, like Gonzales v. Carhart  or Bush v. Gore.

[shua]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Absolutely vile, horrible phrase. Reactionary to the extreme, in pretty much every context it's ever been used.

^^

[Frodo]

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. 

[realisticidealist]

Federalism is inherently a bad idea. Even without that history, it would be a terrible phrase.

[Secretary Polnut]

In theory... potentially fine, as it's been practiced... pretty fricking awful...

[State Comptroller Atkins]

He was a decent poster.

[TJ in Wisco]

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.

[Progressive Realist]

Federalism is inherently a bad idea.

Albeit not as bad an idea as "Communitarianism."

[Redalgo]

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.

[So rightwing that I broke the Political Compass!]

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.

[For Oklahoma]

Freedom Phrase said the lone conservative libertarian as he was chased out of this thread.

[Chareth Cutestory]

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

Neutral: Freedom Phrase in concept, Horrible Phrase in application.

[realisticidealist]

Federalism is inherently a bad idea.

Albeit not as bad an idea as "Communitarianism."

kthx. I am enlightened now.

[ChairmanSanchez]

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.

[Senator Ben]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[IDS Legislator Alfred F. Jones]

Normally it would be good, but I said horrible phrase because it's a modern-day code for racism.