Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:39:11 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
#1
Freedom Phrase
 
#2
Horrible Phrase
 
#3
Neutral
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"  (Read 4680 times)
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2012, 11:54:23 AM »

What Shua said.
Logged
Lief 🗽
Lief
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,851


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 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 The idea of state's rights is outdated and largely anachronistic in a twenty-first century political context, and the history of the term is obviously repugnant.
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 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.
Logged
Oldiesfreak1854
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,674
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 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.
Logged
morgieb
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,612
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -8.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 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?
Logged
Win32
Rookie
**
Posts: 41
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 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.
Logged
freefair
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 759
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,047
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 25, 2012, 05:48:16 PM »
« Edited: June 25, 2012, 05:51:03 PM by Torie »

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.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,658
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 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: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
along with this, the Confederate Constitution explicitly guaranteed slavery in every state, but did nothing to allow for secession or even nullification.
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 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...
Logged
Tutankhuman Bakari Sellers
olawakandi
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 87,456
Jamaica
Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 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.
Logged
BritishDixie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 278
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 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..........
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.