Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 24, 2014, 10:28:44 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Individual Politics (Moderators: Grad Students are the Worst, Lunar, Torie)
| | |-+  Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"
Freedom Phrase   -18 (29.5%)
Horrible Phrase   -34 (55.7%)
Neutral   -9 (14.8%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 61

Author Topic: Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"  (Read 1570 times)
RogueBeaver
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12761
Canada


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 23, 2012, 11:54:23 am »
Ignore

What Shua said.
Logged

+7.35, +3.65



Is it excessive to hold a politician's feet to the fire for giving his base the run around at every turn?
Lіef
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30980
Czech Republic


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 23, 2012, 12:31:57 pm »
Ignore

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 The idea of state's rights is outdated and largely anachronistic in a twenty-first century political context, and the history of the term is obviously repugnant.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

RIP opebo
RIP the jfmtsc
RIP joshgreen
RIP King

Don't get me wrong, I love variety, and get a kick out of all these odors.
BritishDixie
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 295
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 24, 2012, 09:00:40 am »
Ignore

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

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
Oldiesfreak1854
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7478
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 1.91

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 24, 2012, 01:03:20 pm »
Ignore

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

Quote
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.
-Dwight D. Eisenhower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsjFezL5KdY
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5084
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 25, 2012, 12:05:16 am »
Ignore

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


View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 25, 2012, 12:19:04 am »
Ignore

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

"[C]onsider what you think justice requires, and decide accordingly; but never give your reasons, for your judgment will probably be right, but your reasons will certainly be wrong." — Attributed to Lord Mansfield


1828 presidential election: New Jersey results
freefair
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 686
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 25, 2012, 03:14:03 pm »
Ignore

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

If you're centrist to right wing do follow this link and participate in this timelime poll!!
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=186153.0
PM- Ecn +4.95 Soc -4.95
Pragmatically libertarian. Centrist by US standards, Tory in UK.
asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11302


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: June 25, 2012, 03:21:14 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
Torie
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26919
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 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.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 05:51:03 pm by Torie »Logged

Senator TNF
TNF
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8175
United States


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 25, 2012, 07:56:29 pm »
Ignore

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

shua
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10294
Russian Federation


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: -4.52

View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 25, 2012, 11:09:50 pm »
Ignore

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.
Logged

  

" But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson WV SBE v Barnette
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2012, 10:29:08 am »
Ignore

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

OC
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9402
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2012, 03:57:30 pm »
Ignore

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
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 295
United Kingdom


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 01, 2012, 02:34:21 am »
Ignore

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

Economic score: +6.58
Social score: +5.04
Senator Meiji (D-NC)
sjoycefla
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8336
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.03, S: -8.96

View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 01, 2012, 10:57:12 am »
Ignore

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] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines