Opinion of the phrase "States Rights"

[RogueBeaver]

What Shua said.

[Lief]

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 The idea of state's rights is outdated and largely anachronistic in a twenty-first century political context, and the history of the term is obviously repugnant.

[BritishDixie]

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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

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?

[Win32]

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.

[freefair]

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.

[asexual trans victimologist]

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?

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.

[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.

[TNF]

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.

[shua]

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?

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.

[Emperor SJoyce]

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...

[OC]

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.

[BritishDixie]

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..........

[Emperor SJoyce]

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.