I HATE States Rights nuts

[hawkeye59]

Hmm…
Antonio, do you also believe that gay marriage should be illegal nationwide until Congress and/or the Supreme Court get around to legalizing it?
Because this pick-and-choose kind of mentality that exists on both sides of the aisle is pretty irritating.

What's starting to get pretty irritating is your newfound Moderate Hero "pepul r so meen" persona.

Anyway, I never claimed that everything should be of federal competence. My claim is against people who oppose good laws who actually make things better and concern things of critical importance (like the CRA, the VOWA) etc in the name of something as mundane and superficial as States Rights. And I oppose DOMA because it's a bad law, not because I think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage.

DOMA also violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway, I never claimed that everything should be of federal competence. My claim is against people who oppose good laws who actually make things better and concern things of critical importance (like the CRA, the VOWA) etc in the name of something as mundane and superficial as States Rights. And I oppose DOMA because it's a bad law, not because I think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage.

But what are the criteria for whether something is a "good law" concerning "things of critical importance" or whether it is a "bad law"? One could make the argument (not that I would, of course) that DOMA is of critical importance in "protecting America's families" or somesuch.

Yes ...and that's the whole point of political debate. States Rights nuts stifle any substantial policy discussion with their rhetoric.

[Vosem]

States are relatively arbitrary entities, usually drawn the way they were for political reasons, not because of shared cultural or other ties (see, for example, WV, NV, KS, ME, and the Dakotas). I don't understand why a completely arbitrary concept like "South Dakota" should be the basis for certain rights.

Not quite. Name a country, state, nation or whatever that its borders were drawn politics free. You will find that there are not as many as you seem to think. Pakistan and India were drawn pretty terrible and for political reasons, does that makes them less legitimate as nations to have certain rights over their territory that other nations cannot violate?  As for the states within the U.S. having certain powers over themselves, it kinda makes sense. You cannot forget that states preceded this country, and then of their own free choice decided to form a union together to make the US, a union that would not exist unless the states were guaranteed certain freedoms.

Also, although many states may have originated in the 1880s as fairly arbitrary entities, state borders today reflect a status quo that has been in place for almost a century and a half -- certainly not very arbitrary.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

DOMA also violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

No it does not.  The Full Faith and Credit Clause has never been interpreted in a fashion that would allow the laws in one State to override those in another.  What it does do is ensure that petty bureaucratic differences don't require one to redo a civil procedure just because you cross a State line.  So if you contract a marriage in East Utopia that could be contracted in West Utopia, then if you move to West Utopia, you don't have to go thru the bother and expense of getting a marriage license from West Utopia for that state to recognize it.  DOMA is fully consistent with the Full Faith and Credit Clause, and as far as it applies to the States is actually redundant to it.  If DOMA is overturned, it will be because of the Equal Protection Clause and not the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

FTR: Whenever I hear my fellow conservatives invoke the Constitution, I immediately shut them out because of "state's rights".  I guess you could compare me to William Lloyd Garrison in my view of the Constitution.

[Donerail]

FTR: Whenever I hear my fellow conservatives invoke the Constitution, I immediately shut them out because of "state's rights".  I guess you could compare me to William Lloyd Garrison in my view of the Constitution.

This explains so much.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Anyway, I never claimed that everything should be of federal competence. My claim is against people who oppose good laws who actually make things better and concern things of critical importance (like the CRA, the VOWA) etc in the name of something as mundane and superficial as States Rights. And I oppose DOMA because it's a bad law, not because I think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage.

But what are the criteria for whether something is a "good law" concerning "things of critical importance" or whether it is a "bad law"? One could make the argument (not that I would, of course) that DOMA is of critical importance in "protecting America's families" or somesuch.

Yes ...and that's the whole point of political debate. States Rights nuts stifle any substantial policy discussion with their rhetoric.

I don't see how moving and decentralising the policy discussion stifles it. Holding the same debate at a state level rather than a national level leads to a greater diversity of results, which in turn leads to more proper evidence of which ideas work and which don't.

[Franzl]

Anyway, I never claimed that everything should be of federal competence. My claim is against people who oppose good laws who actually make things better and concern things of critical importance (like the CRA, the VOWA) etc in the name of something as mundane and superficial as States Rights. And I oppose DOMA because it's a bad law, not because I think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage.

But what are the criteria for whether something is a "good law" concerning "things of critical importance" or whether it is a "bad law"? One could make the argument (not that I would, of course) that DOMA is of critical importance in "protecting America's families" or somesuch.

Yes ...and that's the whole point of political debate. States Rights nuts stifle any substantial policy discussion with their rhetoric.

I don't see how moving and decentralising the policy discussion stifles it. Holding the same debate at a state level rather than a national level leads to a greater diversity of results, which in turn leads to more proper evidence of which ideas work and which don't.

On some things where there are multiple legitimate policy proposals, e.g. school systems, speed limits, perhaps gun regulations, and so on.

Other things like civil and human rights are non-negotiable for me, and using the cop out solution "let the states decide" is simply wrong.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Anyway, I never claimed that everything should be of federal competence. My claim is against people who oppose good laws who actually make things better and concern things of critical importance (like the CRA, the VOWA) etc in the name of something as mundane and superficial as States Rights. And I oppose DOMA because it's a bad law, not because I think the Federal Government has no business regulating marriage.

But what are the criteria for whether something is a "good law" concerning "things of critical importance" or whether it is a "bad law"? One could make the argument (not that I would, of course) that DOMA is of critical importance in "protecting America's families" or somesuch.

Yes ...and that's the whole point of political debate. States Rights nuts stifle any substantial policy discussion with their rhetoric.

I don't see how moving and decentralising the policy discussion stifles it. Holding the same debate at a state level rather than a national level leads to a greater diversity of results, which in turn leads to more proper evidence of which ideas work and which don't.

On some things where there are multiple legitimate policy proposals, e.g. school systems, speed limits, perhaps gun regulations, and so on.

Other things like civil and human rights are non-negotiable for me, and using the cop out solution "let the states decide" is simply wrong.

One of the few times I agree with both you and Antonio.