What is everyone's opinon on state rightists?

[wyldwolf]

[Fenris]

1. Usually conservatives...commonly racist

"States Rights" was code for segregation during the Civil Rights Era.

[Fenris]

2. Dammit, I clicked twice!

:P

[stopthegop]

3. kind of the way the US Constitution is written...

10th amendment and all...Civil War changed the thinking

[Terwilliger]

4. 'states-rights'ers?

Given that California passed Proposition 215 allowing for marijuana to be prescribed and used, and that Bill Clinton and George Bush BOTH went after California on this subject, I have to say YES...I do believe states have the right to make separate policies.

[dwckabal]

5. Technically

there's no such thing. State's do have rights granted to them in the Constitution, but historically the term "state's rights" referred to the states' power to override or nullify federal laws.

[Gman2]

10. It is the repub method to eliminate taxes and protections in all states.

States rights as blathered by repubs is the ability to undercut other states to get industry there. It creates a race to the bottom. Then those states that support environmental protection, worker protection, expect good corp. citizenship, dont cater to them with things like their own fwy offramp etc. lose business. It is also to allow states with backward philosophies to limit appeals, stop abortion etc. etc. THe repubs however have a very low recognition of hypocracy. It is used in a pick and choose style.

[forgethell]

16. Technically

the federal government had specific powers granted it by the states. All other posers were reserved to the states or the people. It's changed a lot since the Constitution was written, but the federal government was the creature, and the states were sovreign, originally.

[Girlfriday]

6. You mean like Oregon's Death with Dignity

under attack by Asscroft? You mean those states rights?

[wyldwolf]

12. Yes, that is one example...

[fla nocount]

7. I like the idea of regional government.

Demographically and regionally similar areas internally governed while belonging loosely (the looser the better) to a larger federation. Maine is not New Mexico after all.

[LoneStarLiberal]

8. Depends on What States Rights You're Talking About

States rights will always be linked in a negative way to segregation and institutional bigotry thanks to Southern conservatives who wanted a convenient cloak to hide behind.

I do think there are some legitimate grounds for states rights in areas like education. Now, just because I'm from Texas doesn't mean I ever bought into the myth of Bush's record as a great education reformer in Texas. It was, not surprisingly, mostly smoke and mirrors.

Where I would like to see states rights is to see states surpass Federal education guidelines. Set some sort of Federal benchmark whereby you can exceed them and set your own policies or cede all control of your schools if you consistently underperform.

Of course this is one of my pipedreams. There's no money to do these types of things right now and even if there were, I'm not sure that such progressive/aggressive education policies would find the support they need.

I am intrigued by Dean's proposal to devolve gun control policy to the states. The only problem I see with this is that most gun crime is committed with illegally-obtained firearms, whether they be stolen handguns or black-market automatics. Simply devolving gun control doesn't change that situation. But I cannot help but to be very intrigued by the proposal...it is innovative but I'm not sure how it might play out on a slippery slope of policy situations...I could see a case being made for federal devolution of other critical issues as well, issues such as abortion and capital punishment.

Devolution of those issues (and probably gun control) would lead to some knock-down, drag-out judicial battles and ultimately to a patchwork of states where gun ownership/abortion/capital punishment are all different from state-to-state.

Ultimately I don't know if we can afford to test the waters in going down a devolution road. I subsribe to the idea that we are a Federal entity, not a confederation. The playing field has to remain unified on the key issues of the day; to devolve them to where our union is a confederation of various policy combinations would be to play too much havoc with what we have.

[wyldwolf]

14. Well said...

...but is that across the board and both ways? What if a state overwhelmingly supports a measure like medical marajuana or right to die but the feds oppose it?

Would/should a state have the right to supercede the Federal government?

[LoneStarLiberal]

18. You Hit the Nail on the Head

You hit the central issue dead-on, wyldwolf. When you get overwhelming momentum behind an issue, so much so that it surpasses 3/4 of the voting population, then I think you need to start thinking about the issue from a different angle.

Perhaps there might be ground to allow some flexibility for states rights on issues where state opinion in the voting population differs more than 3/4 from Federal law. I think it would be necessary to set a very high bar for difference in opinion and law in order to make such crucial differences as rare as possible.

Even this might lead us down the slippery slope, but if a high standard is maintained then perhaps there might be room for a division of states rights and Federal law.

[Selwynn]

27. Why?

I am intrigued by Dean's proposal to devolve gun control policy to the states. The only problem I see with this is that most gun crime is committed with illegally-obtained firearms, whether they be stolen handguns or black-market automatics. Simply devolving gun control doesn't change that situation. But I cannot help but to be very intrigued by the proposal...

What good is it to have 50 different sets of gun laws? How is gun abuse not a national issue demanding a national solution? Are you telling me there are some parts of the country where being able to buy assault weapons should be ok and other parts where it shouldn't be?

I'm tired of pussy footing around states. Gun violence is a national problem, it demands national regulation and those who don't like it can piss off. :D

Heh, feels good to rant sometimes. I freely admit to being a gun law extremist.

[LoneStarLiberal]

30. A Rant Does the Heart Good, Indeed

This issue, like most regarding states rights, gets to the very heart of the matter that you discuss: Do we have a Federal mandate for all states or a confederation of states with their own laws forming a chaotic legal patchwork?

Most gun violence is committed with weapons that are illegal. There are existing firearms regulations that need to be tightened up such as the gun show loophole for background checks. Piling more gun laws on top of the existing gun laws isn't going to do much to solve the problem. What we really need is MORE ENFORCEMENT OF CURRENT LAWS instead of more laws.

There are extremists on both sides of the issue: Those who see any enforcement or infraction on their right to bear arms as a fundamental assault on the consitution and those who see anyone owning a firearm of any kind and size as an outrage in a society predisposed to violent solutions.

Somewhere in the middle is where our policy position has to sit: Guns are not going away. At the same time there is absolutely no excuse, consitutional or otherwise, for a private citizen to own a fully-automatic assault rifle.

We have laws on the books right now that address the most aggregious firearms problems; what we need is more enforcement, not more laws.

[Selwynn]

31. Well argued!

I still want federal gun laws. :D :D :D Like for example, one repealing the second ammendment! (just kidding... kind of)

[JHB]

9. They taste like chicken...

...just like most rightists.

Now, if you want my opinion on "state's rights", you'll have to define exactly what you mean by that. Historically, it's been used as a euphemism to mean the law does not apply to some people (both in terms of holding elites above it and withholding its protections from disfavored groups).

[HFishbine]

11. It's a set-up

The question is a prelude to an attack on Dean for proposing that state's be allowed to fashion their own gun laws. It's a legitimate issue, but I wish Clark supporters would tackle things head on, both in their questions for other candidates and in their "defense" of Clark.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Don't look at me

I didn't start the thread, but Dean should be attacked for trying legislate away our constitutional rights on a state-by-state basis.

[StopTheMorans]

21. a setup? Why I never!

j/k, and I agree with your last sentence. That being said, I think that states rights are very important, as is separation of powers all throughout our fine government and democracy. States have different issues specific to their demographics/geographic location/etc..., and in certain areas, they should be given leeway to make policy that best handles the needs of the people in their state and the issues that arise as such.

[Javneh]

13. you mean State's rightists for Floriduh(sic)?

Where their Supreme Court said go ahead with the recount and that was kicked up the line to SCOTUS? I would have been in favor of the State resolving their problem in that case, certainly

[wyldwolf]

15. Another good example...

[Larry Gude]

23. LoneStar points out...

...the central issue:

"I subsribe to the idea that we are a Federal entity, not a confederation. The playing field has to remain unified on the key issues of the day; to devolve them to where our union is a confederation of various policy combinations would be to play too much havoc with what we have."

The question: Are we primarily a federation, a union of equals dominated by a centralized authority or a confederation, an alliance of equals sharing central authority?

We have an executive voted for by the people but actually chosen by state designated electors. This can easily be argued as state preeminence.

We have the legislative branch chosen by the people of the specific state who now become members of a federal body. Fairly easy to argue a federal preeminence there, though I don't know how many, if any, states have their own electoral college type process vs. pure democracy.

The federal judiciary is a stright forward through and through federal dominance.

I come down on the side of federation as well for the reasons LoneStar cites and I think the pro federation argument is clearly there in terms of how our government is set up.

The Commerce Clause and 'providing for the general welfare' usually win the argument in terms of things like drivers liscenses, contracts, insurance, equipment rules, regulations and standards and the like. This makes sense to pretty much everybody.

Two exceptions, rightly or wrongly, are sales taxes and gun laws. The web makes sales taxes an issue of the day. Guns are always there as an issue of the day because of the Constitutional arguments and now Dean and his position coming into question.

I personally don't see how assisted suicide falls under federal perview. There can't possibly ever be enough interstate business, if you will, to argue that there must be a federal standard, that it is a national issue of the day. I'd leave this to the states.

Grass brings into concern interstate commerce as it is a whole lot more popular and common than suicide. It is easy to see a legal state having a supply that a neighboring states population is eager to access. Crime and corruption to follow.

Only absurdities like Rodger Taneys Dredd Scott allowed slavery to hang on as a 'states rights' issue. The war proved that the individual is preeminent in this nation and his basic interstate rights (freedom) are a federal, not state, issue.

So there you have a (my) thought process to consider.

[HawkerHurricane]

19. 'State's Rights' is a euphemism

It means 'Fuck You'.

You want to integrate schools so everyone has a equal chance? State's Rights.

You want to tarrif imports to help Americans get work?
State's Rights.

You want to allow every citizen the right to vote no matter thier color?
State's Rights.

Republicans are all for state's rights IF IT BENEFITS THEM. When it doesn't, they see no contradiction in running to the Supreme Court or Congress to overturn local rules that don't benefit them.

[HFishbine]

22. Hawker

Everything you write is true, but just to illustrate how complicated the issue is:

You don't want us to legalize medical marijuana?
States rights.

You don't want us to allow our citizens the right to die?
States rights.

You want to try to tell us how to conduct an election recount?
States rights.

You want to tell us who can or cannot join in civil unions?
States rights.

[HawkerHurricane]

25. It's still true

Even in causes I agree with.

(You'll note that none of the things you listed are allowed by the champions of State's Rights. State's rights when the country disagrees with me, and not when that state over there disagrees with me)

[Selwynn]

29. Not complicated at all.

You don't want us to legalize medical marijuana?
I want federal law on the issue

You don't want us to allow our citizens the right to die?
I want federal law on the issue

You want to try to tell us how to conduct an election recount?
I want federal law on the issue

You want to tell us who can or cannot join in civil unions?
I want federal law on the issue

[Liberal Classic]

35. Why have states at all?

If states are nothing but political provinces of the federal government, why even suffer the illusion of having different laws for different states? We might as well do away with the states altogether.

Personally, I don't see that if California wants to decriminalize marijuana, and if Utah wants to outlaw abortion, that such a thing shouldn't happen. This is good and proper, since one size does not fit all.

[Bandit]

33. There are a lot more issues to deal with than just elections and race.

I like the way my state determines hunting and fishing regulations and logging and mineral concerns. Also taxation is better in my state than others. There are some issues that just don't equal out through out the other states. However I am of the belief that education and human rights should be central and equal in all states.

[Liberal Classic]

38. You old fogie, states are obsolete

Everybody knows everything should be decided in Washington D.C.

(sarcasm)

[HawkerHurricane]

40. Replutocan Philosophy

If the Replutocans control D.C., then all decisions should be made in Washington...
If the Democrats control Washington, then STATES RIGHTS. They want the 'several states' to control thier own destiny.

Simple, yes?

[bowens43]

20. What's that?

Not sure what you mean by a 'states rightist'. There are certain powers allotted to the federal government by the Constitution, those not allotted to the federal government belong the states, as they should be. Anyone who believes in the Constitution of the United States believes in states rights.

[blm]

24. Federalists? That's what politicians hide behind on controversial issues.

Especially the ones they don't want to come straight out and support. Like youknowwho.

But, it seems the most worthwhile efforts, like death with dignity and medical marijuana, will only be allowed as state's rights issues. Sad. I'd like to see the entire nation stand tall on these.

[Selwynn]

26. Screw 'em

I think right now the trend is to believe 90% of issues should be handled at the state level and 10% at the federal level and I believe that ratio should be completely reveresed.

I am not a big fan of States rights. I think it is frequently little more than political "code" for Republicans who are opposed to the kinds of social progams and regulation that is needed for a more equitable national society.

I also believe that the more and more we treat this nation as a confederation of individual countries, the weaker we are.

As with all things, some moderation is needed - there are some things that should be withing the states power to control - I just think the ratio is terribly wrong and the majority of power should always rest at the national level - national health care standards, national education reform, national solutions to national problems.

[Yupster]

28. It was the way the Constitution was written, but

the Civil War rewrote it. There's no such thing as state's rights today. The issue was settled on the battlefield.

[Capn Sunshine]

32. It's CODE

Like "freedom Fries"

just means " I support the confederacy and all that it stands for."Period.

[Brian Sweat]

34. "States' Rights" is just a con used by Republicans

whenever they don't like something that the federal government is doing. As soon as one state does something they don't like, they want the federal government to step in a force them to stop it.

[CoffeePlease1947]

36. I have a VERY radical view on States

Get rid of them. Simply go as one nation. It is damn pointless to have them now. We need only local and Federal government.

Sounds radical, I admit. But states are rather meaningless now. We are all one people.

Mike

[gully]

37. Depends on the issue...

:shrug:

[Classical_Liberal]

39. they didn' care about my state's rights when it didn't want to enforce

the fugitive slave act. Doesn't care about states rights on medical pot. It is just a hypocritical cover for conservatives and always has been.