4 ms·

(not) surprisingly, republicans have all but disappeared from that chat. at the federal level, both parties only care about state rights when it suits them.

by swang 9y ago

gfodor 9y ago
This is true for about every facet of the Constitution.
creaghpatr 9y ago
Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs On healthcare policy in particular the state specific policies continue to be enforced by the GOP. These aren’t positions I agree with btw I’m just pointing out recent examples. I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion access, rather than leaving it to the states to decide.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs Nope, they aren't. They are all areas where the GOP has pushed at both the federal and state level in the same direction, caring about policy (excluding transgendered persons from general society, blocking abortion, and protecting individual firearms rights) not the relative balance of state/federal power. * Republicans vigorously oppose gun control and the state level, even suing state governments in federal court to overturn regulations. * Republicans fight for LGBT discrimination in law and regulation at all levels, not for freedom of states to set inclusive or exclusive policies. * And, abortion, well: https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353709-house-passes-20-week-abortion-ban%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353...
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages. When Democrats dominate at state level I'd expect the poles to shift but that has not happened yet.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.) They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the phrase “States Rights”, but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for “we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks”, not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.
      - erikpukinskis 9y ago
        Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them. I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
        dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean. > I wonder if states rights is one of those issues. “States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe. Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  "Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs" All things they brought up before the current administration took office. All things that they've decided now to defer to the Federal government to, now. "I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion access, rather than leaving it to the states to decide." To be perfectly honest, it makes absolutely zero sense for some of those, abortion and LGBT policies in particular, to change your basic human rights just because you moved 5 miles.
- openasocket 9y ago
  I don't think those are good examples of states' rights legislation. Just because some NC Republican state Senators enacted a bathroom bill doesn't necessarily mean those Senators think the issue should be left to the states to decide, they could well prefer that their bathroom bill be made federal policy. Pushing legislation at the state or local level instead of federal can simply be a strategic decision rather than an ideological one. If US Senators pass bill that explicitly delegates something to the states to decide, that's an example of states rights. If US Senators back a bill that explicitly overrides state laws, that's an example of federal regulation. (It's actually interesting that you bring up the bathroom bill, because it actually is an example of centralizing power. The bill explicitly prevented local and city governments from adopting a different policy. Just an interesting aside.) > I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare Obamacare specifically allows individual states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid expansion, and gives the money for Medicaid directly to the states to use as they see fit. That's a pretty clear example of states rights in action.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Obamacare specifically allows individual states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid expansion Well, no. Pre-existing law allows states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid. The ACA made the expansion a core and integral part of Medicaid; the ability to stay in Medicaid but opt out of the expansion was a (rather bizarre) result of a lawsuit by States against the expansion. > and gives the money for Medicaid directly to the states to use as they see fit. No, the expansion isn't a block grant, it's an expansion to include a new population with a set federal-share reimbursement rate attached to that population.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      I forgot the optional expansion part was only the result of a lawsuit, my mistake.

(not) surprisingly, republicans have all but disappeared from that chat. at the federal level, both parties only care about state rights when it suits them.

by swang 9y ago

(not) surprisingly, republicans have all but disappeared from that chat. at the federal level, both parties only care about state rights when it suits them.

gfodor 9y ago

This is true for about every facet of the Constitution.

creaghpatr 9y ago

Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs On healthcare policy in particular the state specific policies continue to be enforced by the GOP. These aren’t positions I agree with btw I’m just pointing out recent examples. I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion access, rather than leaving it to the states to decide.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs Nope, they aren't. They are all areas where the GOP has pushed at both the federal and state level in the same direction, caring about policy (excluding transgendered persons from general society, blocking abortion, and protecting individual firearms rights) not the relative balance of state/federal power. * Republicans vigorously oppose gun control and the state level, even suing state governments in federal court to overturn regulations. * Republicans fight for LGBT discrimination in law and regulation at all levels, not for freedom of states to set inclusive or exclusive policies. * And, abortion, well: https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353709-house-passes-20-week-abortion-ban%3famp https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/policy/healthcare/353...
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  They aren't mutually exclusive of course. Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. My original point is still that they haven't shifted away from that strategic view of states rights since the election because they still hold those advantages. When Democrats dominate at state level I'd expect the poles to shift but that has not happened yet.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Obviously both parties are going to fight at all levels but in recent history GOP controls far more of state governments than Democrats so they strategically favor states rights. No, they tactically see success on certain issues operating at the state level; they don't, strategically or otherwise support states rights (that is, any consistent protected domains where states are free to act as they will without federal interference.) They do like, since the adoption of the Southern Strategy, to use the phrase “States Rights”, but that's a 150+-year-old American political code for “we support and demand systematic oppression of blacks”, not a position on the relative distribution of power between the federal and state government.
    - erikpukinskis 9y ago
      Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” I wonder if it would be a good keystone for a new moderate party, built on consensus. The idea being, taking a principled stance on the aspects of those issues on which there is consensus, while not taking a stance on the part which does not have agreement, would expose the other parties as frauds and give you a rhetorical advantage over them. I wonder if states rights is one of those issues.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Whenever I see one of these “parties purport to disagree on this issue, but neither is actually for it” The parties don't purport to disagree on the issue; one party paints it as a point of disagreement, but even that is just using the term as a coded reference to a real disagreement on race policy, not a reference to a disagreement on the policy suggested by what the words otherwise seem to mean. > I wonder if states rights is one of those issues. “States rights” isn't, because it's not an actual issue, it's a slogan for an issue people don't like to directly describe. Now, you could come up with a model of a coherent set of protected zones of state authority and try to organize a movement around them, but that's not an existing ideology that is getting lip service but no actual support, it would be a whole new issue.
s73ver_ 9y ago
"Gun laws, abortion, the trans bathroom thing in NC...all recent issues that the GOP sided on states rights vs. federal regs" All things they brought up before the current administration took office. All things that they've decided now to defer to the Federal government to, now. "I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare, gun laws, lgbt policies, and abortion access, rather than leaving it to the states to decide." To be perfectly honest, it makes absolutely zero sense for some of those, abortion and LGBT policies in particular, to change your basic human rights just because you moved 5 miles.
openasocket 9y ago
I don't think those are good examples of states' rights legislation. Just because some NC Republican state Senators enacted a bathroom bill doesn't necessarily mean those Senators think the issue should be left to the states to decide, they could well prefer that their bathroom bill be made federal policy. Pushing legislation at the state or local level instead of federal can simply be a strategic decision rather than an ideological one. If US Senators pass bill that explicitly delegates something to the states to decide, that's an example of states rights. If US Senators back a bill that explicitly overrides state laws, that's an example of federal regulation. (It's actually interesting that you bring up the bathroom bill, because it actually is an example of centralizing power. The bill explicitly prevented local and city governments from adopting a different policy. Just an interesting aside.) > I think it’s fair to say Democrats would rather have centralized healthcare Obamacare specifically allows individual states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid expansion, and gives the money for Medicaid directly to the states to use as they see fit. That's a pretty clear example of states rights in action.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Obamacare specifically allows individual states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid expansion Well, no. Pre-existing law allows states to choose whether or not to participate in Medicaid. The ACA made the expansion a core and integral part of Medicaid; the ability to stay in Medicaid but opt out of the expansion was a (rather bizarre) result of a lawsuit by States against the expansion. > and gives the money for Medicaid directly to the states to use as they see fit. No, the expansion isn't a block grant, it's an expansion to include a new population with a set federal-share reimbursement rate attached to that population.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    I forgot the optional expansion part was only the result of a lawsuit, my mistake.