3 ms·
Well, that's the problem with states' rights. The states then can do abhorrent stuff cause it's their right. It's one thing if the state doesn't want people to
by crankylinuxuser 7y ago
Well, that's the problem with states' rights. The states then can do abhorrent stuff cause it's their right.
It's one thing if the state doesn't want people to be on the cell while driving. It's a whole 'nother issue when you have "blacks-only water fountains"... And having rights means you can do horrible things cause it's your right.
I'm not sure whom I trust more: the state or the feds. At a state level I see elected officials' religion seeping in everywhere, and that frankly terrifies me.
- mikem170 7y ago>It's a whole 'nother issue when you have "blacks-only water fountains"... And having rights means you can do horrible things cause it's your right. The idea would be that the federal constitution would be amended when two thirds of the states agree to something, only with that larger majority would it then be ok to force all other states to honor the new will of the people. Let's look at civil rights as a first example. The 14th amendment gives equal protection to all and served as the legal basis for the federal government to overrule those states that didn't agree, passing supporting legislation and even sending in troops where necessary. Let's also look at national health care. This should be a state issue until enough states agree to pass an amendment, which would happen eventually. The constitution was never intended to allow transitory slim majorities in the federal government to make such drastic changes. Look at the mess created when every couple years that slim majority changes their mind and the law of the land.
- jonhohle 7y agoI specifically said when it’s not a human rights issue. Federal decisions on human rights should absolutely and do override local laws.