4 ms·

> the principles that the country was founded on. It might be better for the country if those principles were applied to other questions, like "How should a mi

> the principles that the country was founded on. It might be better for the country if those principles were applied to other questions, like "How should a militia be regulated?" and "Which plants can adults consume?". Unfortunately the loudest proponents of states' rights don't seem to think the principles should go quite that far.

vkou 4y ago
States rights is the key world in this. They don't believe in the rights of the people, they believe in the rights of the states to do what they see fit to their people.
- car_analogy 4y ago
  Because unlike democratically decided federal laws, state laws are unilaterally enacted by unelected dictators?
  - vkou 4y ago
    I mean, their core argument is what you said, but the reverse. It is, of course, bullshit. And, of course, the rights that they always take issue with are when the federal government is permissive with them. Apparently, in some strange backwards logic, the federal government granting you a right is tyrrany, but the state taking it away from you is not.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    States have proven considerably easier to gerrymander, so, yes by degrees.
HelixEndeavor 4y ago
"well-regulated militia" meant well-stocked and prepared in the parlance of the era it was written.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind. My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.
  - HelixEndeavor 4y ago
    State supremacy is a thing, but only for matters the Constitution does not speak on. You'd have to pass a new amendment to allow something like that. Not the easiest task, especially in this climate.
jcranmer 4y ago
You do remind me that, when people claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not slavery, I like to ask them to name three such states' rights. The more interesting follow up is to name one states' right that wasn't prohibited for states to decide by the Confederate constitution--every answer I can give for the first question was also precluded by the Confederate constitution. The primary motivation for states' rights seems to be not to actually let states decide, but to enact policies at the broadest possible level they can do so.

vkou 4y ago

States rights is the key world in this. They don't believe in the rights of the people, they believe in the rights of the states to do what they see fit to their people.

car_analogy 4y ago
Because unlike democratically decided federal laws, state laws are unilaterally enacted by unelected dictators?
- vkou 4y ago
  I mean, their core argument is what you said, but the reverse. It is, of course, bullshit. And, of course, the rights that they always take issue with are when the federal government is permissive with them. Apparently, in some strange backwards logic, the federal government granting you a right is tyrrany, but the state taking it away from you is not.
- morelisp 4y ago
  States have proven considerably easier to gerrymander, so, yes by degrees.

HelixEndeavor 4y ago

"well-regulated militia" meant well-stocked and prepared in the parlance of the era it was written.

dane-pgp 4y ago
I was worried that using the word "regulated" would clash with the term "well-regulated", as I am aware of the interpretation you mention, but I still wanted to bring the second amendment to mind. My point was that the Constitution might (or maybe just should) allow individual states to apply their own regulations to the militia within their jurisdiction, beyond the minimal Constitutional requirement/justification that the militia be readily functional.
- HelixEndeavor 4y ago
  State supremacy is a thing, but only for matters the Constitution does not speak on. You'd have to pass a new amendment to allow something like that. Not the easiest task, especially in this climate.

jcranmer 4y ago

You do remind me that, when people claim that the Civil War was fought over states' rights and not slavery, I like to ask them to name three such states' rights. The more interesting follow up is to name one states' right that wasn't prohibited for states to decide by the Confederate constitution--every answer I can give for the first question was also precluded by the Confederate constitution. The primary motivation for states' rights seems to be not to actually let states decide, but to enact policies at the broadest possible level they can do so.