4 ms·

The GOP is perfectly happy to interfere in the most private parts of their citizens lives as long as it fits their agenda. The whole "states rights" thing is a

The GOP is perfectly happy to interfere in the most private parts of their citizens lives as long as it fits their agenda. The whole "states rights" thing is a smoke screen, that only applies for topic they disagree with.

tekknik 4y ago
The states rights thing is not a smoke screen. They are not interfering with private life. They are in fact removing a falsely enumerated “right” and returning the decision to the states. States can easily say abortion is legal based on their voters thoughts and opinions. If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy?
- mlyle 4y ago
  > If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy? Hopefully you understand that the reason why we have a constitutional democracy is to protect minority interests. If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? It's only been since 1990 or so that a majority of people in most states supported interracial marriage.
  - jmyeet 4y ago
    > ... protect minority interests "As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY. So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery. Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them. > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? Yes. if you even have to ask...
    - mlyle 4y ago
      ??? I have to imagine you've misread the thread and think that I'm saying states should be able to unilaterally restrict minority interests. I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument. > > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? > Yes. if you even have to ask... That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      So your argument is we remove states borders?
  - tekknik 4y ago
    No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Interesting twist there. If I need to make up my mind then what should the left do? The difference between 2A and Roe is that the 2A is VERY CLEARLY enumerated by the constitution whereas Roe is not. So I push this back to you, why is a VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED right ignored by the left but this Roe thing isn’t? Seems like a double standard.
        mlyle 4y ago
        Whether clearly enumerated rights in the constitution apply to the states or not is a judicial determination. Before the 14th amendment, none of them did. Many states denied jury trials, etc. Now, it's piecemeal based on the incorporation doctrine. Again a piece of inconsistency: the right love the idea that the incorporation doctrine might restrict the states on firearms laws. But they don't love that the incorporation doctrine might prevent the states from passing the kinds of rights-squashing laws that they favor.
        tekknik 4y ago
        And it was determined to apply, but thanks for the mansplained history lesson anyway. So now explain why the left can ignore that amendment, but then pull something it clearly doesn’t say from another? Getting back on track, you’ll notice what the right is doing is about protecting life. Access to guns is self defense, and now fetal rights for the unborn. The left is about ending life, with Dr assisted suicides, wanting to restrict or remove firearms, and now ending it before it even opens it eyes. Now the left is making a huge deal about not being able to push their life ending ideals on all of us and running around like the world is ending. I reiterate, this is crazy. Also I’m and independent.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

tekknik 4y ago

The states rights thing is not a smoke screen. They are not interfering with private life. They are in fact removing a falsely enumerated “right” and returning the decision to the states. States can easily say abortion is legal based on their voters thoughts and opinions. If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy?

mlyle 4y ago
> If the voters don’t want abortion legal in their state then why should those outside the state have say? Isn’t this democracy? Hopefully you understand that the reason why we have a constitutional democracy is to protect minority interests. If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? It's only been since 1990 or so that a majority of people in most states supported interracial marriage.
- jmyeet 4y ago
  > ... protect minority interests "As practiced, to have minority rule" FTFY. So what about the minority interests of gay people? Trans people? Enslaved people? Let's not forget that "states' rights" as an argument was famously used to justify chattel slavery. Those pushing "states' rights" aren't the least bit interested in protecting minority interests. They're only interested in protecting their own interests. Period. It's "states' rights" when it serves them and a Federal issue when it serves them. > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? Yes. if you even have to ask...
  - mlyle 4y ago
    ??? I have to imagine you've misread the thread and think that I'm saying states should be able to unilaterally restrict minority interests. I'm actually arguing against someone who made that argument. > > If voters in a state don't want interracial marriage to be legal, should people outside the state have a say? > Yes. if you even have to ask... That's called a rhetorical question. Person I replied to said that majority of people in a state should determine if abortion is legal. I say that the purpose of the judiciary and a well-crafted representative democracy doesn't just allow the majority of the people of a state to run roughshod over an unpopular minority-- whether that minority wants to be trans, have interracial marriage, or get an abortion.
  - tekknik 4y ago
    So your argument is we remove states borders?
- tekknik 4y ago
  No, people outside the state should have no say on the laws of that state. Otherwise we end up with every state being CA. How does this logic of minority rule hold up against things like the 2nd amendment?
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Make up your mind-- sounds like you don't like states' rights for firearms, but do for abortion laws. As said to you before: "In practice, very few people truly believe in a consistent ideology either way about states' rights. You'll find Democrats that believe things should be left to the states when it benefits them and when Republicans are in power. And you'll find Republicans eager to expand federal spending and powers when they occupy the institutions of power."
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Interesting twist there. If I need to make up my mind then what should the left do? The difference between 2A and Roe is that the 2A is VERY CLEARLY enumerated by the constitution whereas Roe is not. So I push this back to you, why is a VERY CLEARLY ENUMERATED right ignored by the left but this Roe thing isn’t? Seems like a double standard.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Whether clearly enumerated rights in the constitution apply to the states or not is a judicial determination. Before the 14th amendment, none of them did. Many states denied jury trials, etc. Now, it's piecemeal based on the incorporation doctrine. Again a piece of inconsistency: the right love the idea that the incorporation doctrine might restrict the states on firearms laws. But they don't love that the incorporation doctrine might prevent the states from passing the kinds of rights-squashing laws that they favor.
        tekknik 4y ago
        And it was determined to apply, but thanks for the mansplained history lesson anyway. So now explain why the left can ignore that amendment, but then pull something it clearly doesn’t say from another? Getting back on track, you’ll notice what the right is doing is about protecting life. Access to guns is self defense, and now fetal rights for the unborn. The left is about ending life, with Dr assisted suicides, wanting to restrict or remove firearms, and now ending it before it even opens it eyes. Now the left is making a huge deal about not being able to push their life ending ideals on all of us and running around like the world is ending. I reiterate, this is crazy. Also I’m and independent.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]