3 ms·

well the states really kind of blew it when they chose slavery as the hill to literally die on, didn't they? it's not like this is all on Congress..

gottorf 2y ago
That states' rights were used to fight for the right to maintain slavery does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It is slavery that is wrong.
- rat87 2y ago
  It was also used as an argument to fight for Jim Crow laws. So called "States rights" have a very ugly history in America
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    And on the flip side states rights is what let half the country not have slavery from the get go, certain states grant women suffrage, basically every singular "good thing" you could come up with started in one state. My state had great public healthcare before the federal mandate. The current state of weed legalization, and research into medical psychedelic use would probably be a ton better off without the feds sticking their dick places it doesn't belong, to name but one example.
- krapp 2y ago
  I'm inherently mistrustful of arguments for "state's rights" that don't explicitly state what rights are being advocated for, that the existence of a Federal government is standing in the way of. It's usually something gross and regressive, like wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy. Otherwise it would be something normal they could just, you know, pass a law about. Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty.
  - gottorf 2y ago
    > Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty. This would be more meaningful if the federal government wasn't involved in everyone's lives to the degree that most people's idea of state sovereignty ends at issuing driver's licenses and license plates. In general, a call for "states' rights" is a call for the federal government to act in line with the supreme law of the land that is the Constitution and restore the concept of "laboratories of democracy" that states ought to be. Instead, what we have is a federal government that supposedly has the legal authority to regulate activity that crossed no state boundaries and harmed no one[0]. > wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy I'm not aware of any recent efforts at the state level, at least more seriously than someone trying to make the papers in a primary election, to achieve such goals. Do you have any examples? [0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  It's more that states don't really do things better than federal.
- consteval 2y ago
  But the unintended consequence is that we were forced to weaken states' rights, so that we could abolish slavery. We could not have federally abolished slavery if we did not first give the federal government the power to do that. Unfortunately, the union had to take that power by force.
- adamc 2y ago
  Right, but once you fight a war over it, the SCOTUS is forced to make choices to legitimize the actions of the remaining USA, and state's rights were... de-valued.
potato3732842 2y ago
I was thinking more recent stuff, like fed income tax and then "giving" that money back with strings resulting in the current "we'll fund your state level EPA and DOT agencies but only if they goose step in line with us" status quo. Said status quo means that every stupid nitpick of federal law winds up getting fought tooth and nail over.
adamc 2y ago
It wasn't even slavery that caused the war, but secession. (I am not arguing that slavery didn't cause secession -- it did -- but that wasn't what created support in the north for fighting a war over it.)

gottorf 2y ago

That states' rights were used to fight for the right to maintain slavery does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It is slavery that is wrong.

rat87 2y ago
It was also used as an argument to fight for Jim Crow laws. So called "States rights" have a very ugly history in America
- potato3732842 2y ago
  And on the flip side states rights is what let half the country not have slavery from the get go, certain states grant women suffrage, basically every singular "good thing" you could come up with started in one state. My state had great public healthcare before the federal mandate. The current state of weed legalization, and research into medical psychedelic use would probably be a ton better off without the feds sticking their dick places it doesn't belong, to name but one example.
krapp 2y ago
I'm inherently mistrustful of arguments for "state's rights" that don't explicitly state what rights are being advocated for, that the existence of a Federal government is standing in the way of. It's usually something gross and regressive, like wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy. Otherwise it would be something normal they could just, you know, pass a law about. Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty. This would be more meaningful if the federal government wasn't involved in everyone's lives to the degree that most people's idea of state sovereignty ends at issuing driver's licenses and license plates. In general, a call for "states' rights" is a call for the federal government to act in line with the supreme law of the land that is the Constitution and restore the concept of "laboratories of democracy" that states ought to be. Instead, what we have is a federal government that supposedly has the legal authority to regulate activity that crossed no state boundaries and harmed no one[0]. > wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy I'm not aware of any recent efforts at the state level, at least more seriously than someone trying to make the papers in a primary election, to achieve such goals. Do you have any examples? [0]: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111
Dylan16807 2y ago
It's more that states don't really do things better than federal.
consteval 2y ago
But the unintended consequence is that we were forced to weaken states' rights, so that we could abolish slavery. We could not have federally abolished slavery if we did not first give the federal government the power to do that. Unfortunately, the union had to take that power by force.
adamc 2y ago
Right, but once you fight a war over it, the SCOTUS is forced to make choices to legitimize the actions of the remaining USA, and state's rights were... de-valued.

potato3732842 2y ago

I was thinking more recent stuff, like fed income tax and then "giving" that money back with strings resulting in the current "we'll fund your state level EPA and DOT agencies but only if they goose step in line with us" status quo. Said status quo means that every stupid nitpick of federal law winds up getting fought tooth and nail over.

adamc 2y ago

It wasn't even slavery that caused the war, but secession. (I am not arguing that slavery didn't cause secession -- it did -- but that wasn't what created support in the north for fighting a war over it.)