4 ms·

Much of that was always in dispute and while the “freedom of states” stuff has intellectual appeal and often prevails over shorter periods, the trendline has al

Much of that was always in dispute and while the “freedom of states” stuff has intellectual appeal and often prevails over shorter periods, the trendline has always been towards one nation. In the post constitution era, 17 amendments were passed by the house, including an amendment that would make states supreme by law. 6 years after the constitution was ratified, Marbury v. Madison established judicial supremacy for interpreting law, 11 years after that, the court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that states are subordinate to federal power. Political compromise got it done, but centralized power is necessary for survival and prosperity. Congress and the courts realized this immediately. Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally.

Jensson 9mo ago
> Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally. I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. Marijuana is still illegal and those undocumented immigrants are also illegal, more federal influence would make it so states cannot legalize those any more, is that what you want? So states rights goes both ways, it lets states both be more progressive and more conservative than the average.
- watwut 9mo ago
  I see conservatives actively oppressing blue states right now. Somehow states rights do not protect civilians from being mistreated, kidnapped and shot by violent agents sent by conservative minority.
- lovich 9mo ago
  >I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. > Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. The states are not compelled to enforce federal law. Doing nothing about people violating federal law has always been a right of the states. You are trying to, or already have in your head, conflate non enforcing federal law, with actively violating state law. Where marijuana is legalized, it means the State made it legal in terms of State law, not that it superseded federal law. Zero States have made illegal immigrants legal. Some states stop going after them and assisting the federal government in their immigration duties. You are talking about state's rights and have no idea what the boundaries of those rights even are.
  - remarkEon 9mo ago
    Many states have made it such that there is no functional distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Identical drivers licenses, access to the same services, and indeed protection from federal enforcement of immigration law.
    - lovich 9mo ago
      Not helping arrest them != protecting them. All of those things you’re mentioning are state services that they can offer to anyone because it’s not a federal issue. This is what states rights look like and why the right is mocked for referencing it when they foam at the mouth once it’s used for things they don’t like. It’s similar to people who claim the civil war was over states rights when southern states were pushing to have other state sovereignty ignored over their own laws when it came to returning slaves.
      - remarkEon 9mo ago
        States cannot send their police officers to enforce immigration law, correct (see Arizona v. United States), but many states have gone further to make it illegal for their police forces to honor immigration detainers that federal agencies request when an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime. That sure looks and sounds like a protection to me.
        lovich 9mo ago
        That sure looks and sounds like the state is electing to not spend its resources helping the feds do their job. Protection would be actively circumventing the feds instead of saying “neat”, when presented with a request. Unless you are operating under the mistaken belief that a “request” from the feds means mandatory compliance by the states.
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        These people are released, which does make the job of federal agencies more difficult, requiring immigration enforcement action in the streets as opposed to the jailhouse. You prefer it in the street, apparently, but I can certainly understand how others may see how these types of actions start to look like States actively frustrating legal immigration enforcement action. Or that it is de facto circumvention if not de jure.
- Spooky23 9mo ago
  The states have nothing to do with your ignorant hysteria about foreigners. Unfortunately, the reactionary types have turned that into a dog whistle for their imposition on tyranny to deliver freedom, someday, maybe. Marijuana is illegal. The states have largely chosen to change their laws on the subject as it was determined that it was creating more problems than it was solving. Additionally, the Federal government, while incapable of changing the law, loosened some of the disincentives for the states laws on the subject.

Jensson 9mo ago

> Most of the realpolitik of “states rights” is really about wielding tyrannical power locally. I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. Marijuana is still illegal and those undocumented immigrants are also illegal, more federal influence would make it so states cannot legalize those any more, is that what you want? So states rights goes both ways, it lets states both be more progressive and more conservative than the average.

watwut 9mo ago
I see conservatives actively oppressing blue states right now. Somehow states rights do not protect civilians from being mistreated, kidnapped and shot by violent agents sent by conservative minority.
lovich 9mo ago
>I thought it was so states could knowingly house illegal aliens or illegal drug businesses without doing anything. > Normally states wouldn't have that right, but I see many who think they should have it. The states are not compelled to enforce federal law. Doing nothing about people violating federal law has always been a right of the states. You are trying to, or already have in your head, conflate non enforcing federal law, with actively violating state law. Where marijuana is legalized, it means the State made it legal in terms of State law, not that it superseded federal law. Zero States have made illegal immigrants legal. Some states stop going after them and assisting the federal government in their immigration duties. You are talking about state's rights and have no idea what the boundaries of those rights even are.
- remarkEon 9mo ago
  Many states have made it such that there is no functional distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Identical drivers licenses, access to the same services, and indeed protection from federal enforcement of immigration law.
  - lovich 9mo ago
    Not helping arrest them != protecting them. All of those things you’re mentioning are state services that they can offer to anyone because it’s not a federal issue. This is what states rights look like and why the right is mocked for referencing it when they foam at the mouth once it’s used for things they don’t like. It’s similar to people who claim the civil war was over states rights when southern states were pushing to have other state sovereignty ignored over their own laws when it came to returning slaves.
    - remarkEon 9mo ago
      States cannot send their police officers to enforce immigration law, correct (see Arizona v. United States), but many states have gone further to make it illegal for their police forces to honor immigration detainers that federal agencies request when an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime. That sure looks and sounds like a protection to me.
      - lovich 9mo ago
        That sure looks and sounds like the state is electing to not spend its resources helping the feds do their job. Protection would be actively circumventing the feds instead of saying “neat”, when presented with a request. Unless you are operating under the mistaken belief that a “request” from the feds means mandatory compliance by the states.
        remarkEon 9mo ago
        These people are released, which does make the job of federal agencies more difficult, requiring immigration enforcement action in the streets as opposed to the jailhouse. You prefer it in the street, apparently, but I can certainly understand how others may see how these types of actions start to look like States actively frustrating legal immigration enforcement action. Or that it is de facto circumvention if not de jure.
Spooky23 9mo ago
The states have nothing to do with your ignorant hysteria about foreigners. Unfortunately, the reactionary types have turned that into a dog whistle for their imposition on tyranny to deliver freedom, someday, maybe. Marijuana is illegal. The states have largely chosen to change their laws on the subject as it was determined that it was creating more problems than it was solving. Additionally, the Federal government, while incapable of changing the law, loosened some of the disincentives for the states laws on the subject.