“State’s rights” arguments are literally only about hurting people. They hate it when states want to exercise the right to regulate guns or increase emissions standards.
In the USA, Sates' Rights is how incremental change happens, both good and bad.
Gay marriage was legalized one state at a time until public perception changed enough we were able to see it legalized at a federal level. Similarly, marijuana has been legalized in 24 states and medicinal use allowed in 38, even while the federal government remains in direct opposition to this by maintaining it as a schedule 1 drug.
You're just going to notice the effects more when you don't like what states are choosing in opposition to the federal government. Negative impacts on your life are typically easier to notice than positive ones.
Yeah the phrase “state’s rights” is so closely tied to the Confederacy and all the Lost Cause bullshit, so I can see why people would bristle at it. But it’s wild to say that the concept itself, outside of any additional context, is inherently bad.
Yep. It's one of those phrases that makes me a little uneasy waiting for the next thing out of the speaker's mouth, but as a general concept it allows more local control to citizens of the place where they actually live and work. That's typically a very good thing.
It's just a double edged sword, because sometimes people suck.
You’re expounding on one theory of federalism. I’m referring to something completely different—the people that loudly and repeatedly whine about “state’s rights” any time the federal government passes regulations or try to protect individual rights.
Not sure how you can regulate a 2nd amendment so that’s unconstitutional, and emission standards for what? We don’t even contrive to pollution like that. Oh you mean increase tax revenue? Than yes that’s only why they do it lol.
Can you try that again using words and sentences? The second amendment doesn’t mean gun ownership can’t be regulated. That’s a really fucking stupid thing to say.
The second amendment literally defines gun ownership as being part of a well regulated militia. That leaves a lot of room for regulation, straight up to arguing that the militia mentioned evolved into the national guard and that guns aren't fundamentally guaranteed outside of that.
I'm not necessarily arguing that but it is an argument that could be made.
You're absolutely right. I had a lengthy argument with one of my conservative friends about abortion. He wanted states to have the freedom... to dictate women's medical decisions. Sounded familiar. Sounds like states fighting for the freedom... to own slaves.
Honestly, I'd been a friend to that dude for a very long time through some serious shared experiences, but I don't see myself really talking to him again. I just can't respect people who lack values like respect for individual human rights and liberties.
I have never had a face to face with someone advocating for states rights. I really don’t understand the position. I’m an American, my personal freedoms should not be dictated by a state line.
That's where the (very stupid and very wrong) justification (created only from post-civil war, racist arguments) comes from. Unless I'm mistaken, I haven't seen it before the civil war. Yes state laws and state protections from the federal government were already talked about after the revolution, and especially during the implementation of the constitution, but not specifically "states rights". Again I could be mistaken.
Unless I'm mistaken, I haven't seen it before the civil war.
Incorrect...
The literal entire argument of the civil war from start to finish was the right to own slaves through the state, full stop. And yes, there are countless documents from both sides of the war stating it.
You ask yourself why did the common southerner join the Confederacy? Of course, it's because they're all racist right? That's what you've been told, but that's undeniably false. Slaves were owned by the rich, who owned the that drove the entire southern economy. The north was unquestionably aiming to outlaw slavery to directly destroy the southern economy in a bid to prop up a federalist government. In today's world it would be like having our stock market removed overnight and project 2025 enacted by Trump creating a new form of government. Talking complete destruction of the everyday economics and a new form of government.
So, the Southerners joined up to fight for the right for their state to continue owning slaves to save their literal livelihood. The northerners joined up to fight for the right of a federalist system to end the right to owning slaves at the cost of the Southerners livelihood for the benefit of the enslaved. This concept was widely understood during the time...
690
u/OhlookitsMatty 9h ago
When Conservatives talk about "states rights" this is what they want
The right to do as they please even when they know they are in the wrong & going against the will of the people