NationStates Jolt Archive

Every now and then on a given issue, the argument of “states’ rights” comes up. The recent Republican debate has apparently gotten some people all up in arms over a question about punishment for abortion that they deem “unfair” because the president won’t get to determine that anyways if he thinks it’s a “states’ rights” issue. I’m not going to really go into how stupid that position is, given that the president doesn’t have the power to directly determine the vast majority of the issues covered in debates and they still answer with what they would like to try and get legislators to do, but I am going to talk about the “states’ rights” argument itself.

First of all, let me say that I think it is a misnomer. I don’t believe that the state governments (or any governmental bodies) have “rights”. Human beings have rights. Governments have authority which, if it is a legitimate government authority, allows them to protect those human beings and their rights.

That said, let’s get into what the argument really is. If it were a matter of transferring a particular authority from the federal government to the state governments, it could very well have merit. It would depend, of course, on what the given authority is. Unfortunately, this is not the case. These arguments are invariably about individual authority vs. state authority. The person making the argument wants to take a certain authority from individual human beings and place it, instead, in the hands of the state governments. Either that, or they are arguing that the state should hold onto such authority when it might be transferred to the hands of the individual.

Where has the “states’ rights” argument been used?
- Slavery (state authority vs. an individual’s right to liberty and self-ownership)
- Jim Crow laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Segregation (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Anti-miscegenation laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Birth control (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy and to make medical decisions)
- Abortion (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and to make medical decisions)
- Sex (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy)
- Same-sex marriage (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Etc.

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?

I agree with you, and frankly I'm glad that more people are beginning to see the fallacy states' rights. I'm appalled that I can go just across the border into any other state and not have the same rights as I do here, and vice versa.

Not that it'll change anytime soon, what with people keeping their heads in the ground and all.

I very much agree. Essentially, state's rights proponents argue that it's okay for a government to oppress you just because the representatives meet nearer to you instead of further away. In reality, it doesn't matter too much which level of government is doing it--a violation of rights is a violation of rights.

Granted, there are certain areas where, yes, the states have authority-- that's the entire point of the federal system in the U.S. But that authority should never extend to the point where it infringes on individual civil liberties.

Every now and then on a given issue, the argument of “states’ rights” comes up.
[snipped]
Thoughts?

there is a distinct line seperating what the Federal Government can mandate the states to follow.

Yes, the Government left it up to the States to decide Same Sex Marriage and what not. and that includes things like Capital Punishment as well.

Would you want the Federal Government able to dictate laws to each state? able to send in the troops when they (feds) feel like the states have lost control?

Total agreement here, with all points mentioned so far. :)

EDIT: Except JuNii's.

The distinction between federal government authority and state government authority has already been mentioned by another poster, and JuNii's examples do not address the OP directly. Rather, they are examples of just what the OP points out -- the attempt to cast "states' rights" arguments as between federal rights and state rights, when in fact, in practical application as evidenced by the actual issues on which states' rights have been invoked historically, the conflict is between government power and the rights of individual citizens.

there is a distinct line seperating what the Federal Government can mandate the states to follow.

Indeed. And there is also a line separating what any government entity can do from those rights reserved to the individual. The "states' rights" argument is invariably used to discuss that line, rather than the separation of federal and state powers.

Yes, the Government left it up to the States to decide Same Sex Marriage and what not.

In other words, you claim that the government left it up to the states to decide whether or not to treat everyone equally under the law, despite the fact that the very basis of our entire governmental system - the US Constitution - mandates that they do so.

Would you want the Federal Government able to dictate laws to each state? able to send in the troops when they (feds) feel like the states have lost control?

Wow. You didn't read any of my post beyond the term "states' rights", did you? This has nothing at all to do with anything I posted.

Would you want the Federal Government able to dictate laws to each state?

they already have that power under the present system

I think "No Child Left Behind" is one of the most contemporary arguments against Federal domination of the States.

How so?

With the possible exception of Same-Sex marriages, I think every one of DPs examples have been found unconstitutional.

So what was the problem, again?

Well, there's the fact that those issues (with the exception of slavery) are still the issues brought up when someone is arguing "states' rights".

I think "No Child Left Behind" is one of the most contemporary arguments against Federal domination of the States.

With the possible exception of Same-Sex marriages, I think every one of DPs examples have been found unconstitutional.

So what was the problem, again?

I think "No Child Left Behind" is one of the most contemporary arguments against Federal domination of the States.

With the possible exception of Same-Sex marriages, I think every one of DPs examples have been found unconstitutional.

So what was the problem, again?
So you're argument is that, since most of those attempts to strip individuals of rights failed, that somehow invalidates the statement that "states' rights" were invoked in those cases?

Also, btw, those attempts to strip individuals of rights failed because of federal domination of the states, as you yourself acknowledge by noting that they were found unconstitutional.

Decentralization is an inherent good, it is always a matter of granting the individual more authority over himself, it is always a matter of bringing government ever closer to that consent that it requires to possess a hint of justice.

This the premise behind state rights, that localized government is better than distant government.

You are quite right that certain interest groups in America have hijacked the idea of state's rights to fulfill their own interests rather than to follow out this idea of individual sovereignty and consensual government.

It is just another component of the ever frustrating trend of people to completely ignore the distinction between what is legal and what is right. At times in history people have actually made laws with legitimate moral principles in mind. These great moments are inevitably followed up by those who accept the laws without the moral principle behind them.

The real problem is deciding just when two moral principles exist at a cost to each other, and this is one of those issues. It is quite true that localized government and community level decision making is generally the better method in giving people greater authority over their lives and greater input into political processes. But is also true that these processes could put individuals at risk of losing more freedom than they gain.

Dem, you read my mind and converted the hopelessly confusing gibberish into easily understandable words!

So you're argument is that, since most of those attempts to strip individuals of rights failed, that somehow invalidates the statement that "states' rights" were invoked in those cases?

Also, btw, those attempts to strip individuals of rights failed because of federal domination of the states, as you yourself acknowledge by noting that they were found unconstitutional.

Not quite. My argument is that the Constitution works. The Constitution protects individuals. There is no need for further Federal intervention. When something is erroneously claimed to be done in the name of "states rights" there is a workable mechanism to figure out whether or not the action truly is a right of the State.

It's the way things are supposed to work. What's wrong with that?

On the other hand, the mandate to treat all school children as statistics is not a proper function of the Federal government. In fact, it would not be an enforceable action except for the threats of discontinuing Federal funding. This is exactly the kind of situation that the 10th Amendment should prevent.

This the premise behind state rights, that localized government is better than distant government.

In many areas, I agree with this statement. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are rights reserved to the individual that no government, no matter how local, should be able to mess with.

The real problem is deciding just when two moral principles exist at a cost to each other, and this is one of those issues. It is quite true that localized government and community level decision making is generally the better method in giving people greater authority over their lives and greater input into political processes. But is also true that these processes could put individuals at risk of losing more freedom than they gain.

Ah, but it doesn't have to. When the basis of the entire system declares that certain rights are reserved to the individual, there is no reason that putting most of the power at the local level has to put individuals in danger of losing freedom. You keep all levels of government from doing certain things and then, within the confines of those restrictions, you choose the authority given to the various levels of government.

im thinking of things like the speed limit, the drinking age, education policy, certain licensing issues. things that the federal government has decided it must enforce that are much more the arena of the states.

Not quite. My argument is that the Constitution works. The Constitution protects individuals. There is no need for further Federal intervention. When something is erroneously claimed to be done in the name of "states rights" there is a workable mechanism to figure out whether or not the action truly is a right of the State.

It's the way things are supposed to work. What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Unfortunately, it's not what those using the "states' rights" argument advocate. They think that the Constitution should not protect individuals - that it restricts the power of the federal government, but not that of the state governments. Enforcing the Constitution is seen as unfair "federal intervention".

On the other hand, the mandate to treat all school children as statistics is not a proper function of the Federal government. In fact, it would not be an enforceable action except for the threats of discontinuing Federal funding. This is exactly the kind of situation that the 10th Amendment should prevent.

The state governments have chosen to abdicate their power to the federal government by relying on federal funding. This isn't an issue of state authority being infringed upon. Instead, it is an issue of state governments choosing to hand that authority over to the federal government.

If those in a state government do not agree with NCLB, they can and should choose not to take federal funding and fund their state schools out of state funds. The fact that they choose not to do so makes it clear that they have willingly given up the authority to determine their own school policies.

Not quite. My argument is that the Constitution works. The Constitution protects individuals. There is no need for further Federal intervention. When something is erroneously claimed to be done in the name of "states rights" there is a workable mechanism to figure out whether or not the action truly is a right of the State.

It's the way things are supposed to work. What's wrong with that?

On the other hand, the mandate to treat all school children as statistics is not a proper function of the Federal government. In fact, it would not be an enforceable action except for the threats of discontinuing Federal funding. This is exactly the kind of situation that the 10th Amendment should prevent.
The Constitution is not an automated system. It only worked in those instances because the federal government directly intervened to enforce it. Also, the Constitution is federal law.

I believe that the greatest (or perhaps, broadest) power should always be in the hands of the people, but there is a clear benefit to the balance-through-opposition of powers at federal and state levels. There will always be instances in which either one attempts to overstep their limits, and in those cases, the other can be used to restore the balance.

But I repeat, all of this is irrelevant. I would like to see you address the fact that people who wish to use laws to restrict or remove the rights of other people often invoke "states' rights" in their attempts to do that. In this case, I would say they are invoking a mythical notion of what states' rights are, btw.

The Constitution is not an automated system. It only worked in those instances because the federal government directly intervened to enforce it. Also, the Constitution is federal law.

I disagree with the idea that the Constitution is "federal law". The US Constitution is the basis of our entire governmental system - including the federal and state governments. It is the supreme law in this country - over both federal and state laws.

But I repeat, all of this is irrelevant. I would like to see you address the fact that people who wish to use laws to restrict or remove the rights of other people often invoke "states' rights" in their attempts to do that. In this case, I would say they are invoking a mythical notion of what states' rights are, btw.

Indeed. Not to mention my problem with the term itself - implying that a government even has "rights". Authority, yes, but not "rights".

they already have that power under the present systemOnly up to a point.

In other words, you claim that the government left it up to the states to decide whether or not to treat everyone equally under the law, despite the fact that the very basis of our entire governmental system - the US Constitution - mandates that they do so. Yes. As soon as the Fed said "we leave it to you [State]". they cannot take that power back unless 1) the people vote to put it back into Federal power. (the States says "nope, we will abide by what you say.") or 2) the state temporarily gives them the power. (usually in cases of emergencies.)

as for individual rights and freedoms. Look at each states Marriage laws. each one is different from state to state. what is required, what is allowed and even how it ends (divorce).
same with how they deal with their own criminals and criminals from other states.

Basically, Individual problems like abortion, Sex, Marriage, etc is a state matter. Larger problems that involve a large group like race, Religion, or anything that affects multipule states is a federal problem.

So anyone using state rights against things like Slavery is wrong. but for same sex marriage? they are within their bounds to use "state law" as long as the Feds say "it's a state problem".

Wow. You didn't read any of my post beyond the term "states' rights", did you? This has nothing at all to do with anything I posted. sorry, I used that [poor] example because of Hurricane Katrina decible. While FEMA did fuck up. alot of people then wondered why the military wasn't sent in immediately. there was a navy ship nearby that 1) could've helped with the evacuation 2) sent in supplies at the first possible moment 3) coordinated rescue and recovery.
Alot of people asked why didn't they. the problem? that navy ship was a federal entity. for all the arguments that G W Bush be tried as a criminal, had he authorized the navy ship to lend aid before control was turned over from the state to the fed, then he would be guilty of overstepping his power.

I disagree with the idea that the Constitution is "federal law". The US Constitution is the basis of our entire governmental system - including the federal and state governments. It is the supreme law in this country - over both federal and state laws.
Well, I will defer to Cat-Tribe or another attorney on this, but as far as I understand it, enforcement of Constitutional provisions against lower levels of government falls under federal jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but that's the way I think it works.


Indeed. Not to mention my problem with the term itself - implying that a government even has "rights". Authority, yes, but not "rights".

Agreed.

As soon as the Fed said "we leave it to you [State]". they cannot take that power back unless 1) the people vote to put it back into Federal power. (the States says "nope, we will abide by what you say.") or 2) the state temporarily gives them the power. (usually in cases of emergencies.)

But, once again, we aren't talking about federal vs. state power. We're talking about state vs. individual power.

So anyone using state rights against things like Slavery is wrong. but for same sex marriage? they are within their bounds to use "state law" as long as the Feds say "it's a state problem".

The federal government cannot decide that equal protection under the law is a "state problem" without amending the Constitution to do so. The Constitution clearly states that equal protection is guaranteed to all individuals, and that the states cannot infringe upon it.

As long as the states discriminate in marriage law based on sex or sexuality, they are not providing equal protection under the law. As such, this is clearly a case of state authority vs. individual rights - where the states are trying to claim the authority to infringe upon individual rights protected in the US Constitution.

Well, I will defer to Cat-Tribe or another attorney on this, but as far as I understand it, enforcement of Constitutional provisions against lower levels of government falls under federal jurisdiction. I may be wrong, but that's the way I think it works.

The federal judicial system is the final stop in interpreting the Constitution. However, the Constitution itself is not strictly "federal law." I trumps all other law, whether state or federal.

At least, that's the way I understand it.

Nothing. Unfortunately, it's not what those using the "states' rights" argument advocate. They think that the Constitution should not protect individuals - that it restricts the power of the federal government, but not that of the state governments. Enforcing the Constitution is seen as unfair "federal intervention".

I think you're talking about a fringe that doesn't understand what the Tenth Amendment means. I'm not sure they make a significant enough number to be taken seriously. It hasn't made any particular difference in any elections that I'm aware of.


The state governments have chosen to abdicate their power to the federal government by relying on federal funding. This isn't an issue of state authority being infringed upon. Instead, it is an issue of state governments choosing to hand that authority over to the federal government.

If those in a state government do not agree with NCLB, they can and should choose not to take federal funding and fund their state schools out of state funds. The fact that they choose not to do so makes it clear that they have willingly given up the authority to determine their own school policies.
Okay. NCLB is coercion, but an avoidable kind. You know, in the Federalist Papers, Madison argued that the only way a Federal government could enforce the sorts of mandates we see today was to have formed its own military and beaten the States into submission. Civil War? Maybe, but Federal Funding was certainly the last nail in real independence for States.

But let's look at something slightly different. The Federal government wants to dump nuclear waste in a corner of Nevada. The State doesn't want to become known for glow in the dark deserts. What's the right answer? If the States are powerless to refuse a Federal mandate, then the Governor and the people get nuked.

What's the right answer, Ms Federal Knows Best?

I think you're talking about a fringe that doesn't understand what the Tenth Amendment means. I'm not sure they make a significant enough number to be taken seriously.

Not at all. I'm talking about the only issues in which I've ever heard the term "states' rights" invoked.

It hasn't made any particular difference in any elections that I'm aware of.

You didn't watch the Republican debate last night, did you? This type of "states' rights" issue is a major part of the Republican platform - and a very large part of what they focus on.

But let's look at something slightly different. The Federal government wants to dump nuclear waste in a corner of Nevada. The State doesn't want to become known for glow in the dark deserts. What's the right answer? If the States are powerless to refuse a Federal mandate, then the Governor and the people get nuked.

Edit: On second thought, I'll simply say that I'm not educated enough on this issue to express an educated opinion. However, this actually is the type of issue in which state authority vs. federal authority might come into play. It's a shame that people arguing "states' rights" don't bring up these sorts of issues, and instead focus on issues of individual rights.

What's the right answer, Ms Federal Knows Best?

And, once again, someone makes it obvious that they don't actually read what I write. My argument isn't that the federal government knows best. It is actually quite to the contrary. It is that, on many matters, the INDIVIDUAL knows best and the government - at all levels - needs to stay the hell out of it and stop arguing that they should have the authority to do otherwise.

The Constitution is not an automated system. It only worked in those instances because the federal government directly intervened to enforce it. Also, the Constitution is federal law.

The Constitution worked because some individual brought a suit against the Government. The Federal government doesn't get to decide when and where a Constitutional protection is applied.

Are you American, by the way? You just seem unfamiliar with the ideas that we're talking about.


I believe that the greatest (or perhaps, broadest) power should always be in the hands of the people, but there is a clear benefit to the balance-through-opposition of powers at federal and state levels. There will always be instances in which either one attempts to overstep their limits, and in those cases, the other can be used to restore the balance.

But I repeat, all of this is irrelevant. I would like to see you address the fact that people who wish to use laws to restrict or remove the rights of other people often invoke "states' rights" in their attempts to do that. In this case, I would say they are invoking a mythical notion of what states' rights are, btw.
That's the neat thing about our government. Weirdos that want to say that they are in favor of States Rights can do so with very little effect on the rest of us. When they actually do have that power, it turns out that sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. Either way, those that think they've been harmed have an avenue for redressing the wrong.

The whole thing works and it would be a shame to change it.

In many areas, I agree with this statement. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are rights reserved to the individual that no government, no matter how local, should be able to mess with.

Completely agreed.

Ah, but it doesn't have to. When the basis of the entire system declares that certain rights are reserved to the individual, there is no reason that putting most of the power at the local level has to put individuals in danger of losing freedom. You keep all levels of government from doing certain things and then, within the confines of those restrictions, you choose the authority given to the various levels of government.

The trouble occurs when you consider the disparities in moral opinions and legal interpretations, and that no individual government power exists in a vacuum.

there is a distinct line seperating what the Federal Government can mandate the states to follow.

Yes, the Government left it up to the States to decide Same Sex Marriage and what not. and that includes things like Capital Punishment as well.

Would you want the Federal Government able to dictate laws to each state? able to send in the troops when they (feds) feel like the states have lost control?

You mean like they did at Little Rock, Ark. over segregated schools?

*snip for length*

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?
Perfectly put. I completely agree.

Would you want the Federal Government able to dictate laws to each state?

Fuck yes. It's called the Constitution, and every state should be held to it.

If a state tries to pass or enforce unConstitutional laws, I want the Feds to put a stop to it.

able to send in the troops when they (feds) feel like the states have lost control?
Frankly...

You mean like they did at Little Rock, Ark. over segregated schools?
Yes. Yes I do.

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?

I think that is true, but I don't think states' rights needs to be that. There are plenty of advantages to a semi-autonomous government in a state: it's more likely to represent the people of that state, it's smaller and faster, and having a separate government allows more experimentation, i.e., Massachusetts health care.
And despite being a unified country, the United States is still very regionally diverse. If a state wishes to pass a law that is not unconstitutional and doesn't break federal law, it has every right to do so. The federal government stepped in with Little Rock because of the ruling that segregation was unconstitutional, not because segregation was a bad idea.

The Constitution worked because some individual brought a suit against the Government. The Federal government doesn't get to decide when and where a Constitutional protection is applied.

Since when did the Supreme Court, the ultimate decider when and where Constitutional protection is applied, stop being part of the Federal government?

But, once again, we aren't talking about federal vs. state power. We're talking about state vs. individual power. I am talking about Federal vs state power in reguard to individual rights. Some can say the States act as a buffer zone between federal and individual. Federal Government sets the general overall guidelines. the states move within that guideline yet it's the states that directly affect the people.

If the Federal Government decides to leave some decisions to the State (same sex marriage) then they are letting the states decide.

The federal government cannot decide that equal protection under the law is a "state problem" without amending the Constitution to do so. The Constitution clearly states that equal protection is guaranteed to all individuals, and that the states cannot infringe upon it. agreed.

As long as the states discriminate in marriage law based on sex or sexuality, they are not providing equal protection under the law. As such, this is clearly a case of state authority vs. individual rights - where the states are trying to claim the authority to infringe upon individual rights protected in the US Constitution.
While I can see your point (and I do) also realize all the other times the Federal Government tried to force states to do something that was Constitutionally legal but undesireable.

Remember, While the Constitution is a huge pillar that this government is built on. however another pillar that this goverment is built on is it's People.

and when the two clash (sometimes violently), who ultimately gets hurt.

Also realize, the same can be said for the second amendment. it's up to the States on gun ownership and any limitations imposed and 'Arms' is not only limited to firearms.

Perhaps the Fed stepping back to let the states decide is actually better because it's far easier and less violent to change laws on the state level than the federal. As long as the Federal Government is willing to let the states decide, the fight for same sex marriage will be easier on those fighting for it.

You mean like they did at Little Rock, Ark. over segregated schools?

and you know the results right? how many died and were hurt? and we still have segregated events and racism.

can you imagine Little Rock, Ark if it were to happen today?

Every now and then on a given issue, the argument of “states’ rights” comes up. The recent Republican debate has apparently gotten some people all up in arms over a question about punishment for abortion that they deem “unfair” because the president won’t get to determine that anyways if he thinks it’s a “states’ rights” issue. I’m not going to really go into how stupid that position is, given that the president doesn’t have the power to directly determine the vast majority of the issues covered in debates and they still answer with what they would like to try and get legislators to do, but I am going to talk about the “states’ rights” argument itself.

First of all, let me say that I think it is a misnomer. I don’t believe that the state governments (or any governmental bodies) have “rights”. Human beings have rights. Governments have authority which, if it is a legitimate government authority, allows them to protect those human beings and their rights.

That said, let’s get into what the argument really is. If it were a matter of transferring a particular authority from the federal government to the state governments, it could very well have merit. It would depend, of course, on what the given authority is. Unfortunately, this is not the case. These arguments are invariably about individual authority vs. state authority. The person making the argument wants to take a certain authority from individual human beings and place it, instead, in the hands of the state governments. Either that, or they are arguing that the state should hold onto such authority when it might be transferred to the hands of the individual.

Where has the “states’ rights” argument been used?
- Slavery (state authority vs. an individual’s right to liberty and self-ownership)
- Jim Crow laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Segregation (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Anti-miscegenation laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Birth control (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy and to make medical decisions)
- Abortion (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and to make medical decisions)
- Sex (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy)
- Same-sex marriage (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Etc.

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?


I agree with you, individuals have rights, states do not.

I think that is true, but I don't think states' rights needs to be that.

I don't either. Unfortunately though, that is the way the term is used. As I said, a discussion of federal authority vs. state authority can come up in a lot of subjects. However, the subjects in which "states' rights" are invoked are a matter of the state authority vs. individual rights instead.

I am talking about Federal vs state power in reguard to individual rights.

Neither the federal nor the state government can have power over individual rights. Otherwise, they aren't individual rights at all.

Some can say the States act as a buffer zone between federal and individual. Federal Government sets the general overall guidelines. the states move within that guideline yet it's the states that directly affect the people.

And it is the states who are in the position to directly infringe upon the rights of the people. Hence the reason that the Constitution protects from such action.

If the Federal Government decides to leave some decisions to the State (same sex marriage) then they are letting the states decide.

Once again, the federal government doesn't have that power. Equal protection under the law is mandated by the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor the state governments have the power to decide it doesn't count without amending the Constitution itself.

agreed.

Remember, While the Constitution is a huge pillar that this government is built on. however another pillar that this goverment is built on is it's People.

Yes, all of its people. Hence the reason for protections of individual rights against a majority that may seek to infringe upon them.

Neither the federal nor the state government can have power over individual rights. Otherwise, they aren't individual rights at all. yet you just said that the Constitution insures a total and equal blanket of protection for everyone. that Narrows individual rights and actions by making discrimination illegal.

add to that the fact that the Federal Government allows Affirmative Action means that the protection isn't as even or equal (not speaking against it. but saying that one cannot waive the Constitution like a magic wand and expect equality to occure.)

And it is the states who are in the position to directly infringe upon the rights of the people. Hence the reason that the Constitution protects from such action. and that is one of the many checks and balances set in place. at the same time, the Federal Government cannot just waltz in and take control from the State.

Once again, the federal government doesn't have that power. Equal protection under the law is mandated by the Constitution. Neither the federal government nor the state governments have the power to decide it doesn't count without amending the Constitution itself. so whats the option? Setting the military on each state that doesn't allow same sex marriages?

that worked soo well in Little Rock.

Yes, all of its people. Hence the reason for protections of individual rights against a majority that may seek to infringe upon them.and thats what the seperation of Federal and State control is. Protection.

By letting the States decide. it breaks the battle down to smaller, easily winnable skirmishes. and don't forget, each State has their own Supreme Court and the appeal process can move all the way up to SCotUS.

also even if a State bans Same Sex Marriage, it's still far easier to change that on a state level than a Federal Level.

and that is one of the many checks and balances set in place. at the same time, the Federal Government cannot just waltz in and take control from the State.

Nope. Luckily, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking people arguing for the states to be able to take control from the individual.

so whats the option? Setting the military on each state that doesn't allow same sex marriages?

Making it clear that equal protection means equal protection.

By letting the States decide. it breaks the battle down to smaller, easily winnable skirmishes.

...and removes rights from the people themselves by giving the states authority to do so.

and don't forget, each State has their own Supreme Court and the appeal process can move all the way up to SCotUS.

According to the states' rights argument, a SCOTUS decision in favor of individual rights over state authority is "judicial activism" and is the federal government infringing upon the authority of the state. Hence my problem with the argument.

The Constitution worked because some individual brought a suit against the Government. The Federal government doesn't get to decide when and where a Constitutional protection is applied.
Oh, really? So, the federal government had nothing to do with enforcing the court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Hm, I wonder then, who was it that called out the National Guard to forcibly segregate the schools? Was it the pirvate individual who was the plaintiff in that suit? Oh, no, that's right, it was the president.

Are you American, by the way? You just seem unfamiliar with the ideas that we're talking about.
Yes, I am an American. Born and raised. And, for the record, telling you that you are wrong is not proof that I'm not familiar with these ideas. Rather, it may be taken as evidence that I am familiar with your ideas.

That's the neat thing about our government. Weirdos that want to say that they are in favor of States Rights can do so with very little effect on the rest of us. When they actually do have that power, it turns out that sometimes they're right and sometimes they're wrong. Either way, those that think they've been harmed have an avenue for redressing the wrong.

The whole thing works and it would be a shame to change it.
So, then, you would not be in favor of extending state authority beyond what it is now. Good. That's a beginning.

First of all, let me say that I think it is a misnomer. I don’t believe that the state governments (or any governmental bodies) have “rights”. Human beings have rights. Governments have authority which, if it is a legitimate government authority, allows them to protect those human beings and their rights.

I prefer to say that governments of all levels have powers and responsibilities. The different levels have different powers and responsibilities, not really rights. State's rights is an expression that, like a lot of English expressions, doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense by itself, but gets the idea across.

That said, let’s get into what the argument really is. If it were a matter of transferring a particular authority from the federal government to the state governments, it could very well have merit. It would depend, of course, on what the given authority is. Unfortunately, this is not the case. These arguments are invariably about individual authority vs. state authority. The person making the argument wants to take a certain authority from individual human beings and place it, instead, in the hands of the state governments. Either that, or they are arguing that the state should hold onto such authority when it might be transferred to the hands of the individual.

Where has the “states’ rights” argument been used?
- Slavery (state authority vs. an individual’s right to liberty and self-ownership)
- Jim Crow laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Segregation (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Anti-miscegenation laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Birth control (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy and to make medical decisions)
- Abortion (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and to make medical decisions)
- Sex (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy)
- Same-sex marriage (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Etc.

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?

You're painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, there are plenty of people who use state's rights as an excuse to keep the Federal Government from intervening in cases of Constitutional violations. Yes, they annoy me.

But there are also people who take state's rights, however much of an idiomatic misnomer it may be, far more seriously than that.

For example, I'm of the opinion that marriage laws are something for the states to implement. This is hardly a convenient view for me. I know damn well that there are plenty of states with sufficiently homophobic populations that they will continue to outlaw gay marriage. I don't like that fact. But I'm of the opinion that marriage laws are a matter for states to handle, so I'm not going to try to bring in the federal government on it to enforce my views on all the states.

I'll still advocate within my state that gay folks be given equal protection under the law, but until there's a ruling from a court with the appropriate authority that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment in the case of gay marriage (I hope that happens soon), I don't think it's the federal government's place to say what states do with their marriage laws.

Nope. Luckily, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking people arguing for the states to be able to take control from the individual.taking control from the Individual is not the same as taking rights. the only way for the government to take control away from the Individual is to limit which citizens of the USA can vote.

Leaving things like Same Sex Marriage up to the states is not taking away control, but actually giving more control to the individual.

Making it clear that equal protection means equal protection. yet enforcing one set of values over another isn't equal protection.

...and removes rights from the people themselves by giving the states authority to do so. Actually no it doesn't. let's take another right. the right to bear arms. which do you think would be easier to have. a NATIONAL Referandum to ban all guns or a State to ban guns. and which would be easier to change? a State consititution or THE Constitution?

According to the states' rights argument, a SCOTUS decision in favor of individual rights over state authority is "judicial activism" and is the federal government infringing upon the authority of the state. Hence my problem with the argument.hm... wasn't there cases that went beyond the state's supreme Court and actually reached SCotUS? I thought there were some in the past.

hmm.. using Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)because it's getting late here...
In Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, the Court ruled that it had the power to correct interpretations of the federal Constitution made by state supreme courts.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. granted it's rather specified but it does have some state involvement.

The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals "by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case".[12] The Court may only review "final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had" if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.[13] I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like an appeal in a civil or ciminal case can be reviewed by SCotUS.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush. Yes, there are plenty of people who use state's rights as an excuse to keep the Federal Government from intervening in cases of Constitutional violations. Yes, they annoy me.

For example, I'm of the opinion that marriage laws are something for the states to implement. This is hardly a convenient view for me. I know damn well that there are plenty of states with sufficiently homophobic populations that they will continue to outlaw gay marriage. I don't like that fact. But I'm of the opinion that marriage laws are a matter for states to handle, so I'm not going to try to bring in the federal government on it to enforce my views on all the states.

These two statements are incompatible. If people using "states' rights" to keep out intervention in cases of Constitutional violations is a bad thing, you cannot then turn around and argue that states should be able to violate the 14th Amendment by failing to provide equal protection under the law to all citizens.

I'll still advocate within my state that gay folks be given equal protection under the law, but until there's a ruling from a court with the appropriate authority that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment in the case of gay marriage (I hope that happens soon), I don't think it's the federal government's place to say what states do with their marriage laws.

Now you really are being inconsistent. If it's a "states' rights" issue, it isn't unconstitutional. Now you're saying it should be declared as such - which would mean that its not a valid "states' rights issue."


taking control from the Individual is not the same as taking rights.

It is when the control being taken is control over one's own body, control over privacy, etc.

the only way for the government to take control away from the Individual is to limit which citizens of the USA can vote.

What a patently ridiculous statement. If my state passed a law tomorrow saying that gay people would be arrested for having sex, you don't think that would be taking control away from them?

If the government is infringing upon the rights of the people, it is taking control away from them. The right to vote is one right, not the sum total of the rights reserved to the individual.

Leaving things like Same Sex Marriage up to the states is not taking away control, but actually giving more control to the individual.

Hardly. It takes control from the individual - who should be able to determine their own life partner - and gives it to the states to decide that their choices are inappropriate. It takes the guarantee of equal protection away from homosexuals and gives the states the right to infringe upon that equal protection.

How does "the state can tell you how to live your life" give more control to the individual?

Every singe example I listed is a matter of trying to take control over a person's life away from them and give it to the states instead.


yet enforcing one set of values over another isn't equal protection.

Luckily, no one advocating same-sex marriage is trying to force any person to marry another. No one advocating the right to bodily integrity is trying to force anyone to have an abortion. No one advocating the right to privacy is trying to force anyone to have a certain kind of sex or to employ any method of birth control The only people trying to enforce one set of values over another are those trying to enforce a ban on these things.

hm... wasn't there cases that went beyond the state's supreme Court and actually reached SCotUS? I thought there were some in the past.

Of course there are. I'm talking about the "states' rights" argument - not my own viewpoint. It is those who use the "states' rights" argument who claim that SCOTUS should not be able to do so on issues of individual rights.

I may be reading this wrong, but it sounds like an appeal in a civil or ciminal case can be reviewed by SCotUS.

Of course it can. And that fact is what people use the "states' rights" argument to try and counteract - by saying that SCOTUS actually doing so is the federal government taking state power and is "judicial activism".

I do not think any central political authority should be able to regulate the activities of the authorities beneath it. While the activities of the lower authority may be despicable, that authority by its nature is necessarily limited in its scope. When the higher authority exercises authority over the lower authorities it necessarily accumulates more power, and when it perverts that greater power (not if; self-interest entails that functional privileges will always be abused) it is far harder to escape from that twisted authority than it is the lower authority it temporarily stopped.

Of course, that being said, I would continue this policy of non-intervention to the lower authority, because if a group of people want to secede the authority to which they formerly belonged should have no power to stop them. Emigration and the loss of wealth, both in human and material terms, would decrease the incentives for oppression, but easy secession would stop it outright. People should be able to deal with individuals of a government just the same as any other individual, and have the same power to deal with them as they want, including to disassociate.

These two statements are incompatible. If people using "states' rights" to keep out intervention in cases of Constitutional violations is a bad thing, you cannot then turn around and argue that states should be able to violate the 14th Amendment by failing to provide equal protection under the law to all citizens.

Now you really are being inconsistent. If it's a "states' rights" issue, it isn't unconstitutional. Now you're saying it should be declared as such - which would mean that its not a valid "states' rights issue."

Hardly. Let me try again.

Currently, the states that deny homosexuals equal protection aren't in violation of the Constitution, at least under the majority of precedent that I'm aware for interpreting the Constitution on the matter of gay marriages. So it's still a state matter at this time, and I will treat it as such.

I also happen to disagree with that precedent, and think that the 14th Amendment should be used to reverse the precedent and interpret the Constitution such that equal protection needs to be applied to homosexuals. If that were to happen, it would become a Constitutional matter, and not a state matter. And I would treat it as such.

Basically, it's a state matter now, so I'll treat it as a state matter. I hope it becomes a Constitutional matter, and then I'll treat it as a Constitutional matter.

Is that clear enough, or am I explaining it poorly?

I think a system where regional governments allow their citizens to live a life that adapts to their geography and culture is inherently a good thing. The role of the federal government in terms of enforcing police powers should be to promote the fundamental rights of all citizens. The state should have the right to exercise their police powers in terms of adaptive issues. I don't want Federal Marshall's patrolling the streets and enforcing speed limits.

The debate over state's rights is about where the line between the general welfare and state interests should be drawn. The problem with the US Constitution is that it is not very clear where the line is. You cite negative examples of states rights cases, so I'll throw in some (both hypothetical and real) that could be positive:
Civil unions
Gay marriage
Medical marijuana
Minimum wage
The abolition of slavery
Agricultural inspections
Forest land
No Sales Tax
Abortion

You can't run a place as big as the US the same.

Draws my attention to a few glaring oversights that have been made about the Constitution, federalism, and constitutional law, so here is my best explanation:

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it preempts any other law made in the United States. This is why elected officials take an oath to the Constitution. The Constitution provides for a judiciary that has original (in diplomatic cases like the one I'll mention in a second) and apellete jurisdiction. Congress can determine the scope of the apellete jurisdiction, and they did that with the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789.

However, in Marburry v. Madison John Marshall found that part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional, asserting the power for the Court to be the final arbiter of the Constitution. This was the claim essentially upheld in Martin v. Hunter's Leese

Now, I'm leaving a few big chunks out to flash forward to the debate around federalism.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate only a few things, among these being commerce. States were given police powers to enforce laws that worked in their part of the country. This was problematic for a number of reasons (usually labor practices) throughout US history and sparked a lot of notable court battles, especially during the New Deal.

The debate over states rights in America happens because we designed a system with a limited federal government so more people would be brought to the table, but it doesn't come close to solving every problem. And there is no way a federal statute could be general enough to enforce with Constitutional authority (read the opinion in Lopez)

In my view, our Constitution might need to be amended severely to allow the federal government more power to fix shit, but because it doesn't and because we have a Court full of self-serving idiots, we need the issue of States Rights so we don't all have to sink with the South.

Currently, the states that deny homosexuals equal protection aren't in violation of the Constitution, at least under the majority of precedent that I'm aware for interpreting the Constitution on the matter of gay marriages. So it's still a state matter at this time, and I will treat it as such.

There's no such precedent. The courts have avoided the question.

However, the courts have stated that marriage is a right reserved to the people and have upheld the 14th Amendment in the past. They have made it clear that, yes, the 14th Amendment does apply to homosexuals (since bigots need it spelled out to them over and over again). I see no reason to believe that a reasonable court would not continue to uphold that precedent.

Is that clear enough, or am I explaining it poorly?

You're still explaining it poorly. Your basic premise is that individual rights are granted to you by the government, instead of being intrinsically protected by the Constitution. As such, you are declaring that you have no rights until the court decides you do. I would say that you have those rights regardless of the court, but that you need the Constitution to protect them, and thus the court to properly interpret the Constitution.


The problem with the US Constitution is that it is not very clear where the line is. You cite negative examples of states rights cases, so I'll throw in some (both hypothetical and real) that could be positive:

Alright...

Civil unions
Gay marriage
Medical marijuana
The abolition of slavery
Abortion

All of these have the same problem I already mentioned. They are examples where people try to give the states powers over the individual. It isn't a discussion of state vs. federal power. Instead, it is the states (or, in the case of medical marijuana, both levels of government) trying to take control away from the individual.

In fact, since you apparently failed to read it, most of this is mentioned in the OP.

Minimum wage
No Sales Tax

These things are not under dispute as being things that states can and do regulate.

Agricultural inspections
Forest land

Not sure what you're getting at here.

You can't run a place as big as the US the same.

No, and I haven't claimed that you can or should. I just pointed out that those who use the "states' rights" argument are mischaracterizing it. They try to portray it as a conflict between federal and state authority when it it, in fact, a conflict between state authority and individual rights.

There's no such precedent. The courts have avoided the question.

Which courts? Federal or state courts?

State courts, I've noticed, haven't been so reluctant to address the matter.

On July 6, 2006, the New York Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-2 decision that the New York state government is not required to allow same-sex marriage, affirming the constitutionality of a state law limiting marriage to a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said any change in the law should come from the New York Legislature. The majority opinion found that the Legislature has a compelling state interest to protect children and that while "marriage" is a fundamental right, "same-sex marriage" is not since there is no historical context for it.

However, the courts have stated that marriage is a right reserved to the people and have upheld the 14th Amendment in the past. They have made it clear that, yes, the 14th Amendment does apply to homosexuals (since bigots need it spelled out to them over and over again). I see no reason to believe that a reasonable court would not continue to uphold that precedent.

It would be nice, wouldn't it?

You're still explaining it poorly. Your basic premise is that individual rights are granted to you by the government, instead of being intrinsically protected by the Constitution. As such, you are declaring that you have no rights until the court decides you do. I would say that you have those rights regardless of the court, but that you need the Constitution to protect them, and thus the court to properly interpret the Constitution.

That's probably because I don't think rights are intrinsic to anyone. There are certain freedoms that we should all have, but it takes a political authority/community to define and enforce those freedoms, giving them the status of rights. So until the relevant political authority/community defines and enforces those freedoms, I'm of the opinion that you don't have them as rights.

That's probably because I don't think rights are intrinsic to anyone. There are certain freedoms that we should all have, but it takes a political authority/community to define and enforce those freedoms, giving them the status of rights. So until the relevant political authority/community defines and enforces those freedoms, I'm of the opinion that you don't have them as rights.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement here.

(By the way, I apologize if that last post sounded overly bitchy. I'm not feeling well today.)

Your knowledge of history is terrible, my friend.

First off, on the issues of minimum wage and worker's rights was a STATE debate first. Think of the classic supreme court case Lochner v. New York where a New York minimum hours law was repelled on the ground of lassiez-faire economic. However, West Coast Hotels v. Parrish was decided, giving states the right to pass minimum wage and maximum hours laws. This is called the switch in time that saved nine.
Also, states have the right to tax its citizens, which is why we don't have a sales tax in Oregon.

You miss the point of the state's rights debate when you characterize it as state authority v. individual rights because you ignore the history of the debate and the actual core. I'm too busy to walk you through the nuances in dual and cooperative federalism and the relevant case law surrounding them, but suffice to say I don't think you know what you are talking about.

This is the core of the debate: Weak federal government that has attempted to grow by using the commerce clause as a means for legislation. When that legislation tramples on the right of a state to exercise their police powers it becomes a court battle. The actual debate over states rights is letting a more localized governmental entity exercise power in relation to issues that affect the state. States rights is about much more than personal liberty: they involve economic substantive due process, environmental protection (state preserved forests), manufacturing, agricultural control (think Hunt v. State of Washington), political legitimacy, etc...

ALSO, you don't have rights until the Court says you do.The 14th Amendment did not make every provision of the Constitution apply overnight, the argument has to be made in Court.

Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and understand a few cases:
Marburry v. Madison
Martin v. Hunter's Leese
Wickard v. Fillburn
NLRB v. Jones Steel
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Schechter Poultry v. US
US v. Lopez
Lochner v. New York
Muller v. Oregon
New York v. US (1992)

You miss the point of the state's rights debate when you characterize it as state authority v. individual rights because you ignore the history of the debate and the actual core.

No, I don't. Throughout history, when people started clamoring about "states' rights", they have been talking about state authority vs. individual rights.

That isn't to say that there have never been debates about state authority vs. federal authority. Those just aren't the debates that the people who use the term have been involved in.

NO THEY AREN'T

Read Muller v. Oregon, Pacific Gas v. Board of Resources and National League of Cities v. Usery HELL READ THE 10th AMENDMENT

The people who characterize the debate your way DO NOT UNDERSTAND that debate over states rights. Your argument reveals the fact you have no grasp of constitutional law

Then we have a fundamental disagreement here.

Yep. I figured that's what it would come down to when you thought my post was espousing an inconsistent view. Usually when that happens, I'm making a distinction that someone else isn't, or they're making a distinction I'm not. It's generally not that either of us is completely wrong.

C'est la vie, non?

(By the way, I apologize if that last post sounded overly bitchy. I'm not feeling well today.)

You didn't sound bitchy in the slightest. I hope you feel better soon. :)

States do not have rights. They have duties and responsibilities.

To speak of states "having rights" is fascist to the core. The whole terminology of the "State's Rights" debate is fatally flawed. At any rate, proponents of "State's Rights" have used it to defend a laundry list of the worst crimes imaginable.

States do not have rights. They have duties and responsibilities.

To speak of states "having rights" is fascist to the core. The whole terminology of the "State's Rights" debate is fatally flawed. At any rate, proponents of "State's Rights" have used it to defend a laundry list of the worst crimes imaginable.

Sure, States Rights have been used to justify a lot of bad things. It's because the Constitution does not allow Congress to legislate a lot of things. States rights have also been used to justify a lot of things I think are good.

Look, I'd rather live under laws executed by an Oregonian then laws executed by any Bush, Regan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, etc...

Also, if they have duties, they also have rights to fill those duties. Duties always entail rights to an end.

Originally Posted by Kecibukia
You mean like they did at Little Rock, Ark. over segregated schools?
and you know the results right? how many died and were hurt? and we still have segregated events and racism.

can you imagine Little Rock, Ark if it were to happen today?
You do know that hundreds of people were murdered and thousands injured under the system of racial segregation and inequality that existed in the Southern states for years before the federal government stepped in to enforce the court's anti-segregation decision, don't you?

Your implication that it was the direct action of the federal government to enforce Constitutional mandates upon the state of Arkansas that led to violence or in any way made the situation there worse is not only ignorant, it is mildly offensive. It might also stand as a supporting example to the OP's assertions, if you meant to suggest that it would have been better to allow Arkansas and the other segregationist states to continue their discriminatory practices.

Your knowledge of history is terrible, my friend.

First off, on the issues of minimum wage and worker's rights was a STATE debate first. Think of the classic supreme court case Lochner v. New York where a New York minimum hours law was repelled on the ground of lassiez-faire economic. However, West Coast Hotels v. Parrish was decided, giving states the right to pass minimum wage and maximum hours laws. This is called the switch in time that saved nine.
Also, states have the right to tax its citizens, which is why we don't have a sales tax in Oregon.
Um, actually, the origin of all those cases was in disputes and legal actions among individuals. Minimum wage and worker's rights matters always begin with demands and actions from workers against employers, all of whom are individuals, not government entities. Also they affect individuals, not government entities, and the rights of individuals, not the authority of government entities. In your example, it is the right to earn a living, among other related things.

So regardless of which government entity has what degree of authority over this or that, worker's rights are rights belonging to workers, not to the state. And government action in regard to that is a matter of government authority balanced against individual liberty/rights (of both workers and employers). Not a matter of one government entity balanced against another government entity.

Likewise, state regulated matters such as listed by the OP are also matters of individual rights balanced by or against state authority. The only dispute in "states' rights" arguments is which government entity should the individual rights be balanced by/against. In all cases, "states' rights" proponents choose the entity they think will give them the result they want, i.e. to restrict the rights of individuals.

Oh, by the way, the federal government has the power to tax citizens, too, so I don't really see what your mention of taxation powers has to do with this.

You miss the point of the state's rights debate when you characterize it as state authority v. individual rights because you ignore the history of the debate and the actual core. I'm too busy to walk you through the nuances in dual and cooperative federalism and the relevant case law surrounding them, but suffice to say I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Take your time. This thread won't go anywhere, and I would be interested to read your arguments, considering that, like Dempublicents1, I disagree with you.

This is the core of the debate: Weak federal government that has attempted to grow by using the commerce clause as a means for legislation. When that legislation tramples on the right of a state to exercise their police powers it becomes a court battle. The actual debate over states rights is letting a more localized governmental entity exercise power in relation to issues that affect the state. States rights is about much more than personal liberty: they involve economic substantive due process, environmental protection (state preserved forests), manufacturing, agricultural control (think Hunt v. State of Washington), political legitimacy, etc...
I personally think that "states' rights" (to use that highly problematical phrase) should begin and end with the things you list as "about much more than personal liberty." It is my view that "personal liberty" is personal, and thus of little concern to the state because it has little impact on the state. Therefore it should not fall among the primary responsibilities of the state, except in those rare and narrow instances where my private life directly affects something the state should be in charge of.

ALSO, you don't have rights until the Court says you do.The 14th Amendment did not make every provision of the Constitution apply overnight, the argument has to be made in Court.

Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and understand a few cases:
Marburry v. Madison
Martin v. Hunter's Leese
Wickard v. Fillburn
NLRB v. Jones Steel
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Schechter Poultry v. US
US v. Lopez
Lochner v. New York
Muller v. Oregon
New York v. US (1992)
Then please account for the 9th Amendment which states unequivocally that rights exist which are not enumerated but which are retained by the people. How can such a concept exist if no right exists until a court says so? How can I be retaining something that does not exist yet? Clearly, your thinking is at odds somewhere with the thinking of the framers.

While it is true, in my opinion, that in practical terms we only have the rights we can defend, that does not mean we have to wait on the pleasure and permission of a governmental power to grant us those rights. It only means that we risk losing what is ours by birth, if we don't take care.

Also, if you believe that no right exists unless a court says so, and if you believe that states have rights, then on what grounds can states claim rights that have not already been granted to them by specific court rulings, such as the claimed right to deny equal protection under the law to gays, on which there have been no definitive rulings to date?

Sure, States Rights have been used to justify a lot of bad things. It's because the Constitution does not allow Congress to legislate a lot of things. States rights have also been used to justify a lot of things I think are good.

Look, I'd rather live under laws executed by an Oregonian then laws executed by any Bush, Regan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, etc...
Are you saying that it is impossible for an incompetent or dishonest person ever to become a lawmaker in Oregon and thus it is impossible for an Oregonian law ever to be bad? Why is that? Is there something in the water?

Also, if they have duties, they also have rights to fill those duties. Duties always entail rights to an end.
"Also, if they have duties, they also have authority necessary to fill those duties. Duties always entail authority necessary to an end."

Fixed.

Whats the difference?
They have the right to exercise authority, a right (like free speech) that was given to them by the Constitution. That's why it was the last amendment in THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Sure, States Rights have been used to justify a lot of bad things. It's because the Constitution does not allow Congress to legislate a lot of things. States rights have also been used to justify a lot of things I think are good.

Look, I'd rather live under laws executed by an Oregonian then laws executed by any Bush, Regan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, etc...

Also, if they have duties, they also have rights to fill those duties. Duties always entail rights to an end.

People have rights. States do not. No government should properly have rights; the only ideology that does assign rights to governments is Fascism.

Duties do not entail rights. A duty is the negation of liberty, a right is the affirmation of liberty.

People have rights. States do not. No government should properly have rights; the only ideology that does assign rights to governments is Fascism.

hmm, it might perhaps be argued that certain forms of monarchy would give 'the state' rights too

Whats the difference?
They have the right to exercise authority, a right (like free speech) that was given to them by the Constitution. That's why it was the last amendment in THE BILL OF RIGHTS
First, see Trotskylvania's response to you. I agree with him/her entirely.

Second, okay, if you want to use the word "rights" that way (which I dislike), then explain to me, since the 10th Amendment specifically mentions rights held by the state OR the people, how that would allow the states to pass laws that would infringe upon the rights of the people.

Since equal protection under the law, protection of bodily integrity, free speech, freedom of religion, etc, are all rights of PEOPLE, tell me how any state can pass laws that infringe upon those people's rights and claim a "states' rights" justification for doing so, since (a) those rights are specifically enumerated as belonging to the people, and (b) the fact that people own rights whether they are enumerated or not is also specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, and (c) the Constitution trumps all lesser laws. If the Constitution says I have those rights, then the state cannot claim the right to take them away from me.

EDIT: By the way, the difference in the fix I made to your sentence is that "authority necessary to accomplish the specific duty" is a far lesser standard than a "right" to do something.

That the states' rights issue is brought up pretty much in situations where the actual contest is between government power over individual liberty is pretty accurate... What it can more or less be viewed as is people wanting to block federal judicial rulings which created an impasse against governmental usurpation of individual rights, wanting rather to block the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of the citizens of the several states, so that they may "lord" over the people through state powers.

This is not to say there are not legitimate realms of state power which the federal government shouldn't usurp; for example it would be absurd for the federal powers to directly legislate speed-limits on the highways within a state.

You didn't see these same so-called "states' rights" advocates up in arms over FBI/DEA invasion of perfectly legal drug hospices within California... But they cry foul as soon as someone starts letting gays engage in sex acts in private, or allow women to seek abortions and have power over their reproductive rights, or someone starts talking about gays being allowed to enter into marital unions with their same-sex partners... Then suddenly "states" have "rights" which need to be protected from federal interference....

hmm, it might perhaps be argued that certain forms of monarchy would give 'the state' rights too

In that kind of absolute monarchy, the "state" IS a person (the ruler), so rights are still attaching to a person, except in this case, the presumed rights include a right of control over the lives of other people (the subjects).

Whats the difference?
They have the right to exercise authority, a right (like free speech) that was given to them by the Constitution. That's why it was the last amendment in THE BILL OF RIGHTS

They have power to execute authority, not a "right" to... No government possesses a "right", only PEOPLE possess "rights"... And people's "rights" trump government "power"... Which is the whole purpose of having a judiciary to intervene where governmental power usurps the rights of the individual to their damage. The judiciary does not have the power to, nor has ever made law; they however do have the power to nullify laws passed by state or federal legislatures which violate the rights of the people.... When they act to do such, they are doing their expressed job when the government (state or federal) acts to infringe the rights of (an) individual(s).

*snip*

And once again, you equate the term "states' rights" with any debate over state vs. federal power despite the fact that it has not been used that way historically.

No one is suggesting that there is no place for a debate over such powers or that such debates don't take place. It simply isn't the way the term is used.


Look, I'd rather live under laws executed by an Oregonian then laws executed by any Bush, Regan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, etc...

If the laws infringe on my civil rights, I don't care if they were passed in DC or by the guys down the street. In fact, I'm probably going to be even more pissed off if the people down the street - people I might even know - do so.

Whats the difference?
They have the right to exercise authority, a right (like free speech) that was given to them by the Constitution. That's why it was the last amendment in THE BILL OF RIGHTS

The Constitution never uses the term "rights" to refer to any branch of government. That term is always used to refer to protections applying to the individual. Governmental entities were given "powers".

That the states' rights issue is brought up pretty much in situations where the actual contest is between government power over individual liberty is pretty accurate... What it can more or less be viewed as is people wanting to block federal judicial rulings which created an impasse against governmental usurpation of individual rights, wanting rather to block the federal judiciary from protecting the rights of the citizens of the several states, so that they may "lord" over the people through state powers.

This is not to say there are not legitimate realms of state power which the federal government should usurp; for example it would be absurd for the federal powers to directly legislate speed-limits on the highways within a state.

You didn't see these same so-called "states' rights" advocates up in arms over FBI/DEA invasion of perfectly legal drug hospices within California... But they cry foul as soon as someone starts letting gays engage in sex acts in private, or allow women to seek abortions and have power over their reproductive rights, or someone starts talking about gays being allowed to enter into marital unions with their same-sex partners... Then suddenly "states" have "rights" which need to be protected from federal interference....

Precisely.

THAT IS THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF GOVERNMENT!!!

We, the people, the ultimate source of political legitimacy in a representative republican democracy give a political entity the right to exercise power over us in the name of the common good. The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. It reaffirms the entity called the state, in which the people there have created their own laws. It requires these states to adhere to certain guidelines in the name of the national good.

States want to maximize their share of power to have more say about what happens within their boarders. In certain areas, like speed limits, the Constitution clearly gives the states the right to legislate.

I think your misunderstanding is you are thinking of rights as things that humans should have by virtue of their humanity; which is a popular conceptual framework, but it doesn't apply to the nuances of political theory. The phrase states rights applies to the right granted by the Constitution for states to enact laws that apply to people in their land.

Because ours is a contract-theory based system, and if we accept the Constitution as the basis for our form of government, then to argue states (as an entity) do not have rights is plain stupid.


Also, I know a lot of states rights advocates who were upset over Gonzales v. Raich; three of them even voted against it.

The phrase states rights applies to the right granted by the Constitution for states to enact laws that apply to people in their land.

no, it really doesn't

Yes it does. And to answer that question about laws that hurt individual liberty, read Morse v. Fredrick Judicial ideology has given Constitutional authority for things that could be deemed the tyranny of the majority.

States don't create laws, the people we elect do. The problem isn't with states rights, its with people who use that debate to codify their ignorance into law. To me, until we fix our Constitution, we need states rights as a legal vehicle so my state doesn't get run like Alabama.

Lastly, remember that judicial ideologues are the ones who get the final say in what the Constitution says, which is why two issues that are the same legally are ruled on differently. I usually don't find myself agreeing with the Court. Hell, the only one who is good at defending it is Scalia and thats because he is so fucking nuts his logic exists in its own world, free of pragmatic concerns.

America is a very geographically large and diverse land. The way people live and think in the Northeast is far different from those in the Midwest. With this knowledge, is it right to implement a Federal law in a State where 8/10 people disagree with that law? In my opinion, no. Now if 8/10 people agree with that law; by all means, implement it.

Obviously this argument is nothing new. I simply believe that an enchroachment of a State's rights will just lead to another secession of a State or States from the Union. It is highly doubtful that any issue presented today will have this kind of power; it is however, reasonable to assume that an extremely potent issue will arise that seperates one state from another. I can imagine this scenario occuring by at least 2050. For now, we can only wait and see how things play out.

Precisely.

I will note in my original:


This is not to say there are not legitimate realms of state power which the federal government should usurp; for example it would be absurd for the federal powers to directly legislate speed-limits on the highways within a state.

I made an error and should have said: "This is not to say there are not legitimate realms of state power which the federal government shouldn't usurp; for example it would be absurd for the federal powers to directly legislate speed-limits on the highways within a state."


Look, I'd rather live under laws executed by an Oregonian then laws executed by any Bush, Regan, Clinton, Carter, Ford, etc...


But "States' rights" is not raised, generally, on the issue of legislation approved of by the federal congress and passed by the federal executive... It's raised over issues which were handled by the federal judiciary after people who felt their rights were violated made claims as much against the state, and the issue passed on to be eventually decided by the highest authority of the judiciary, the SCOTUS... So what the "states' rights" issue really boils down to opposition against the judiciary's enumerated power to protect the rights of individuals against the illegitimate infiltration into individual liberties.... It's their JOB to handle contests between a person and their government. And it's also their JOB to nullify a legislative act by either the state government or federal government which seeks to infringe upon the rights of the person.... What "states' rights" advocates want is a Judiciary that protects the state government, rather than the people.

America is a very geographically large and diverse land. The way people live and think in the Northeast is far different from those in the Midwest. With this knowledge, is it right to implement a Federal law in a State where 8/10 people disagree with that law? In my opinion, no. Now if 8/10 people agree with that law; by all means, implement it.

If you'd read the OP, you'd realize that we aren't talking about implementing a federal law anywhere. That is the misdirection used by people who use the "states' rights argument." We're talking about preventing the states from enacting laws that infringe upon individual rights - laws that the federal government cannot pass either.

I will note in my original:

I made an error and should have said: "This is not to say there are not legitimate realms of state power which the federal government shouldn't usurp; for example it would be absurd for the federal powers to directly legislate speed-limits on the highways within a state."

You know, I think I read it that way anyways. =)

Yes it does.

there is no such right. that's not what rights are.

beyond that, how about you point me to some significant uses of the term that aren't entirely about retard conservatives wanting to oppress people somehow.

Your knowledge of history is terrible, my friend.

First off, on the issues of minimum wage and worker's rights was a STATE debate first. Think of the classic supreme court case Lochner v. New York where a New York minimum hours law was repelled on the ground of lassiez-faire economic. However, West Coast Hotels v. Parrish was decided, giving states the right to pass minimum wage and maximum hours laws. This is called the switch in time that saved nine.
Also, states have the right to tax its citizens, which is why we don't have a sales tax in Oregon.

You miss the point of the state's rights debate when you characterize it as state authority v. individual rights because you ignore the history of the debate and the actual core. I'm too busy to walk you through the nuances in dual and cooperative federalism and the relevant case law surrounding them, but suffice to say I don't think you know what you are talking about.

This is the core of the debate: Weak federal government that has attempted to grow by using the commerce clause as a means for legislation. When that legislation tramples on the right of a state to exercise their police powers it becomes a court battle. The actual debate over states rights is letting a more localized governmental entity exercise power in relation to issues that affect the state. States rights is about much more than personal liberty: they involve economic substantive due process, environmental protection (state preserved forests), manufacturing, agricultural control (think Hunt v. State of Washington), political legitimacy, etc...

ALSO, you don't have rights until the Court says you do.The 14th Amendment did not make every provision of the Constitution apply overnight, the argument has to be made in Court.

Read the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and understand a few cases:
Marburry v. Madison
Martin v. Hunter's Leese
Wickard v. Fillburn
NLRB v. Jones Steel
Cooley v. Board of Wardens
Schechter Poultry v. US
US v. Lopez
Lochner v. New York
Muller v. Oregon
New York v. US (1992)

NO THEY AREN'T

Read Muller v. Oregon, Pacific Gas v. Board of Resources and National League of Cities v. Usery HELL READ THE 10th AMENDMENT

The people who characterize the debate your way DO NOT UNDERSTAND that debate over states rights. Your argument reveals the fact you have no grasp of constitutional law

*sigh*

What we have here is a failure to communicate. :D

There is a legitimate debate, to which you refer, about the role of states in a system of federalism. But that is not what Dempublicents1 is referring to.

Instead, Dem1 is referring to the typical objection one hears to federal cases involving the 14th Amendment -- that requiring the states to grant equal protection or not infringe fundmental liberities violates some "states' rights." She explained with a list of issues in which this version of "states' rights" is brought up. She is entirely right that this form of the "states' rights" argument is little more than a facade for a dislike of individual freedom and equal protection under the law.

You are correct that there is another context in which "states' rights" are talked about, especially within the context of federal decisions about federalism. But that is not the exclusive -- nor among laymen, the predominate -- use of the term.

Got it?

EDIT: BTW, I've read The Federalist Papers and the various cases you list. But just referring to such things without a link and explanation of why they are relevant doesn't impress anyone or move the conversation along.

This entire thread is predicated on an assumption, made either by mistake or a deliberate attempt to discredit others.

The entire concept of States' rights has nothing to do with the realm of individuals' rights against the Government.

What you must understand is that when the Constitution was first drafted, the Federal Government was at a very low level of power and a low priority in day to day life. In other words, people really didn't hold much concern for the national government. To the American people, they were, first and foremost, a collection of states and a single nation second. If I had lived in 1787 I'd have identified myself first as a Mary Lander (Yeah, it was 2 words back then) and second as a citizen of the United States. States, at that time, DID have a very firm and real concept of the right to govern themselves. This was a HUGELY important issue. Federalists were often seen as power grabbers for a unified Government which, those who once were colonists, were wary of. Memories of what they'd dealt with concerning King George and his Parliament were fresh in their minds.

So yes, States DO have an established right... the right to self-government. This is what led to the Articles of Confederation's failure. It produced a Federal Government that was much too weak. The Constitution's version of a Federal Government was actually much stronger, but still very specific in its powers. Powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were reserved for the States.

This mentality held firm for quite some time. It's one of the factors which led to the Civil War. General Lee is a perfect example. His first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, and NOT to the Federal Government of the United States. This is why a great many Confederate soldiers enlisted or turned against the Union. They were citizens of their home states FIRST and U.S. Citizend SECOND.

After the Civil War that mentality began to shift. These days, we pretty much see ourselves as Americans, with the state of our birth being little more than a data field on a Driver's License. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of freedom that individual states have in self-government. This is why most of the laws we are subject to in our daily life are enforced at the state level, and why they may change when we travel to another state. Traffic laws, gun laws, labor laws, tax law, zoning law, hunting laws, etc etc etc. The list goes on for miles. This isn't JUST because different parts of the country need different laws for different needs. The states aren't simple provinces, drawn to delegate local authority in a large land...

That's why there's a fundamental diffrence between a "province" and a "state."

Now, the OP is trying to ignore these facts to turn a previous debate into one of individual rights vs. the Government, suggesting that when people refer to "state rights' They're somehow advocating letting the individual states take freedom from the individual as opposed to the Federal Government. That assertion demonstrates that either the OP is being deliberately dishonest in interpreting thinsg that way, or has a tragically poor understanding of what is meant by those using the term. It's stupid. I'm pretty sure that no matter how much you may disagree with someone who supports states' rights, nobody is suggetsing that having individual freedom taken by the state of, say, Idaho is somehow morally superior to having it taken by the Federal Government. (At least, that's not my assertion.) It's not, and nobody is saying otherwise.

This was about, originally, Abortion rights, and this whole state rights thing is a red herring.

Yes it does. And to answer that question about laws that hurt individual liberty, read Morse v. Fredrick Judicial ideology has given Constitutional authority for things that could be deemed the tyranny of the majority.
*snip*

I assume you mean Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278), 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct.2618 (2007), but I am at a complete loss as to how that case is relevant to this discussion.

(link to summary of the case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_06_278/))

The only somewhat positive example of States' rights I can think of is California's strict emissions laws. Oh, and the loosening of marijuana laws here as far as medical shit goes.

This entire thread is predicated on an assumption, made either by mistake or a deliberate attempt to discredit others.

The entire concept of States' rights has nothing to do with the realm of individuals' rights against the Government.

What you must understand is that when the Constitution was first drafted, the Federal Government was at a very low level of power and a low priority in day to day life. In other words, people really didn't hold much concern for the national government. To the American people, they were, first and foremost, a collection of states and a single nation second. If I had lived in 1787 I'd have identified myself first as a Mary Lander (Yeah, it was 2 words back then) and second as a citizen of the United States. States, at that time, DID have a very firm and real concept of the right to govern themselves. This was a HUGELY important issue. Federalists were often seen as power grabbers for a unified Government which, those who once were colonists, were wary of. Memories of what they'd dealt with concerning King George and his Parliament were fresh in their minds.

So yes, States DO have an established right... the right to self-government. This is what led to the Articles of Confederation's failure. It produced a Federal Government that was much too weak. The Constitution's version of a Federal Government was actually much stronger, but still very specific in its powers. Powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were reserved for the States.

This mentality held firm for quite some time. It's one of the factors which led to the Civil War. General Lee is a perfect example. His first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, and NOT to the Federal Government of the United States. This is why a great many Confederate soldiers enlisted or turned against the Union. They were citizens of their home states FIRST and U.S. Citizend SECOND.

After the Civil War that mentality began to shift. These days, we pretty much see ourselves as Americans, with the state of our birth being little more than a data field on a Driver's License. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of freedom that individual states have in self-government. This is why most of the laws we are subject to in our daily life are enforced at the state level, and why they may change when we travel to another state. Traffic laws, gun laws, labor laws, tax law, zoning law, hunting laws, etc etc etc. The list goes on for miles. This isn't JUST because different parts of the country need different laws for different needs. The states aren't simple provinces, drawn to delegate local authority in a large land...

That's why there's a fundamental diffrence between a "province" and a "state."

Now, the OP is trying to ignore these facts to turn a previous debate into one of individual rights vs. the Government, suggesting that when people refer to "state rights' They're somehow advocating letting the individual states take freedom from the individual as opposed to the Federal Government. That assertion demonstrates that either the OP is being deliberately dishonest in interpreting thinsg that way, or has a tragically poor understanding of what is meant by those using the term. It's stupid. I'm pretty sure that no matter how much you may disagree with someone who supports states' rights, nobody is suggetsing that having individual freedom taken by the state of, say, Idaho is somehow morally superior to having it taken by the Federal Government. (At least, that's not my assertion.) It's not, and nobody is saying otherwise.

This was about, originally, Abortion rights, and this whole state rights thing is a red herring.

So you deny that the argument of "state's rights" has continually been raised as an objection to enforcement of the 14th Amendment regarding issues like abortion, segregation, gay marriage, etc?

Perhaps you've never listened to a Republican.

I get that too, but even a case like Lochner which applied the 14th Amendment to make it so bakers could not have a maximum hour law because of the 'freedom of contract'. My point is that the entire debate about states rights in a system of federalism is applicable to this debate of people using them to curve liberty because states also have the right to legislate positively.

An example of a non-conservative argument for states rights:
Say your state decides that terminally ill patients can end their lives, allowing them to not suffer in pain needlessly. Then say the federal government decides that any doctor who does that should be considered a murderer. They take it to the Supreme Court, who rules with the state because the federal ability to legislate in that area is derived from the commerce clause and the government could not prove a relationship to commerce sufficient enough to justify the law.

It happened in Oregon.

The only somewhat positive example of States' rights I can think of is California's strict emissions laws. Oh, and the loosening of marijuana laws here as far as medical shit goes.

What about Massachusetts being able to allow gay marriage? That's a fine example of why state's rights are important.

What about Massachusetts being able to allow gay marriage? That's a fine example of why state's rights are important.

True, hadn't thought of that one.

It can be used for both good and bad I suppose. It's still usually been used as an excuse for intolerable crap though.

This entire thread is predicated on an assumption, made either by mistake or a deliberate attempt to discredit others.

The entire concept of States' rights has nothing to do with the realm of individuals' rights against the Government.

What you must understand is that when the Constitution was first drafted, the Federal Government was at a very low level of power and a low priority in day to day life. In other words, people really didn't hold much concern for the national government. To the American people, they were, first and foremost, a collection of states and a single nation second. If I had lived in 1787 I'd have identified myself first as a Mary Lander (Yeah, it was 2 words back then) and second as a citizen of the United States. States, at that time, DID have a very firm and real concept of the right to govern themselves. This was a HUGELY important issue. Federalists were often seen as power grabbers for a unified Government which, those who once were colonists, were wary of. Memories of what they'd dealt with concerning King George and his Parliament were fresh in their minds.

So yes, States DO have an established right... the right to self-government. This is what led to the Articles of Confederation's failure. It produced a Federal Government that was much too weak. The Constitution's version of a Federal Government was actually much stronger, but still very specific in its powers. Powers not explicitly granted to the Federal Government were reserved for the States.

This mentality held firm for quite some time. It's one of the factors which led to the Civil War. General Lee is a perfect example. His first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, and NOT to the Federal Government of the United States. This is why a great many Confederate soldiers enlisted or turned against the Union. They were citizens of their home states FIRST and U.S. Citizend SECOND.

After the Civil War that mentality began to shift. These days, we pretty much see ourselves as Americans, with the state of our birth being little more than a data field on a Driver's License. Nevertheless, there is a certain amount of freedom that individual states have in self-government. This is why most of the laws we are subject to in our daily life are enforced at the state level, and why they may change when we travel to another state. Traffic laws, gun laws, labor laws, tax law, zoning law, hunting laws, etc etc etc. The list goes on for miles. This isn't JUST because different parts of the country need different laws for different needs. The states aren't simple provinces, drawn to delegate local authority in a large land...

That's why there's a fundamental diffrence between a "province" and a "state."

Now, the OP is trying to ignore these facts to turn a previous debate into one of individual rights vs. the Government, suggesting that when people refer to "state rights' They're somehow advocating letting the individual states take freedom from the individual as opposed to the Federal Government. That assertion demonstrates that either the OP is being deliberately dishonest in interpreting thinsg that way, or has a tragically poor understanding of what is meant by those using the term. It's stupid. I'm pretty sure that no matter how much you may disagree with someone who supports states' rights, nobody is suggetsing that having individual freedom taken by the state of, say, Idaho is somehow morally superior to having it taken by the Federal Government. (At least, that's not my assertion.) It's not, and nobody is saying otherwise.

This was about, originally, Abortion rights, and this whole state rights thing is a red herring.

It was originally about abortion... Abortion was connected by the people flaunting a "states' rights" position over "Abortion"; since the "Abortion" issue is not about federal laws usurping a state's authority to outlaw it, rather about jurisprudence established by a SCOTUS decision in a case brought up as a conflict between a person and the state laws placing an impasse to abortion... It's not the OP who has been dishonest, but rather "states' rights" advocates themselves... So the OP is a legitimate claim a widely flaunted states' right position which seeks to use the argument to infringe on individual liberties which they find "immoral"... The same thing occurs when people discus Lawrence v. Texas and it's effective nullification of state sodomy laws (as well as other connected behavior between consenting individuals in private)... The OP believes, as well as anyone, that there are legitimate states' rights claims... Just that where it seems to be raised more often than not by modern states' rights advocates, is over issues where the judiciary acted to protect individual liberties, as opposed to legislative acts by the federal powers...

I get that too, but even a case like Lochner which applied the 14th Amendment to make it so bakers could not have a maximum hour law because of the 'freedom of contract'. My point is that the entire debate about states rights in a system of federalism is applicable to this debate of people using them to curve liberty because states also have the right to legislate positively.

An example of a non-conservative argument for states rights:
Say your state decides that terminally ill patients can end their lives, allowing them to not suffer in pain needlessly. Then say the federal government decides that any doctor who does that should be considered a murderer. They take it to the Supreme Court, who rules with the state because the federal ability to legislate in that area is derived from the commerce clause and the government could not prove a relationship to commerce sufficient enough to justify the law.

It happened in Oregon.

Can you name that case and/or give a citation or link?

I don't recall SCOTUS ruling that way on a euthanasia case, but my memory is definitely faulty.

This entire thread is predicated on an assumption, made either by mistake or a deliberate attempt to discredit others.

So you're going to tell me that the "states' rights" argument was not and is not used in the issues listed in the OP?

Or are you going to list for me significant issues in which the term is frequently used that truly are a matter of federal vs. state authority?

The entire concept of States' rights has nothing to do with the realm of individuals' rights against the Government.

*snip*
Now, the OP is trying to ignore these facts to turn a previous debate into one of individual rights vs. the Government, suggesting that when people refer to "state rights' They're somehow advocating letting the individual states take freedom from the individual as opposed to the Federal Government.

Those facts have nothing at all to do with the fact that, when the "states' rights" argument is brought forth, it is about letting the individual states take freedom from the individual. In each of the listed issues (and others), the argument is that the states should be able to do so and that disallowing such action is an encroachment of the federal government into state authority.

That assertion demonstrates that either the OP is being deliberately dishonest in interpreting thinsg that way, or has a tragically poor understanding of what is meant by those using the term. It's stupid.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what has been meant every time I've herad the term used. People go on and on the powers of the federal and state governments (which I understand already) and then conclude with, "So the Constitution can't keep the states from deciding [X]," where [X] is invariably a matter of individual liberty, and has nothing at all to do with the authority of the federal government.

I'm pretty sure that no matter how much you may disagree with someone who supports states' rights, nobody is suggetsing that having individual freedom taken by the state of, say, Idaho is somehow morally superior to having it taken by the Federal Government. (At least, that's not my assertion.) It's not, and nobody is saying otherwise.

Actually, that's already been said in this very thread when someone asserted that they'd rather see it done by their own state (or someone else's state) than the federal government.

Meanwhile, you're right that those using the term often don't suggest that. They simply suggest that the states, and only the states, have that authority. Their beef with the federal government is that the federal courts would dare to uphold the Constitution and prevent the states from doing so.

This was about, originally, Abortion rights, and this whole state rights thing is a red herring.

It's my thread dear. I think I get to say what it's about. Abortion is hardly the only issue in which the "states' rights" argument is brought up. A thread regarding abortion prompted me to start the thread, but it's hardly a frustration related solely to the abortion issue.


What about Massachusetts being able to allow gay marriage? That's a fine example of why state's rights are important.

Neither Massachusetts nor any other state should have a choice in the matter at all. Equal protection is equal protection. It isn't up to the state whether or not they provide it.

If Mass is able to "allow" gay marriage, that means that other states are able to disallow it. As such, you are still talking about giving states the authority to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

Abortion was connected by the people flaunting a "states' rights" position over "Abortion"; since the "Abortion" issue is not about federal laws usurping a state's authority to outlaw it, rather about jurisprudence established by a SCOTUS decision in a case brought up as a conflict between a person and the state laws placing an impasse to abortion... It's not the OP who has been dishonest, but rather "states' rights" advocates themselves... So the OP is a legitimate claim a widely flaunted states' right position which seeks to use the argument to infringe on individual liberties which they find "immoral"... The same thing occurs when people discus Lawrence v. Texas and it's effective nullification of state sodomy laws (as well as other connected behavior between consenting individuals in private)... The OP believes, as well as anyone, that there are legitimate states' rights claims... Just that where it seems to be raised more often than not by modern states' rights advocates, is over issues where the judiciary acted to protect individual liberties, as opposed to legislative acts by the federal powers...

Precisely.

You're good at this. =)

True, hadn't thought of that one.

It can be used for both good and bad I suppose. It's still usually been used as an excuse for intolerable crap though.

Most of the time, state's rights is a very good, sensible thing. It just means that states handle state issues, and the federal government sticks to handling issues that are appropriately within its jurisdiction. There's nothing disturbing about different levels of government handling issues that they're best-suited to deal with.

The problem comes in when people who don't actually give a damn about state's rights try to use it as an excuse for moralizing. Because those cases have been the loud and controversial ones, people tend to see those cases as being exemplary of what state's rights means, when the truth is, they have fuck-all to do with it.

Neither Massachusetts nor any other state should have a choice in the matter at all. Equal protection is equal protection. It isn't up to the state whether or not they provide it.

If Mass is able to "allow" gay marriage, that means that other states are able to disallow it. As such, you are still talking about giving states the authority to infringe upon the rights of the individual.

I'm curious. What do you think would have happened if the federal government held all the power in this country? You don't think it would have been used by the moral majority and that it would take even longer than it's taking now to get equal protection applied to gay marriage?

I'm curious. What do you think would have happened if the federal government held all the power in this country?

I'm curious. What does that question have to do with the price of eggs in China?

But, to answer your question, I think it would suck quite a bit if the federal government held all the power in this country. I also think it would suck if the state governments held all the power in this country. The people - the individuals - should hold the vast majority of the power in this country.

You're falling into the same trap I pointed out in the OP. You're considering an issue of state authority vs. individual rights to be an issue of federal authority vs. state authority.

Hellos,

Assuming you mean the USA, I think any confusion in the matter would be best cleared up, by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and doing what it says.

As it is written, the Federal Gov't has very little power. Most of the power is held by the fifty states.

Fed Gov, is the only level of gov't which can:
= declare war,
= make treaties,
= collect and levy tax,
= and one or two other things (forgot).

THAT IS -IT-

The rest of the decisions rest with the fifty states. If this means homosexual marriage is permitted in one state, but not another, they have the right.

Fed Gov, personally pissed me off, during the Chavaro case of Dr. assisted suicide. They had no right, the President had no right. Nevermind no level of government shoud not have interviened in medical, doctor/patient confidentiality either.

If it means Missouri has anti-whaling laws, and Texas forbids whaling from a car, they can enact it. *they did! :eek: *

When the USA has another civil war, i intend to hold the government in contempt of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Guilty of the high crime of treason. Decreed by me, a Citizen.

OOC
-Rafe

I'm curious. What does that question have to do with the price of eggs in China?

But, to answer your question, I think it would suck quite a bit if the federal government held all the power in this country. I also think it would suck if the state governments held all the power in this country. The people - the individuals - should hold the vast majority of the power in this country.

You're falling into the same trap I pointed out in the OP. You're considering an issue of state authority vs. individual rights to be an issue of federal authority vs. state authority.

Nope. There's really only one issue. Who gets to choose?

Sometimes it's best if the individual gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the city council gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the state legislature gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the federal government gets to choose.

You're very right that it would suck if either only the states got to choose or only the federal government got to choose. I'm not disputing that.

The problem is that certain people try to decide who gets to choose based on the wrong grounds. Either they want the Federal government to intervene for their convenience, or they want it to not intervene for their convenience.

Hellos,

Assuming you mean the USA, I think any confusion in the matter would be best cleared up, by reading the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and doing what it says.

As it is written, the Federal Gov't has very little power. Most of the power is held by the fifty states.

Fed Gov, is the only level of gov't which can:
= declare war,
= make treaties,
= collect and levy tax,
= and one or two other things (forgot).

THAT IS -IT-

And SCOTUS can make sure that the states do not violate the constitutional freedoms of those living there.


The rest of the decisions rest with the fifty states. If this means homosexual marriage is permitted in one state, but not another, they have the right.

Wrong. Equal protection under the law is not optional; every state has to follow it.

Fed Gov, personally pissed me off, during the Chavaro case of Dr. assisted suicide. They had no right, the President had no right. Nevermind no level of government shoud not have interviened in medical, doctor/patient confidentiality either.

I agree that the federal government should not have intervened here. I think every person should be allowed to die with dignity of they so choose.


If it means Missouri has anti-whaling laws, and Texas forbids whaling from a car, they can enact it. *they did! :eek: *

Sure. But those aren't the contexts in which "States' rights" are ever brought up. It's always "waaaah, the government is telling us we can't oppress our people! States' rights!"


When the USA has another civil war, i intend to hold the government in contempt of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Guilty of the high crime of treason. Decreed by me, a Citizen.


:rolleyes:
Clearly, you haven't read the Constitution that you claim to value so much, or you don't care what it says, as treason is very specifically defined.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623/

[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe;13254434]I assume you mean Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278), 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct.2618 (2007), but I am at a complete loss as to how that case is relevant to this discussion.

Because it shows that states rights are an arbitrary thing in today's judiciary. This time, a loose interpretation of Morrison and Tinker allowed a state the right to stop a kid from holding up a sign that read: Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

I admit it's a loose example, but I really like to bring up Bong Hits 4 Jesus in any legal discussion. You should listen to the Oral... Ginsburg talking about bong hits is priceless.

Nope. There's really only one issue. Who gets to choose?

Sometimes it's best if the individual gets to choose.

And these cases are those in which the "states' rights" argument gets brought up. That's the problem.

Who gets to choose who I have sex with and how I do it? I do.
Who gets to choose who I marry? I do.
Who gets to choose what, if any, birth control option I use? I do.
Who gets to choose what medical attention I seek? I do.
Who gets to choose the work I do? Yup, you guessed it, I do.

Who gets to decide whether or not I am treated equally under the law with all other citizens? No one does. It's already decided.


Any level of government that tries to make such choices for me or to restrict my choices without a compelling interest in doing so is infringing upon my individual rights.

The nature of government is to intrude on your personal liberty.

Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Adams, Voltaire, etc.. all knew this.

The debate is way older than abortion.

If you want to know the truth, I don't fully buy the Social Contract theory; but it it is the basis of our government, so until we change it, we have to speak in its terms. And while I'm all for changing it, I want to work within the confines of their system so we can do it legitimately over time without the potential for bloodshed.

So, I argue my conception of states rights as being one of the few legal vehicles that will save my state from the ignorance of someone else's. Remember, if there were no states rights, we would not of had labor laws in the manufacturing industry.

The nature of government is to intrude on your personal liberty.

Hence the reason that the Constitution was amended to keep it from doing so.

Nope. There's really only one issue. Who gets to choose?

Sometimes it's best if the individual gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the city council gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the state legislature gets to choose. Sometimes it's best if the federal government gets to choose.

You're very right that it would suck if either only the states got to choose or only the federal government got to choose. I'm not disputing that.

The problem is that certain people try to decide who gets to choose based on the wrong grounds. Either they want the Federal government to intervene for their convenience, or they want it to not intervene for their convenience.
I believe that human beings are automatically endowed with rights from birth. Some people don't believe that. Between the two points of view there can never be agreement, I fear. That said, I'd like to respond to this post, speaking from my point of view.

You say the only issue is who gets to choose. I say you left a word off your sentence. It should be who gets to choose what. The way I see it, human beings have all the power and they choose to cede some of that power to government for various reasons. Usually those reasons are practical, sometimes they are ideological. In the US, the reasons for ceding power to government are practical.

But no matter how much power over which areas of life we cede, we never cede ALL of our power over ourselves, and under the Constitution, this is acknowledged in the Bill of Rights as a whole, and in the 9th Amendment in particular, in which it is made clear that rights belong to people and that when it comes to rights that have not been specifically addresed, the assumption must be that the power over them belongs to the people. Why? Because according to the philosophy of the framers, ALL rights belong originally and properly to the people to begin with. So any random right that may be floating around, not placed under authority of either the state or federal government, must be assumed to belong to the people and therefore be under the control of the people.

So to the question of who should choose, there is only one answer when it comes to the rights that belong to people -- the people who own the rights choose. You may argue over whether the fed or the states get the authority to regulate commerce, what kinds of commerce and to what degree. You may argue over whether the fed should have the authority to control which foreign nations a state chooses to trade with, etc. But there is no argument over who gets to have power over rights that directly affect the lives of individual citizens. Clearly, it is the individual citizens themselves.

So yes, sometimes it's better if the state chooses which roads to pave. Sometimes its better if the fed chooses which nations to give most favored nation status to. But it is never good for either of them to choose who I get to marry, or what job I may apply for, or where I may be permitted to sit on a bus, or whether I can buy a house in a given neighborhood, or what medical treatments I am allowed to consider with my doctor, etc. Why? Because those things are none of the government's damned business, but they are vital to my life as a human being. They are MY rights, and they belong to me. No one -- not the government and not my fellow citizens, even if they are the majority -- are allowed to take away what is mine by birth. Only I can cede those rights, and I, like most people, choose not to.

So we are brought right back to the OP's argument, that people who wish to take away rights from others often invoke "states' rights" as a means of doing so, in order to get around Constitutional obstacles that would protect my rights from them. Their version of the "states' rights" argument has it that the state has a right to decide those highly personal matters, which the Constitution recognizes belong to ME, not the state.

I do believe that there are some rights that need to be in the indeviduals hands instead of the state or federal government such as aborsion, but on the other hand I also agree that state and federal governments do need to over see!Every now and then on a given issue, the argument of “states’ rights” comes up. The recent Republican debate has apparently gotten some people all up in arms over a question about punishment for abortion that they deem “unfair” because the president won’t get to determine that anyways if he thinks it’s a “states’ rights” issue. I’m not going to really go into how stupid that position is, given that the president doesn’t have the power to directly determine the vast majority of the issues covered in debates and they still answer with what they would like to try and get legislators to do, but I am going to talk about the “states’ rights” argument itself.

First of all, let me say that I think it is a misnomer. I don’t believe that the state governments (or any governmental bodies) have “rights”. Human beings have rights. Governments have authority which, if it is a legitimate government authority, allows them to protect those human beings and their rights.

That said, let’s get into what the argument really is. If it were a matter of transferring a particular authority from the federal government to the state governments, it could very well have merit. It would depend, of course, on what the given authority is. Unfortunately, this is not the case. These arguments are invariably about individual authority vs. state authority. The person making the argument wants to take a certain authority from individual human beings and place it, instead, in the hands of the state governments. Either that, or they are arguing that the state should hold onto such authority when it might be transferred to the hands of the individual.

Where has the “states’ rights” argument been used?
- Slavery (state authority vs. an individual’s right to liberty and self-ownership)
- Jim Crow laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Segregation (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Anti-miscegenation laws (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Birth control (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy and to make medical decisions)
- Abortion (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy, bodily integrity, and to make medical decisions)
- Sex (state authority vs. an individual’s right to privacy)
- Same-sex marriage (state authority vs. an individual’s right to equal protection under the law)
- Etc.

It leaves me to think that those who argue “states’ rights” are intentionally dishonest. They paint each issue as a matter of state authority vs. federal authority when, in actuality, it is a matter of state authority vs. individual rights.

Thoughts?

Your reading of the 9th is flawed.
From wiki:
The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.

That being said, the 9th is not a blank check. It protects the rights of citizens but also of the political entities of the federal and state government to exercise their constitutional police powers.

People have rights. States do not. No government should properly have rights; the only ideology that does assign rights to governments is Fascism.

Duties do not entail rights. A duty is the negation of liberty, a right is the affirmation of liberty.

The states have rights in their relationship with the federal government, they were originally granted certain liberties that the federal government had no oversight in.

An example of a non-conservative argument for states rights:
Say your state decides that terminally ill patients can end their lives, allowing them to not suffer in pain needlessly. Then say the federal government decides that any doctor who does that should be considered a murderer. They take it to the Supreme Court, who rules with the state because the federal ability to legislate in that area is derived from the commerce clause and the government could not prove a relationship to commerce sufficient enough to justify the law.

It happened in Oregon.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006)
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623/

Thanks for the citation. If you actually read either that summary (http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_623/) or Gonzales v. Oregon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-623), 546 U.S. 243 (2006), itself, you would know the case was based on interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act (a federal statute) and had nothing to do with the interstate commerce clause. The case has only the vaguest connection with states' rights -- in that the Court spent a couple of paragraphs discussing how states are generally responsible for regulating medical practice in the course of interpreting the statute.

I assume you mean Morse v. Frederick (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-278), 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct.2618 (2007), but I am at a complete loss as to how that case is relevant to this discussion.

Because it shows that states rights are an arbitrary thing in today's judiciary. This time, a loose interpretation of Morrison and Tinker allowed a state the right to stop a kid from holding up a sign that read: Bong Hits 4 Jesus.

I admit it's a loose example, but I really like to bring up Bong Hits 4 Jesus in any legal discussion. You should listen to the Oral... Ginsburg talking about bong hits is priceless.

The example is more than a bit "loose." The case involved "states' rights" only in the vague sense that a decision opposite the one made by the majority would have imposed some greater limit on the power of state and local governments.

Your reading of the 9th is flawed.
From wiki:
The Ninth Amendment bars denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution, but does not bar denial of unenumerated rights if the denial is based on the enumeration of certain powers in the Constitution.

That being said, the 9th is not a blank check. It protects the rights of citizens but also of the political entities of the federal and state government to exercise their constitutional police powers.

First, you shouldn't rely on constitutional analysis from Wiki.

Second, anyone that really knows constitutional law knows the critical provision is not the 9th Amendment, but rather the Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendment, which protect fundamental liberties--whether or not they are enumerated.

Sorry I didn't crack out my law textbook for the 9th amendment citation.

The Controlled Substances Act is a commerce provision, read it.

The notion of states' rights is just a part of the conservative arsenal, allowing them to push for oppression in some states even when the rest of the country has moved on.

Sorry I didn't crack out my law textbook for the 9th amendment citation.

The Controlled Substances Act is a commerce provision, read it.

And what, in the end does this have to do with states' rights? Near as I can tell, the citations you've provided show that 1. The courts affirmed the schools authority (a state insitutions authority) to limit speech in this circumstance, and 2. That the provision of federal laws regarding the Controlled Substances Act is a commerce provision, and therefore a rightly exercised power of the federal government...

So, one must ask, what is your argument?

The CSA was not able to be used as a legitimate argument over Oregon's right to have Death with Dignity.

The argument is that state's rights is often seen by people who don't study law as a conservative tool to keep people down, when the issue is historically much more important that that. As an issue, its interpretation has more to do with personal ideology of the justices then the legitimate concern of states to exercise power. That's why a school can enforce a law that curves personal liberty. However, I could keep citing examples where the states rights argument beat out the federal government trying to encroach on personal liberty like the Gonzales v. Oregon case.

Let's say that a state wants to outlaw the death penalty, it is their right to do that.

Or a state wanted to pass a law that allows its citizens the access to healthcare.

Or a state wanted to decriminalize marijuana.

I think the OP might have forgotten that people pass laws, states have to defend them. People (either directly or by representative proxy) vote things like segregation or gay marriage into exsistance, the state has the legal obligation to defend the will of the voters in court.

I think your arguement should have been: People are ignorant and pass dumb laws.

As an attorney, the job is to defend the client. State's rights is an attractive argument to do that with.

The CSA was not able to be used as a legitimate argument over Oregon's right to have Death with Dignity.

The argument is that state's rights is often seen by people who don't study law as a conservative tool to keep people down, when the issue is historically much more important that that. As an issue, its interpretation has more to do with personal ideology of the justices then the legitimate concern of states to exercise power. That's why a school can enforce a law that curves personal liberty. However, I could keep citing examples where the states rights argument beat out the federal government trying to encroach on personal liberty like the Gonzales v. Oregon case.

Let's say that a state wants to outlaw the death penalty, it is their right to do that.

Or a state wanted to pass a law that allows its citizens the access to healthcare.

Or a state wanted to decriminalize marijuana.

I think the OP might have forgotten that people pass laws, states have to defend them. People (either directly or by representative proxy) vote things like segregation or gay marriage into exsistance, the state has the legal obligation to defend the will of the voters in court.

I think your arguement should have been: People are ignorant and pass dumb laws.

As an attorney, the job is to defend the client. State's rights is an attractive argument to do that with.

You're not quite getting the idea of the OP... No one is saying there are not legitimate "states' rights" positions... There is a difference between the cases of legitimate "states' rights" or rather legitimate realms of state powers which the Federal government has no authority to circumvent; and cases where states' rights are used as an argument against judicial decisions which nullify state laws which violate people's rights... Which is the point the OP makes; the latter is an argument which is being heavily flaunted at present by certain people claiming "states' rights" positions. That's the point of how this thread got started, the people holding a reversal of "Roe v. Wade" under a "states' rights" argument; is not really a "states' rights" argument, as states' rights is understood practically and historically. Federal laws which interfere legitimate state powers is different than judicial proceedings which are passed to protect individual's rights against state interference in such matters... A state's legitimate exercise of power in limiting consensual sexual activity in public, is different than attempts to limit private consensual activity.

Sorry I didn't crack out my law textbook for the 9th amendment citation.

No need to apologize, just don't expect anyone to be impressed or persuaded by you saying "but Wiki sez!"

The Controlled Substances Act is a commerce provision, read it.

Did you read Gonzales v. Oregon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-623), 546 U.S. 243 (2006)?

Contrary to your earlier assertion and continued obstinance, nothing in that case refers to the interstate commerce clause or any limit on federal power. The Court merely concluded that the CSA didn't authorize the Attorney General's rule. Without authority from the statute, the AG had no authority to act as he did. Nothing to do with state vs. federal power.

The CSA was not able to be used as a legitimate argument over Oregon's right to have Death with Dignity.

As has been explained ad naseum, you misread Gonzales v. Oregon.

The argument is that state's rights is often seen by people who don't study law as a conservative tool to keep people down, when the issue is historically much more important that that. As an issue, its interpretation has more to do with personal ideology of the justices then the legitimate concern of states to exercise power. That's why a school can enforce a law that curves personal liberty. However, I could keep citing examples where the states rights argument beat out the federal government trying to encroach on personal liberty like the Gonzales v. Oregon case.

I see. You've taken the rather silly viewpoint that every case is a battle between powers of the states versus limits on that power, so every case involves "states' rights." (Ignoring of course that many cases are about the limits of federal powers without reference to the states, that cases like Gonzales are about division of federal power, etc.) Under this viewpoint, "states' rights" becomes meaningless.

I think the OP might have forgotten that people pass laws, states have to defend them. People (either directly or by representative proxy) vote things like segregation or gay marriage into exsistance, the state has the legal obligation to defend the will of the voters in court.

I think your arguement should have been: People are ignorant and pass dumb laws.

As an attorney, the job is to defend the client. State's rights is an attractive argument to do that with.

Uh. Different states have different mechanisms for the creation of laws, but generally "people" don't pass laws directly. Usually state legislatures or executive branches make laws or policies, rather than have them imposed upon them by the "people."

Regardless, your point seems merely to be that "states' rights" is simply a clever, but hollow, argument. That doesn't conflict with the OP.