Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[States' Rights] Abortions for some, stockpiles of weapons for others!

AtomikaAtomika not a robot.does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
Is the concept of States' Rights an outmoded throwback to our nation's more formative days? I sure think so. Here's some hits from the the first page of Google News if you search "states rights":

- A sheriff in Duluth, MN, arguing that Obama's new gun provisions can be circumvented by new rights at the state level
- Prop. 8 backers arguing for the State's right to keep LGBT people from getting married
- Roe v. Wade circumvention efforts enabled by new state legislation

Given the immobility of federal supremacy clauses, is there a place for state's rights in today's day and age? If so, in what capacity? Or is the argument just the last bastion of miscreants and those soon to be ignored by the inevitable march of progress?


  • ChanusChanus Sugoi! ^_____^Registered User regular
    I'm fine with the concept of States' Rights except that it's almost always invoked to violate someone's rights.

    **Winner Softest and Most Comfy Hugs Award Summer 2018**

    Blueberrywerewlf on the Sony Anime Games Box | BluberryWerewlf on the BroBone
  • InvisibleInvisible Registered User regular
    Well, it's a double edged sword. Some states and local governments have expanded rights and privileges far beyond the federal.
    Generally I think state rights lead to repressive, hostile local governments, but I worry removing them would lead to those repressive groups being able to pass their agendas nationally.

  • ShivahnShivahn Unaware of her barrel shifter privilege Eastern coastal temptressRegistered User regular
    States don't have rights, silly, people do!

    At least that's basically what I think.

    There is an argument to be made that all states don't need to be run the same way. And that makes sense, California is going to have different needs than Iowa, even within agriculture which is a huge part of both.

    However, notice that this is pretty much an economic issue at above the level of an individual. Most things that are different between states are also this way - what businesses to attract, how to set up taxes and benefits, and so on. Iowan business owners might need something different from Californians, and California and Iowa want different things and have to be different to attract them thusly. None of this has any bearing to the rights of the individual people versus some idea of morality, which pretty much are what often appears to become "states rights" issues. Abortion? Kind of an issue that shouldn't be restricted. Gay marriage? Yeah, you get the idea.

    Essentially, states exist to break up what would otherwise be a nation that is too big for one-size-fits-all policies (which we really are). Each state basically needs to regulate the economies differently, because that does differ. I don't see how the policies affecting individual people need to change, however.

    I mean, I'm not actually certain the gun thing should be federal, given the different gun problems Iowa and California have. But there's no "abortion problem" or "gay problem" in the sense that there are regional gun problems, and the fact that we let states restrict those two is really dumb.

Sign In or Register to comment.