As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[States' Rights] Abortions for some, stockpiles of weapons for others!
Atomika
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered User regular
Live fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered 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?
- 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?
0
Posts
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.
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.