Yes, the Civil war was really about "state rights"

[safeinOhio]

It was about a states right to enslave other human beings.

[Kalidurga]

1. Yep

and now Republicans want to make it legal for corps to do the same thing as slave owners did. The ACA freed a whole lot of people to be able to look for other work now that they don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions. And a recent rule changes have taken the corporate control over a woman's ability to choose the method of birth control she thinks is best. Hopefully, we will come to a time when people aren't completely dependent on the good will of their bosses to be able to make a living wage.

[JonLP24]

2. And most things shameful since

like federal anti-lynching laws were often opposed on "state's rights grounds", racial segregation, jim crow laws, and recently for marriage equality. Jan Brewer has been saying "state's rights" for several things every month. Recently was telling DOJ she wasn't going to comply with Federal Elimination of Prison Rape Act, countless numerous things that I've lost track she is constantly being ruled against by the courts and one thing that really outrages her is the Independent Redistricting Commission where she fired the head or chair of it after the 2010 midterm results only for a judge to tell her she can't do that. Recently her lawsuit filed against them was overruled on the Supreme Court thank god. That is one thing I can say we got going for Arizona which is what the voters decided for on a ballot issue. I really recommend it as a model for other states as the districts here before were a mess.

Not related but people here love her for protecting us from the federal government. Some people here legitimately believe "internment camps" are coming soon and From Texas with New Mexico skipped, Arizona, parts of Nevada and Utah are considered "hostile states" but of course the first goal of the plan is the coming for the guns.

She's states rights over immigration driver license, medicare funding, unemployment extension funding, and fuming over the recent Supreme Court ruling. It is very depressing here.

[daleanime]

3. Oh, hell yes.....

[Igel]

4. There were others, but that was the big one at the time.

The suspicion that tariffs was going to resurface was lurking.

It's like saying marriage equality isn't about civil rights. Civil rights = right to vote. This was an argument a small number of years back, although it's often forgotten these days. People get stuck on whole/part relations all the time when they get hitched to a particular attitude towards a word (like "civil rights" or even "entitlements&quot and forget the word's denotative meaning.

So the debate "slavery" or "states rights" was always specious. Some insisted on the example at hand for rhetorical purposes, while others insisted on the broader term for rhetorical purposes. Academics aren't immune to confusing rhetoric with valid argumentation and fact presentation, more in some fields than others.

Voting regs, Medicaid, marijuana legalization, speed limits, schools, etc., etc., all potentially fall under "states rights." Back in the 1850s, tariffs did, too, but that sort of died down and with the implicit expansion of the interstate commerce clause mostly went away; slavery would have been included as "states rights" and could probably have been handled under the commerce clause as well.

[Yupster]

5. The real question was does a state have the right to leave the Union

once it joins it.

The question was answered on the battlefields.

I think the answer was the wrong one.

I don't think there should ever be an organization that once you join it, you are in forever, regardless of how much the organization changes.

Maybe the Mafia.