States' Rights: Caveat Emptor

[Julien Sorel]

All this talk about 'States' Rights,' and how it can be used to dodge certain hot-button issues certainly sounds clever, but it misses the big point: when you start adopting more and more 'States' Rights' positions out of political expediency, you are strengthening the concept of States' Rights itself -- and that opens doors that should remain firmly shut.

The issue of States' Rights in this country is as old as the country itself; some big federalism vs states rights issues most folks are aware of are things like the establishment of a central bank; the establishment of a uniform currency; the establishment of national armed forces -- these were all done after battles, of varying degrees, over the authority of the federal government vs. the rights of the states. More recently, though, the concept of states' rights has become the battle ground for civil rights and ancillary issues; a big one is also abortion rights, as states, generally in the South, have resisted federal laws over voting rights, integration, abortion, and prayer in schools on the grounds that such laws represent an infringement by the federal government into their rights as states.

As things stand, the Supreme Court is generally shifting more and more power to the states, with cases such as Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents; University of Alabama at Birmingham Board of Trustees vs. Garrett and Ash vs. Alabama Department of Youth Services; Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority and others all consistently limiting the power of the federal government to regulate state governments. In general, the Court has held that states' rights end where the equal protection clause begins -- ie, states cannot infringe upon personal rights guaranteed by the Constitution; however, the more consistently the Court finds for states' rights, the more the concept itself is strengthened and established, and of course, the definition of just which rights are guaranteed by the Constitution is itself subject to the shifting sentiment of the Supreme Court.

Why should you care? Because there is a huge difference in the stakes we are playing for. Civil rights and abortion are massive issues, and the reasons many people vote Democratic in the first place, whereas most of the issues we are playing with, gun control and the Confederate flag, for example, are minor by comparison. It makes absolutely no sense to do anything to strengthen the hand of people who oppose Affirmative Action and abortion, for example, because we choose not to fight over the issue of gun control, preferring instead to duck the issue by saying it's a matter of 'states' rights.' The arguments can then be made, 'why gun control and not abortion?' 'Why gun control and not prayer in schools?' 'Why gun control and not separation of church and state?'

Arguing for States' Rights is opening doors, and once open, doors allow traffic to move in both directions.

[La_Serpiente]

1. I totally concur on you with that

George Washington warned against sectionalism.

I believe in giving power to the states, but there has to be a limit to the deference.

The Supreme Court musts rule in favor of federalism this term. Otherwise, things will not be looking good down the road.

[Mairead]

6. I find it interesting how many people

aren't bothered by usurpation of our Constitutional rights, but seems to be really hot on respecting the Tenth Amendment.

[LARED]

7. What 10th amendment?

Does anyone really think the tenth amendment is considered relevant any more?

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The powers delegated to the US by the Constitution were meant to be are quite small. This concept of enumerated powers and states rights based on Constitutional intent has long ago become anachronistic.

[dkf]

2. I assume then that you are against medical marijuana?

The Federal Govt sure is.

[Julien Sorel]

3. Right over your head.

I'm for a federal law that would legalize medicinal marijuana. I'm not for ducking the issue by leaving it to the states.

[La_Serpiente]

4. If we want something legalized

we're going to have to go the traditional way. Federal law has always supersceded state law and that is how it should be.

Maybe in the West, there is more tolerance for it, but I don't think they are any strong movements as there is in the North, South, and East.

[depakid]

5. States' rights have to do with other things, too

Such as medical marijuana, physician assisted suicide and whether you can hold your HMO accountible in court for denying you or your family lifesaving medical services. As you say, federalism works both ways- it can ensure civil rights and reproductive freedom, or it can deny people to seek redress from states like Alabama for blatant discrimination under the ADA. Which way and in what cases the balance sways is largely a matter of who controls the federal courts AND who controls the executive.

[gottaB]

8. very astute

thank you.

[Julien Sorel]

9. Curiosity kick

[AQuestioningStudent]

10. So then,

are you arguing that states will automatically be more repugnant in the policies they pursue than the federal government will, or are you saying you'd prefer to just have to fight in one arena instead of 50? And what would happen if, without the shield of state's rights, the federal government decided to move towards policies that are antithetical to progressive ones; what protection would anybody have without states rights?