Why do conservatives so often point to states rights as justification for their arguments? This is used in a lot of things but especially for abortion - that it should be up to the states. I fail to see how a state government telling its citizens what they can and can’t do is any different from the federal government doing the same. Why not focus on the merits instead? It seems to me this is a cop out, and I just don’t understand why people go so hard to fight for things they can’t defend.
States Rights
Posts
Total:
78
It’s a recognition of concentric circles of identity. I have more in common with my friends and family than I do my local community, more with my local community than with my state, more with my state than with my country, more with my country than with other countries.
An imposition from the federal government actually is materially worse than one from a state government because it’s more likely to be out of line with the mores and culture of the people
-->
@Double_R
With state rights, the theory is that we can have people locally declare their own laws as opposed to people in DC, who don't really know what the hell is happening In Your community.
There is another issue at play also. Sometimes we don't know the best policies, until a bunch are tried out. The states work as an open market for testing policy ideals. With state rights we can see what works best, and other states will slowly adopt it as well, assuming it works as well for their unique part of the country.
States rights, just like people's rights, begin and end with the Constitution. If a state's law violates the Constitution then the courts have every right to tell them that that's the case. There is absolutely no reason in the case of abortion to move the cut off from 21 weeks to 15 weeks. It is nothing more than conservative and religious blowback on women thinking that they should have any sort of autonomy from men.
-->
@thett3
I get the idea in concept. Certainly states should have the right to govern themselves and not all states will elect to do things the same way. But when it comes to any given issue, the state you reside in doesn't matter. So states rights is something I would expect to come up in the “let’s agree to disagree” part of the exchange. But you can’t get to that part of the exchange without arguing the merits of the disagreement first, that’s where I take issue with this.
The thing that spawned me to start this conversation was a user claiming that states rights regarding abortion was “the main issue”. That just seems disingenuous to me. When was the last time you agreed with the government’s position but disagreed with its implementation because of which government was enforcing it? It just feels like an [insert argument here] approach rather than an honest defense of ones position.
-->
@Wylted
There is another issue at play also. Sometimes we don't know the best policies, until a bunch are tried out. The states work as an open market for testing policy ideals. With state rights we can see what works best, and other states will slowly adopt it as well
Massachusetts was the first state to implement Obamacare, which they touted as a model for the nation and then republicans nominated its architect for the presidency. That didn’t stop them from using states rights as its primary reason for opposing it. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
-->
@Double_R
Massachusetts was the first state to implement Obamacare, which they touted as a model for the nation and then republicans nominated its architect for the presidency. That didn’t stop them from using states rights as its primary reason for opposing it. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
That’s the problem though. Just because it worked in Massachusetts doesn’t mean it’d work throughout the nation because each state is fundamentally different. It’s just like how voters in New York recently rejected same day voter registration and no excuse absentee voting — two provisions that were in the Schumer and Gillibrand supported in the Voting Rights Legislation that failed last night.
Essentially what I’m saying is that the Constitution recognizes that states and the people living in those states are fundamentally different, and because of that, they have the right to create laws that fit their beliefs rather than the federal government create those laws for them is every situstuon.
-->
@Double_R
Massachusetts was the first state to implement Obamacare, which they touted as a model for the nation and then republicans nominated its architect for the presidency. That didn’t stop them from using states rights as its primary reason for opposing it. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
That's another good reason for states rights. Without individual states being able to experiment like that, Obama care wouldn't have had an American model to work with
Pie is right though. Ideally each state would adopt it freely after that
-->
@Double_R
That just seems disingenuous to me. When was the last time you agreed with the government’s position but disagreed with its implementation because of which government was enforcing it? It just feels like an [insert argument here] approach rather than an honest defense of ones position.
That would be disingenuous unless federalism was truly their most important issue. But the idea is that no peoples opinions wouldn’t change, but decisions being made as locally as possible minimizes the risk that someone will have to live under laws they don’t agree with. It doesn’t eliminate it but it does improve the odds
I’m fully aware of how difficult that is in a massive continent spanning multi ethnic empire but I think at least some devolution of power back to the states could happen and it would lessen political conflict. Like I understand why New Yorkers don’t want their laws written by rural Midwesterners or southern suburbanites or Vice versa. It’s such a different culture, lifestyle and issues…they really have very little to do with one another. If I could change the way the US runs I would try to return a lot of power to the states (abortion is a great example because the differences are pretty much irreconcilable.) I do truly believe local autonomy is the only way to competently govern a far flung massive and multi ethnic empire
-->
@Double_R
I get the idea in concept. Certainly states should have the right to govern themselves and not all states will elect to do things the same way. But when it comes to any given issue, the state you reside in doesn't matter. So states rights is something I would expect to come up in the “let’s agree to disagree” part of the exchange. But you can’t get to that part of the exchange without arguing the merits of the disagreement first, that’s where I take issue with this.
The problem is that the abortion debate always comes down to a "let's agree to disagree". It's an irresolvable clash of values -- either you care more about the potential life of the baby or you care more about the bodily autonomy of the mother, and there isn't any objective way to say which is right. For issues like that, it makes sense to localize governance as much as realistically possible.
-->
@spacetime
So some 16 year old girl who's born into hillbilly hell has to have a baby because they don't like the idea of women having a choice. Which is exactly where the debate should end abortion is a choice if you don't want one don't have one. The problem is the men in those areas don't want women having the ability to make their own choice they want to control the woman's body and they don't want to do anything to help the women after the baby's born. Including forcing mem to pay child support because if she hadn't spread her legs she wouldn't have a kid. And we can pretend all we want to that that's not what this comes down to but that's exactly what it comes down to.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
You are deeply unintelligent.
-->
@spacetime
Your thoughts on the subject are noted.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The problem is the men in those areas don't want women having the ability to make their own choice they want to control the woman's body and they don't want to do anything to help the women after the baby's born.
Some of the most anti-abortion people I know are women. Does that change your perception at all?
-->
@ILikePie5
Nope. My experience this type of women have decided a man gets to tell them what to do with their life and because of it you should let a man tell you what to do with your life. They think they're second class citizens and therefore all women are second class citizens. They're betrayers of their own sex and I hope when they get to the other side they f****** pay for it. The whole point to choice is you get to choose to do it or not. If you don't want to have an abortion don't have one that does not give you the right to tell someone else they can't. A born human being has rights, a non-born human being does not and should not. And you can keep saying people are killing children, killing children is illegal and abortion is not killing children.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nope. My experience this type of women have decided a man gets to tell them what to do with their life and because of it you should let a man tell you what to do with your life. They think they're second class citizens and therefore all women are second class citizens.
The typical shitlib response to any wrongthink from a group they pretend to represent "I am a voice for women. Oh you don't think babies should be murdered on a mass scale? You just think you're a second-class citizen" "I am a voice for blacks #BLM #BIPOC. You don't like affirmative action? You're a white supremacist, and you are like that guy from a cabin book I never read!"
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nope. My experience this type of women have decided a man gets to tell them what to do with their life and because of it you should let a man tell you what to do with your life. They think they're second class citizens and therefore all women are second class citizens. They're betrayers of their own sex and I hope when they get to the other side they f****** pay for it. The whole point to choice is you get to choose to do it or not. If you don't want to have an abortion don't have one that does not give you the right to tell someone else they can't. A born human being has rights, a non-born human being does not and should not. And you can keep saying people are killing children, killing children is illegal and abortion is not killing children.
So any woman that doesn’t agree with your philosophy is automatically a second class citizen?
I can assure you this is a bigoted response and frankly an insult to the thousands of independent women out there who are pro-life.
-->
@Double_R
Others have pretty much touched on it, but I'd say it is for 3 reasons:
1. Localization increases the likelihood that you'll be pleased with the policies enacted and you have more power over your destiny.
2. As Wylted said, it helps give insight into what types of policies will work better under different circumstances.
3. I also think that the people in the local community just better know how to fix local issues than a conglomeration of 50 states' representatives. They are more able to be held accountable for failure (ex. a local community group that gives out aid will probably better monitor its use than the massive, slow Social Security Office that paid $46.8 million to dead people in 2015 https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/audit-dead-people-have-been-collecting-billions-from-social-security-as-it-goes-bankrupt/article_c3a1878c-fb4f-11e9-968e-231021b4c2aa.html)
Notice I don't include "muh constitution" (admittedly a fairly common argument in Congress on this issue). I don't think most Congressmen actually care about federalism being in the Constitution, and I don't really think that that argument resonates with voters. There are pretty serious merits to federalism, which is why I'd support it even if it wasn't in the Bill of Rights.
-->
@bmdrocks21
I got used to it at my college campus lol
-->
@ILikePie5
I bet. It is really beyond parody lol. Everyone of a specific demographic must subscribe to the beliefs they think they should or else they short-circuit
-->
@bmdrocks21
I bet. It is really beyond parody lol. Everyone of a specific demographic must subscribe to the beliefs they think they should or else they short-circuit
It’s a constant state of denial. Any other opinion besides your own is bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it.
I once joined this political chat and sheer amount of radicalization just astonished me. How could anyone live in a community without police officers for example. It’s such a disgrace.
-->
@ILikePie5
It’s a constant state of denial. Any other opinion besides your own is bigotry, racism, sexism, homophobia, you name it.I once joined this political chat and sheer amount of radicalization just astonished me. How could anyone live in a community without police officers for example. It’s such a disgrace.
Probably why they all have some mental disorder like depression. When you think that half or more of the country (depending on the issue) is literally a 1930s German or a Southerner in white robes, life must be very stressful.
-->
@ILikePie5
Any woman who thinks they should get to tell another woman what to do with their body is second class. This isn't a matter of pro-life women standing up and saying hey you don't go have an abortion I'll help you they're standing up and saying I don't believe in abortion therefore you can't have one. And if that makes me a bigot I'm fine with it because those women are POS.
-->
@thett3
That would be disingenuous unless federalism was truly their most important issue.
But is it really? That’s exactly why I have a difficult time with this, because I’m just not buying that it is.
Every position we take is ultimately based on our core values, so what’s the core value fueling states rights? Like you said, a belief in the power of concentric circles of identity. So why then, when a republican governor for example tells individual school districts that they are not allowed to impose mask mandates within their schools has not one prominent republican anywhere in the country spoken out against that? Why, when a republican governor takes away a city’s right to its own government (Detroit) does not one prominent republican speak out against that? Why when a state claims its readiness to take over a counties local election board (Fulton county) does the entire Republican Party go all in on the idea?
If this really is the core belief driving this argument then we should expect county rights to be valued ahead of states rights, but not only have I never heard this argument before from anyone, but the same people talking about states rights seem to be the first to use the power of state governments to trample all over the rights of the counties they take issue with. I just don’t buy this, their actions consistently contradict their argument.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Any woman who thinks they should get to tell another woman what to do with their body is second class. This isn't a matter of pro-life women standing up and saying hey you don't go have an abortion I'll help you they're standing up and saying I don't believe in abortion therefore you can't have one. And if that makes me a bigot I'm fine with it because those women are POS.
Or they’re independent thinkers who don’t conform to your groupthink ideals.
-->
@ILikePie5
States Rights are also a check against Central Planning fuckery which historically destroys every Nation that has ever tried it.
-->
@ILikePie5
Or they just religious nuts who think they should get to tell people what to do. Just like you want to. Nothing funnier than a bunch of swinging dicks telling women that they have less rights than a state does. LOL
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Or they just religious nuts who think they should get to tell people what to do. Just like you want to. Nothing funnier than a bunch of swinging dicks telling women that they have less rights than a state does. LOL
Why are you assuming I have a “dick.” Also, why are you assuming I am religious?
This is the problem. You can’t stand a difference of opinions. You are the type to ban someone on this site because they disagree with you. The irony.
-->
@ILikePie5
Pro Life,
Selective morality,
As ever.