• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

States vs Federal government

A

ataraxia

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
48,271
Reaction score
25,538
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The debate between the states power and the federal government has been raging since the inception of this country. For those arguing for states' rights, there seems to be this insinuation that leaving power to the states gives people locally more power over how they are governed. But the problem has been that states have sometimes abused that to discriminate and take away even basic human rights from their citizens. In the 1960s, it was the right of certain of their own citizens: those with darker skin tone were not able to vote. During the Obama era it was taking away their right to access to healthcare. Even the right to a basic education has not been highly regarded by many of them.

So my question is: is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory? Even if the majority of that state wants such laws, why is it necessarily more "freedom" to have state governments mandating such tyranny?
 
ataraxia said:
The debate between the states power and the federal government has been raging since the inception of this country. For those arguing for states' rights, there seems to be this insinuation that leaving power to the states gives people locally more power over how they are governed. But the problem has been that states have sometimes abused that to discriminate and take away even basic human rights from their citizens. In the 1960s, it was the right of certain of their own citizens: those with darker skin tone were not able to vote. During the Obama era it was taking away their right to access to healthcare. Even the right to a basic education has not been highly regarded by many of them.

So my question is: is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory? Even if the majority of that state wants such laws, why is it necessarily more "freedom" to have state governments mandating such tyranny?
Click to expand...

Quite frankly, the State Legislatures' only obligation, is to act within the Constitution. As long as what they do is Constitutional, the rest is between them and their constituents.
 
One person’s view of absolute tyranny is another person’s view of ”reasonable restrictions”. It’s amazing how the patchwork of variable state laws is seen as just peachy for state laws on “gun control” or marijuana legalization, but the end of democracy and establishment of tyranny for abortion restrictions.
 
ataraxia said:
The debate between the states power and the federal government has been raging since the inception of this country. For those arguing for states' rights, there seems to be this insinuation that leaving power to the states gives people locally more power over how they are governed. But the problem has been that states have sometimes abused that to discriminate and take away even basic human rights from their citizens. In the 1960s, it was the right of certain of their own citizens: those with darker skin tone were not able to vote. During the Obama era it was taking away their right to access to healthcare. Even the right to a basic education has not been highly regarded by many of them.

So my question is: is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory? Even if the majority of that state wants such laws, why is it necessarily more "freedom" to have state governments mandating such tyranny?
Click to expand...
They Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. The Feds have certain enumerated rights and all others (minus a few) belong to the individual states. And, yes, both the Feds and the states screw things up occasionally. The opposite question: Is it right for the Feds to seize the constitutional rights of states because they thing the states are screwing things up?
 
Bullseye said:
They Constitution is pretty clear on this issue. The Feds have certain enumerated rights and all others (minus a few) belong to the individual states. And, yes, both the Feds and the states screw things up occasionally. The opposite question: Is it right for the Feds to seize the constitutional rights of states because they thing the states are screwing things up?
Click to expand...

I believe that one of the most basic functions of government is to protect the basic human rights of its citizens. These rights were enumerated in the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights, and include things like the right to food, shelter, clean water, a basic education, and access to healthcare. Equality of opportunity demands some basic equality of access to resources. These are public goods. Any government which fails to do so is not competent, just, or humane. It may be free, but it is the kind of freedom you can find in the jungle, not a modern civil society.

 
Is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory?

Who decides what's tyrannical or discriminatory? I know, lets have a judiciary with long black robes and lifetime appointments decide everything for us!
 
lemmiwinx said:
Is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory?

Who decides what's tyrannical or discriminatory? I know, lets have a judiciary with long black robes and lifetime appointments decide everything for us!
Click to expand...
And that judiciary does a pretty good job of preventing those types of laws; not perfectly, of course, but pretty damn good.
 
ataraxia said:
The debate between the states power and the federal government has been raging since the inception of this country. For those arguing for states' rights, there seems to be this insinuation that leaving power to the states gives people locally more power over how they are governed. But the problem has been that states have sometimes abused that to discriminate and take away even basic human rights from their citizens. In the 1960s, it was the right of certain of their own citizens: those with darker skin tone were not able to vote. During the Obama era it was taking away their right to access to healthcare. Even the right to a basic education has not been highly regarded by many of them.

So my question is: is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory? Even if the majority of that state wants such laws, why is it necessarily more "freedom" to have state governments mandating such tyranny?
Click to expand...
It is not. Check out the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
 
Chomsky said:
Quite frankly, the State Legislatures' only obligation, is to act within the Constitution. As long as what they do is Constitutional, the rest is between them and their constituents.
Click to expand...

Hear! Hear!

😇
 
mrjurrs said:
It is not. Check out the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

Article VI​

Paragraph 2​

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Is it OK to have states' rights to make their own laws when those laws are tyrannical and discriminatory?

Who decides what's tyrannical or discriminatory? I know, lets have a judiciary with long black robes and lifetime appointments decide everything for us!
Click to expand...

So let’s say we have a state legislature which decides men with male pattern baldness will have to pay a surcharge to eat at restaurants. You OK with that?
 
ataraxia said:
So let’s say we have a state legislature which decides men with male pattern baldness will have to pay a surcharge to eat at restaurants. You OK with that?
Click to expand...

Yes. Restaurants are private entities and therefore should collect baldness taxes for the legislature.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Yes. Restaurants are private entities and therefore should collect baldness taxes for the legislature.
Click to expand...

I see. So you are OK with discrimination at the state legislature level. Interesting.

What if next they decide bald men are not allowed to vote? If someone doesn’t have hair on top of their head, they probably don’t have a brain in there either, right?
 
ataraxia said:
I see. So you are OK with discrimination at the state legislature level. Interesting.

What if next they decide bald men are not allowed to vote? If someone doesn’t have hair on top of their head, they probably don’t have a brain in there either, right?
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain if bald men hadn't been allowed to vote Elizabeth Warren would have been our first female Native American president in 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom