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?
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?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?
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?
And that judiciary does a pretty good job of preventing those types of laws; not perfectly, of course, but pretty damn good.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!
It is not. Check out the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.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?
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.
It is not. Check out the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
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!
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?
Yes. Restaurants are private entities and therefore should collect baldness taxes for the legislature.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?