Federal Government Working to Remove Sovereignty of States

[Free Palestine]

So if, say a state legalized rape, the government should do... nothing?

States aren't going to legalize rape.  That's just absurd.  But, the federal government doesn't have a constitutional authority to intervene.  If a state seriously does legalize rape, and the others are horrified enough, they could go ahead and pass a Constitutional amendment...

[Beet]

So if, say a state legalized rape, the government should do... nothing?

States aren't going to legalize rape.  That's just absurd.  But, the federal government doesn't have a constitutional authority to intervene.  If a state seriously does legalize rape, and the others are horrified enough, they could go ahead and pass a Constitutional amendment...

The Maryland Supreme Court recently ruled that if a woman changes her mind after initially saying yes, it's not rape. Also, before the feminist movement many states had laws on the books that if a husband rapes his wife, it's not rape.

[Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey]

I'm not certain I support states rights to the extent that Morgan does, but I support states rights as a general principle for most issues, and I understand what he's saying.

For those who don't support states rights, look at it this way: state politics affect you more than national politics, and it's much easier for you to have a say in and influence state politics than it is for you to influence national politics. If you don't like a state law, it's much easier for you to lobby for it to be repealed than it is for a national law. When the Federal Government trumps states rights, they're taking away your power to influence the law. Also consider the fact that the United States was more so formed as a federation of states rather than a nation, which is why the Founders meant for the states to govern themselves for most of the time, minimizing the role of the Federal Government as much as possible.

[Verily]

For those who don't support states rights, look at it this way: state politics affect you more than national politics, and it's much easier for you to have a say in and influence state politics than it is for you to influence national politics. If you don't like a state law, it's much easier for you to lobby for it to be repealed than it is for a national law. When the Federal Government trumps states rights, they're taking away your power to influence the law.

This is simply not true. By and large, state governments are far more controlled by special interests than is the federal government, and state laws are much more difficult to repeal than federal ones as a result. It is true that state governments act more, but this is merely the direct result of them having authority over more domains and fewer restrictions on how they can exercise that authority, as well as, in most states, one party possessing long-term dominance over state government.

[Dr. Cynic]

My belief is that a state should be allowed to make laws as to how they govern, but cannot overturn a federal law in that state without a 2\3 majority of the voters. Seems fair to me.

[SPC]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

[Free Palestine]

I'll let you guys argue.  I suck at being a libertarian.

[SPC]

I'll let you guys argue.  I suck at being a libertarian.

Don't demean yourself. I thought you're arguments were pretty good.

[Beet]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

[SPC]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

[Beet]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But how do you know the states would choose to decentralize? The same end result could be achieved just by the feds mandating that people are left to choose for themselves.

[Free Palestine]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But how do you know the states would choose to decentralize? The same end result could be achieved just by the feds mandating that people are left to choose for themselves.

If the states choose not to decentralize, then so be it.

[Beet]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But how do you know the states would choose to decentralize? The same end result could be achieved just by the feds mandating that people are left to choose for themselves.

If the states choose not to decentralize, then so be it.

Ok, then it's not universal and consistent.

[Free Palestine]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But how do you know the states would choose to decentralize? The same end result could be achieved just by the feds mandating that people are left to choose for themselves.

If the states choose not to decentralize, then so be it.

Ok, then it's not universal and consistent.

I'm not saying it has to be.

[Beet]

How dare rights be universal!

Universality is not the problem. The problem is that the federal state seeks to impose its fiat legal code onto people against their will. Ultimately the end result of radical decentralization of law is a legal system that is both universal and consistant.

How does decentralization lead to consistency?

Ultimately, if you take it down to the individual level, it becomes an individual choice without any government intervention on any level. For example, suppose the feds left abortion up to the states. And then the states further decentralize to the counties. And they leave it to the cities. And they leave eventually leave it to the individual, in which people are left to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

But how do you know the states would choose to decentralize? The same end result could be achieved just by the feds mandating that people are left to choose for themselves.

If the states choose not to decentralize, then so be it.

Ok, then it's not universal and consistent.

I'm not saying it has to be.

Then you haven't addressed Xahar's comment at all.

[Хahar 🤔]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

[Free Palestine]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

Not if they believe in Constitutional, limited government.  There are a lot of conservatives who believe it is an issue that should be left to the states.

[Хahar 🤔]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

Not if they believe in Constitutional, limited government.  There are a lot of conservatives who believe it is an issue that should be left to the states.

Because the sanctioning of murder by Constitutional, limited government is a good idea.

[Free Palestine]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

Not if they believe in Constitutional, limited government.  There are a lot of conservatives who believe it is an issue that should be left to the states.

Because the sanctioning of murder by Constitutional, limited government is a good idea.

Conservatives who believe in state sovereignty usually recognize that there is serious contention over whether or not abortion really is murder.  They believe it is, but respect the rights of people in other states to make their own laws.  They recognize that the Constitutional purpose of the federal government is not to prevent murder.

[Phony Moderate]

There is no such thing as "rights". They are a religious concept.

[Sewer]

There is no such thing as "rights". They are a religious concept.

But I'm not religious.

[Хahar 🤔]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

Not if they believe in Constitutional, limited government.  There are a lot of conservatives who believe it is an issue that should be left to the states.

Because the sanctioning of murder by Constitutional, limited government is a good idea.

Conservatives who believe in state sovereignty usually recognize that there is serious contention over whether or not abortion really is murder.  They believe it is, but respect the rights of people in other states to make their own laws.  They recognize that the Constitutional purpose of the federal government is not to prevent murder.

Well, if these conservatives have no issue with the sanctioning of what they believe to be murder, then I for one have no respect for them.

[Mercenary]

Disgusting.

Doesn't really matter one's position. Left or Right. Authoritarian or Libertarian. Localism is in everyone's best interests. The only reason for centralism is some kind of sick desire to force your views on everyone else in the entire country, or as a politician a desire for more power. Centralism breeds corruption and destruction of freedoms.

[SPC]

How dare rights be universal!

How dare people think abortion is murder!

And if one were to believe that, presumably they would want it banned everywhere.

Not if they believe in Constitutional, limited government.  There are a lot of conservatives who believe it is an issue that should be left to the states.

Because the sanctioning of murder by Constitutional, limited government is a good idea.

Conservatives who believe in state sovereignty usually recognize that there is serious contention over whether or not abortion really is murder.  They believe it is, but respect the rights of people in other states to make their own laws.  They recognize that the Constitutional purpose of the federal government is not to prevent murder.

Well, if these conservatives have no issue with the sanctioning of what they believe to be murder, then I for one have no respect for them.

They're not the ones sanctioning it. They're just letting the people of those states govern themselves. If you had your way, we would all live under a planetary dictatorship.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

American states haven't been sovereign in even so much as a semi-meaningful way for a long time now.