Will the Democrats move in the direction of States' rights?

[A18]

The Democratic party may move in the direction of state's rights. If so, the Libertarian party should join forces with the Democrats.

[Ben.]

Probably not.

If by States Right you mean on economic issues then a definite NO.

However on social issue the national party, as I’ve said repeatedly, is going to have to expect that they are on the wrong side of the divide and that they should accept the states prerogative on issues such as Abortion and Gay Marriage while at the same time they should oppose things such as partial birth abortion at the national level.

The impression of the Democrats as secularists really has to be challenged but at the same time purely cosmetic alternations of emphasis should be coupled with genuine changes of direction on social policy.     

[J. J.]

If they were smart, yes.  It goes against the Demo tradition of big government. 

My bet is no.

[DaleC76]

It might be a good idea for them if they did.  It might remove some of their worst campaign issues from being spotlighted in future national elections.  I don't think there will be much support for doing this with the party's core, though.

[No more McShame]

No, it goes against everything the Democrats stand for.

[Frodo]

With the departure of the bulk of their southern base during the past half-century, the answer is definitively no. 

[Bo]

Depends on which issue.

[Antonio the Sixth]

LOL, no.

[Derek]

On some issues like gay marriage so that they don't have to take an unpopular stand. On issues like health care they won't because it means less control for them. So, they will if it benefits them but if not then they'll try to take over themselves.

[Padfoot]

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

[Derek]

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not for at least another fifty years.  States' rights was heavily tarred by the use it was put to by racists.  That isn't to say that they won't embrace Federalist principles when they think they cant't get something done at the National level, but they certainly won't make States' rights a platform plank on its own anytime soon.

[Padfoot]

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

It's one thing to not allow someone in your business if they are threatening your customers or causing a disturbance.  It's a completely different matter to deny someone service based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  Also, there are major differences between keeping strangers out of your house and kicking them out of a store.  That's apples and oranges. 

The government has every right to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all citizens.  I don't want to even imagine the kinds of injustices that would still be taking place if we didn't have anti-segregation laws.

[Derek]

I could never see the Democrats returning to a state's rights platform.  Civil rights are completely ingrained into the party and extracting them like that would cause their base to collapse.  Democrats nationally are all about using the federal government to correct real and perceived injustices against those with little to no political and/or economic power.

Civil rights can mean alot of things such as someone's civil right to not allow someone at their restaurant. After all, you and I have the same right to not allow someone in our home if we choose not to. I don't agree with segregation, but I do not think it's any of the federal government's business.

It's one thing to not allow someone in your business if they are threatening your customers or causing a disturbance.  It's a completely different matter to deny someone service based on their religion, race, ethnicity, etc.  Also, there are major differences between keeping strangers out of your house and kicking them out of a store.  That's apples and oranges. 

The government has every right to ensure the fair and equal treatment of all citizens.  I don't want to even imagine the kinds of injustices that would still be taking place if we didn't have anti-segregation laws.

I respect your point of view on this matter.

[Ameriplan]

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

[Derek]

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

[Mechaman]

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

[Ameriplan]

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

I don't think he'd want them to, him being a Constitutional party member. 

But jokes aside, no.

[Derek]

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

lol what about Kenya?

[Ameriplan]

no, because that means less control for their handlers in Moscow.

So you think they're being run out of Moscow? See I was thinking China or the UN or even Bill Ayers' basement.

nope. Moscow. Either that or Riyadh/Islamabad.

lol what about Kenya?

yeah but only if they have telephones.

[DS0816]

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan … Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

[Derek]

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan … Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.

[Mechaman]

No way.

The Democratic Party has pretty much adopted the slogan: All big government, all the time.  And no, those petty DINOs in places like Oklahoma, Kentucky, and other places don't count since their voices don't mean jack Bo Diddley when talking with the big boys and girls.

The Democratic Party has adopted the slogan … Let's become the Diet Republican party! (The party years before George W. Bush. The Republican Party expanded government. But plenty of their defenders are brainwashed into thinking otherwise.)

Hey, I'm not denying that the Republican Party is full of hypocrisy (I am anything but a fan of the Grand Old Authoritarian Party) for advocating small government while expanding government beyond what "big goverment liberal" Democrats have.  Bush did oversee the biggest expansion of government since LBJ (maybe even bigger), just saying I don't expect the Democratic Party to have an official "State's Rights" plank in their platform anytime soon (considering how many issues they want to leave up to the federal government).
With the exception of drug laws and gay marriage I can't really think of any other issues that the Democrats are like "yay! State's Rights!"

[DS0816]

We don't think it was good how Bush expanded government either but at the time he had a good argument. The left keeps using Bush as a reflection of everything the GOP has and ever will stand for and it's just not true. Nice try though.

Assuming we refers to the entire Republican Party, this is not convincing. Bush had blind party-liners' support for party's sake. What you write is as good as any out-of-office Republican endorsing, say, same-sex marriage. It doesn't do any good. Nor does it impress. Piss-poor try.