(02-04-2022, 10:11 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:(02-03-2022, 03:39 AM)Cavebear Wrote:(02-03-2022, 02:33 AM)jerry mcmasters Wrote: What's wrong with states' rights under the umbrella of specified constitutional individual rights and constitutionally mandated federal authority?
"States Rights" is too often a political and emotional cover for local racism, sexism, and other biases. "States Rights" is routinely employed by politicians to advance their careers. I'll offer 2 examples:
George Wallace was once a moderate politician. He lost an election to a real bigot. He said he would "never be out-niggerred" again, so he adopted racist views for his career success.
I recently read that Tucker Carlson used to be a moderate MSNBC host. But according to friends and associates, decided there was more money to be made as a crazy Fox News host. So he put on his crazy hat and went after the money. He does a lot of talking about "States Rights" too. But does he believe it? Who knows?
To your mention of "constitutional individual rights and constitutionally mandated federal authority":
Individual rights exist. Have you actually read the Constitution lately? I have. And I watch a detailed and authoritive DVD about it once every couple months just to refresh my memory. The DVD goes through each part in detail and discusses the origins and debates about each part. The document is full of them.
"Constitutionally mandated federal authority" is in there also. One is that Federal Laws apply to the States. The reason is that States are subordinate to the Federal Government. National laws over-rule State laws.
There are 3 categories of laws and rights. One is individual rights as declared, one is State law, and one is National law. Among the 3, State laws count the least for basic governance.
I don't know to what degree you are agreeing or disagreeing with me...seems like stream of conscious thoughts about government. I specified "states' rights" with "specified constitutional individual rights and constitutionally mandated federal authority" precisely because states rights alone can be faulty and discriminatory.
"States Rights" are commonly used to deny individual rights AND deny National Laws (in favor of State laws). And they are used inconsistently according to the State's Rights adherents. If they don't like a States law, they go for Federal ones. If they don't like the Federal ones, they go for State Rights.
The inconsistency destroys their stand.
Never argue with people who type fast and have too much time on their hands...