[T]

To a Liberal, the principle of states' rights has been on the wrong side of just about every issue it has been rained in, from slavery to civil rights to, more recently, abortion and now (ir)religious freedom. But does this mean that we should necessariuly reject a more federalist view of America? As liberals, can we be content to carve out enclaves of the country that are run with respect for individual liberties, and allow states like Alabama be as backwards as they like? Or are we duty-bound to try to defend the liberties of Americans everywhere by shoving the Voting Rights Act establishment clause down the throats of conservative states?

[briansmith]

You bring up some interesting points, and I'll try to address them as well as possible in a single post.

My belief as far as states' rights goes is this: a state may make any law it wants as long as it does not infringe on the rights guaranteed by the federal government. Period. Furthermore, any time a state does make a law that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the federal government, that state's law (or any other law that the state has due to judicial discretion) may be overturned.

I don't know that we (as Americans, so all references from here on out to 'we' should read 'Americans') should be fighting states' rights necessarily... because our governmental system exists the way it does for a reason. Sometimes we might not see the reasons right on the surface. I will say that we should, however, oppose oppressive state laws and regulations on the basis that they are violating fundamental American freedoms (Texas sodomy law, anyone?).

I'm not sure it's a left-right issue anymore. The Republican Party nowadays is mostly preaching big government in certain areas, and the Democratic Party is slowly turning into the small-government party, but there is still a lot of time left to go.

It's hard to judge liberal vs. conservative issues anymore because neo-liberals are closer to neo-conservatives and liberals & conservatives are getting along more and more out of sheer despise for the neo-freaks. Politics in the U.S. might be more or less a two party system, but it's certainly not two ideologies.

[Noumenon]

My belief as far as states' rights goes is this: a state may make any law it wants as long as it does not infringe on the rights guaranteed by the federal government. Period. Furthermore, any time a state does make a law that infringes on the rights guaranteed by the federal government, that state's law (or any other law that the state has due to judicial discretion) may be overturned.

Wow I actually agree with you on this!

I'm not sure it's a left-right issue anymore. The Republican Party nowadays is mostly preaching big government in certain areas, and the Democratic Party is slowly turning into the small-government party, but there is still a lot of time left to go.

Well maybe the Republican party is supporting big government, but the ideological base of the party is completely opposed to it. The democratic party is in no way supporting small government, please give me some examples of this? Every true democrat supports more social programs, which equals bigger government and more taxes (or more deficit).

To a Liberal, the principle of states' rights has been on the wrong side of just about every issue it has been rained in, from slavery to civil rights to, more recently, abortion and now (ir)religious freedom.

On the other hand...states rights allow states like California to make more liberal laws than the federal government would. So states rights allow experimentation with either liberal or conservative laws (and I believe the liberal laws of California have created a disaster...the largest state deficit in history I believe).

[T]

On the other hand...states rights allow states like California to make more liberal laws than the federal government would. So states rights allow experimentation with either liberal or conservative laws (and I believe the liberal laws of California have created a disaster...the largest state deficit in history I believe).

That what I was thinking about, particularly with gay marriage and legalized marijuana (of course conservative are mounting challenges at the federal level). Still, there is a significant difference between overturning a state law because it infringes on nationally garaunteed rights and because the 'moral majority' opposes it.

[Cruxus]

I think it's safe to assume that most Americans think of themselves as U.S. citizens before residents of their own state. Many progressive-thinking Americans, thus, see no justification for retaining unconstitutional state laws that violate the superior rights and liberties that come with being American for the sake of defending the autonomy of a state. Therefore, one can find little defense for a state's law if it violates the Constitution's protections of due process of the law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

States are constitutionally permitted an expansive legal framework in which to operate; it is not so much to require them to abide by the Constitution which gave them this ability in the first place.

Would we have this question of states' rights if the issue were over a state's right to require all its residents to attend a church associated with the Southern Baptist Convention every Sunday or a state's right to regulate the content of newspapers for "unpatriotic sentiments"? I would hope even the farthest right-wing "federalists" would recognize the justice and constitutionality of a Supreme Court ruling striking down those laws.

[smashthestate]

No one knows better how to run the states than the states themselves.

[Kikey]

To infringe upon the rights of the states would be a crime against the Constitution itself.

[Kewpie]

I do agree that federalism was the intention of the framers and it should be protected.

However, since McCulloch v Maryland, (sp? I've had some vodka ) we're practically a unitary system of government anyway. It's perfectly federalistic, apparently, to withold funding from a state that does not comply with the efforts of congress to unify certain laws throughout the states, such as lowering the limit for driving blood alcohol level to 0.08. I say that we're unitary anyway because, if some states remained defiant, I'm sure congress could come up with some attenuated link to commerce in order to get their way.

The supreme court COULD decide that the decision in the aforementioned case (McCulloch's) decision has ruined federalism and that congress' stretching the commerce clause in order to get their way must be stopped. But, with the majority conservative court, and laws pertaining to partial-birth abortion and stem cell research in the works, I doubt that they'd do the right thing and leave these issues to the states.

The decision in the case which shot down the VWA (violence against women act) would seem to be a precedent to shoot down such attempts by congress. However, (and I REALLY don't understand this), the court seems to think that protecting the interest of women (and this is coming from someone who agreed with their decision!) is easily discounted in the name of federalism, while other more "pressing" issues can be excused in the name of good law.

I shouldn't jump ahead of myself--it remains to be seen if the court will remain unbiased. I would just hope they wouldn't be TOO hypocritical, repubicans or not.

[Locke]

I think states rights are a good thing. It is easier to govern a group of people when you live with that group of people. It is hard to govern from thousands of miles away in Washington DC. States’ laws more accurately reflect its citizens’ views then national laws. But, I feel that Washington should also have power if the states do something crazy.

I believe the liberal laws of California have created a disaster

ahh no, it was the conservative laws of the past two Republican governors that mainly contributed to the future deficit we have now. That and the bad economy.