Which never get called “states rights” and in fact get bashed by the people who support the concept.
In “the People’s Republic of [State Name].”
Yeah, that’s another line the Right likes to use.
Until, of course, a state okays a law they don’t like, then it’s suddenly a matter for Federal jurisdiction or, lately, the Unitary Executive.
State and local jurisdictions have no legal obligation under existing statutes to assist deportation efforts in either of these ways — and have a right under the 10th Amendment to refuse to do so.
~Max
I don’t know if it’s been an explicit argument but I certainly see the value of the state in its ability to extend protections the federal government does not offer. For example, my own state codified full reproductive rights to women in the state constitution. Republicans fought it tooth and nail, but a considerable majority voted for the amendment. And that’s in a state with a lot of swing voters.
So that’s good, I guess.
There seems to be some confusion over my request. I am not asking about situations where states have made stricter regulations than federal ones, such as California.
I’m talking about contentious issues where the arguments in favor of the disagreement with the federal law is defended explicitly by supporters on the grounds of “states’ rights”.
@Max_S ‘s example comes closest, but even that seems to fall short because the actual argument specifies the specific right, under the 10th Amendment. It’s not generic "States’ Rights". I will entertain arguments that it fits the category, but I’m not convinced.
How about state control over elections?
Are those broadly pushed as a “states’ rights” issue?
When the RW Feds under trump try to nationalize control of elections, which they are already threatening / floating trial balloons about, I expect “state’s rights” will be a big part of the pushback.
The Tenth Amendment is the “states’ rights” amendment; it doesn’t list specific rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Another prominent example was when Congress tried to ban sports gambling nationwide. But the law was written in a weird way that basically told the states they couldn’t allow sports betting. Normally, federal laws regulating commerce operate directly on said commerce. New Jersey convinced the Supreme Court that Congress was never given the power to issue direct orders to state legislatures. Murphy v. NCAA (2018).
~Max
Isn’t that one of the main thrusts of the various pushes to legalize some recreational drugs? That they shouldn’t be regulated by federal scheduling laws because unless you are distributing/selling/transporting across state lines Congress has no authority to regulate what plants you grown and consume.
But I don’t think the phrase “states’ rights” is used much, if at all, when the topic comes up.
Probably true, due to the various parties involved and their overall political leanings.
But it was used pretty extensively in the dissent by Clarence Thomas in Gonzales. v. Raich, the decision that allowed Congress to regulate private growth and consumption of marijuana for personal medical use, even if state law allows it.
O’Connor made similar arguments in her dissent.
Was that actual term used, or was it discussed as an assertion that the Federal Government supersedes the rights of states in some circumstances?
From O’Connor:
So some explicit language about “room for experiment” which is a common state’s rights argument.
From Thomas:
and
I’d say those are pretty explicit state’s rights arguments with respect to the Commerce Clause. And they are arguments that I’m actually pretty sympathetic to, even though I almost never agree with Thomas on anything else.
And I would state that the very loaded term “states’ rights” was not used in these examples. It is the use of that specific term that I think is in play here, and the fact seems to be that it is used almost exclusively to promote the restrictions of rights.
This makes zero sense. Roe v Wade wasn’t about some FDA regulation governing abortion. It was the SCOTUS saying the government (state or federal) regulating women’s bodies infringes on their fundamental right to privacy under the 14th amendment.
IMO bringing states rights into it is just a way to avoid saying “no Americans don’t have that fundamental right to privacy “. It’s just a cop out to avoid having to face the consequences of the prolife position
I’m not trying to avoid the consequences; I believe that Roe was wrongly decided, and egregiously so, because I’m genuinely not seeing where a right to privacy — if privacy includes can publicly get an abortion — exists in the Constitution.
I never thought that was a cop out; I honestly thought it was understood, with no attempt at avoiding it, every time someone blandly skips to the conclusion that ‘and so it of course gets left to the states, until we amend the Constitution or something.’
Moderating:
I don’t see anyone trying to answer the OP’s question. I’m quoting the OP here in the hope that it will get this thread back on track. If you’re not interested in posting an actual answer to the question posed, then please stay out of the thread. This is not a debate about states’ rights.
Emphasis mine.