Well, yes…that’s my point. I would expect, given free rein to do so, that some states would go one way and some would go another. Not because I believe that there ought to be a law against interracial marriage. In fact, just the opposite…not only would I oppose such a law, but I would prefer to have the opportunity to attempt to change it, should it be enacted. My expectation would also be that socially progressive ideas are more likely to spread from state to state than not.
And, as SuaSponte pointed out, Federal control/power can cut both ways. If I wouldn’t want the Feds to ban interracial marriage, then I wouldn’t want a blanket protection of it, either. The point isn’t what I, personally, am “for” or “against,” it’s a matter of how I think our government ought to work.
On a moral/practical level, my problem with that is that the people who are most likely to be discriminated against are the people who can least easily move to another state in a strict Federalist system. It’s going to be the people furthest down the economic system.
But on a more legal level, I am assuming there is some point at which you support federal protection of individual rights as against state powers. The laboratory system doesn’t work, for example, unless people have the right to interstate travel. I’m just wondering where you draw that line.
Here’s the thing, though…the purpose of the Constitution and the Federal government is a specific one, and that purpose doesn’t really include looking out for those who are further down on the economic scale (or, looking out for those who are at the top of the economic scale, for that matter). Much of what the government has tried to control amounts to social experimentation, and not always successful experimentation, at that. IMO, the government should stick to what it is meant for, and what it is good at. Like collecting taxes.
I believe that the line is drawn by what it says in the Constitution. Anything not specifically mentioned is left to the states. I don’t think that a state passing a law that restricts movement would be considered Constitutional.
Another example of states rights in action is that California is now suing the EPA in order to be allowed to have more stringent environmental regulations on cars.
But the reason the term “states rights” has such a bad odor is that it has been used against the imposition of federal and constitutional rights on states who do not want to grant them. When I was growing up states rights meant don’t make us let those people in our schools. It’s a good term describing a good concept that got hijacked by racists.
I’m saying states’ rights enables such discrimination in states well past the point when it has become unacceptable nationally. This is why “states’ rights” is the battle cry of those who would discriminate, and of the politicians who cater to them.
I hope my clarification of my argument just now explains why this misses the point.
OK, some states were ahead of the curve in allowing gay marriage. And California has the right under the law to require stronger environmental protections, which other states can sign on to.
After that, I’ve got nothin’. There’s the differing balances that states have between income tax and sales tax, but I don’t see anyone learning a whole lot from anyone else on this. And in the states I’m familiar with, you’re in the top income tax bracket when you’re right around the poverty line. So I don’t see that that’s a biggie.
I don’t see that that exactly balances out Jim Crow.
OK, educate me here. AFAIK, Northern racial discrimination was rampant, but as I understand it, it was basically a private matter. Laws didn’t prevent racial discrimination for a long time because they didn’t prevent discrimination generally. (I don’t remember when elite colleges had Jewish quotas, to limit the number of Jews admitted, but my father does.) But my understanding is that the laws themselves were rarely an impediment for blacks in the North, unlike in the South.
But let’s talk about the country “truly desir[ing] change.” Sure, when it does, change eventually happens, but “states’ rights” can sure slow it down even when it does. At a time when the idea was anathema in most of America, much of the commonwealth of Virginia shut down its public school system entirely, educating white students in private ‘academies’, in order to avoid desegregation. A generation of black children got whatever education their parents could afford to pay for, for a few years, or no education at all.
True enough. But the states’ rights advocates contended those actions were illegal and unconstitutional, and fought them every step of the way, raising the bar for how “truly” the country as a whole had to desire change in order to make it happen.
I’d say it more like this: everyone knew how hard the South would fight to preserve its ways (since it had already done so overtly once), and that, combined with inertia and milder racism in other parts of the country meant that the country only sorta wanted to see Southern racist structures done away with. But the South and states’ rights were what set the bar sufficiently high that sentiment for a fairer deal wasn’t sufficient before the 1950s and 1960s.
The city of Seattle implemented restrictive covenants? Cite, please.
OK, but (for instance) passing laws saying that persons in a gay relationship can’t contract with each other in ways that any other two people can, has everything to do with states’ being independent actors. Marriage is far from the only issue with respect to discrimination against gays.
Hence I prefaced that part as on a moral/practical level, as opposed to the later part, which I said was on a legal level. I never claimed it was a constitutional problem, just a practical one. And it is, and I think a serious stumbling block for those who claim the federalist structure is the preferable one, as opposed to the one mandated by the Constitution (which it is, though we can argue about the degrees).
It wouldn’t on current jurisprudence regarding the Constitution. I am assuming then you don’t believe in any incorporation of the Bill of Rights, for example.
Right, I got that. My point was that upholding the Constitution is more important than “practical” matters.
I can see that you do, but I disagree. As I said, practicality is good in its place, but I think that allowing the system to be run in that manner risks having the system turn against you faster than it works for you.
Well the Bill of Rights specifically limits the Federal government, not the states, where it mentions who it controls. It doesn’t within the four corners of the document restrict the actions of the States with regard to their own citizens, and in fact, even today, not all of the protections are held as controlling the States.
Right, but the concept of incorporation is a separate one from what we have been discussing here. We’ve been talking about limits on Federal government, not limits on state government. Although you are right that incorporation involves an interpretation of the Constitution that is not implicitly spelled out, it is not one that increases the power of the Feds at the expense of the states.
But, of course, Jim Crow was ultimately found to be unconstitutional. It was a misapplication of states’ rights, not the ultimate example of the propriety of the principle.
So how is that different from a legal determination that equal protection under the federal constitution prevents a state from banning interracial marriage. Or, for that matter, same sex marriage, if such a determination were made?
I know what incorporation is. However, it’s the way that “equal protection” is interpreted that I might have an issue with. If I agree with something being granted a federal right, then I have no problem with the states having to adhere to it.
Do they? I’m a states’ rights supporter, and I don’t think the feds should have a say in banning any of that. Not to give a no true scotsman argument, but I would venture to say that anyone who says they support states’ rights, but want federal bans on such things doesn’t really understand what states’ rights are supposed to be.
OK - I see where you are coming from on that. I don’t understand how you can draw the distinction between a textualist interpretation of what rights the Constitution guarantees, and a more broad interpretation of to whom those rights apply, but I do at least know where you are coming from now.
Virtually nobody actually cares about states rights or federal power unless they’re a state or federal office holder. People care about other issues: slavery, canals, gold standards, womens suffrage, alcohol, abortion, unions, marijuana, whatever. If they think they can convince enough people in the country to agree with them, then they want it to be a federal issue. If they can’t convince enough people throughout the country but can convince enough people in their local area to agree with them, then they want it to be a state issue. People who argue for or against states rights are just looking for the most favorable venue for their pet peeve.
