One of the aspects of the Republican party that holds no appeal for me is the focus on “states’ rights.” Not only does that make me immediately think of the antebellum south, it makes me ponder on the history of the country generally and wonder: what have the states’ rights advocates ever advocated that would actually be in my interests? When I look at my individual rights, I see a whole lot of examples of the feds making discriminatory states stop discriminating, slave states stop having slaves, segregationist states stop segregating, anti-abortion states stop outlawing abortion, anti-contraception states stop outlawing contraception, anti-sodomy states stop outlawing sodomy. I don’t think of many ways in which the federal government has held back something that I wanted, just dragging recalcitrant states forward.
The only two I can think of are DOMA and drugs, which are important to me (well, DOMA is).
Now, maybe this is because I am a liberal and I have no objection to paying taxes, but is there any way to sell “states’ rights” to someone like me? Is there any reason I should trust states more? What do states want the right to do that I would actually want them to have the right to do?
Take them seriously even when they involve letting a state do something the Right doesn’t like? So-called State’s Rights in practice mean “let the states do as they please when it comes to things the Right likes, but crack down on them when they do something the Left or center likes”.
Marijuana. And possibly other drugs. Luckily Obama’s government has been respecting state law here… Also, if there is some rural state who knows the best (better) way to manage their economy and government, it is a bad thing if Washington steps in and tells them they have to run things like NYC.
But I think it’s kind of a logical fallacy, to automatically assume that the term is bad, just because it is associated with the Civil War. Doesn’t make it good, either. And even there, it was sometimes a weasel term that suggests that the war had nothing to do with slavery, just the mean ol’ Northern Aggressors.
Well, you can argue it on principle; the Founding Fathers intended for the states to exercise most sovereignty, rather than the federal government. For some people, that’s probably enough.
Well, the Feds have overreached in a lot of departments where I think they shouldn’t have, and the states’ rights thing could appeal to me on that level.
A couple of examples: No highway funds unless you enact a seatbelt law. Okay, you’ve got a seatbelt law? Now make it a primary traffic offense (i.e., they can stop you ONLY because you don’t appear to be wearing a seatbelt, not just give you a no-seatbelt ticket when they catch you doing something else illegal). I am for people wearing seatbelts, but I think it’s wrong that the Feds withhold highway funds if your state doesn’t pass the legislation they want.
Example 2: Some federal administrative agency has decided that all streets signs in all municipalities in the country should be a certain standard, and that the text on those signs giving the street names must be upper & lowercase, not all caps. By a certain date. (Or else what, I do not know. Probably more withholding of federal money, which came from guess where in the first place?) I am all for readable street signs. I don’t know what moron decided that U&lc was more readable than all caps, though. And this means that most cities have to replace ALL their signs. I mean really, WTF?
These are just things I happen to know about. I’ll bet if I knew more, I would have a zillion more examples of things where the Feds have overreached, because we’re talking about a bureaucracy here, and in order to survive a bureaucracy has to keep coming up with new things to do, no matter how asinine.
I think they ought to limit themselves to things like civil rights for everybody, domestic safety from outside threats. I don’t think they should be in the business of decreeing what holidays are celebrated in every state–just the holidays that federal employees get off. Etc. I mean, what’s it to them if banks are open on Saturday in Texas and closed on Saturday in New Mexico? (Just as a for-instance.) Or if a state decides it doesn’t need to be on Daylight Saving Time?
Good examples, Hilarity N. Suze. You’re right that those definitely feel like overstepping some boundary, even for me. The bigger issue for me was the drinking age issue, with Elizabeth Dole, which I had forgotten about.
I think Sebelius did something as well, with the morning after pill. See, I knew I was forgetting/overlooking some things.
It’s nearly impossible to sell States’ rights to you. In the long run the Federal Government will always be more progressive while a few States take up the conservative (small “c”) position of maintaining the status quo. As such it’s unlikely anyone’s going to convince you not to support the Federal Government over the States when you advocate for change.
The standard scenario is one or two States make a change towards a more progressive position. Initially the Federal Government will be aligned with the conservative position. But those States will now send people to Congress in line with the progressive position. If the idea spreads to more States, they too take up the progressive viewpoint. If the idea becomes popular enough someone running for President will include it in their platform. With a receptive Congress it becomes Federal Law. Conservatives won’t share that viewpoint though, so when he Federal Government exerts it’s authority those opposed claim States’ Rights and how they’re being oppressed.
The Federal Government is a baseline standard for the majority (at least it’s supposed to be) and part of it’s job is to bring individual States up to that line. This always benefits the progressive, since they can have stricter or more comprehensive standards at the state level for things like OSHA, healthcare, enviromental laws, ect. And the progressive can maintain hope that their view spreads to enough that the Federal Government takes the position and requires it from other States too.
Gay marriage is following this pattern. It was made legal in a few states and Obama has taken the progressive position now. Whoever runs in 2016 will definitely be required to take a stance on the issue. Eventually the support for it will overwhelm those remaining conservatives and the Federal Government will correct to the majority position.
The problem with this is that it’s been explicitly rejected twice well before any of us were born. First with the dissolution of the Articles and then with the Civil War. And the former occurred in 1789, even they recognized that placing the States over the Federal Government was a bad idea.
Furthermore the country is nothing like what they could have imagined. In 15 hours they’d have trouble traveling from Philadelphia to D.C. In 15 hours I can fly from Maine to Hawaii and with the time change if I leave after breakfast I can get there in time for dinner. I can get local news from anywhere and discuss it as it happens. The country is both larger than they could have foreseen and so much smaller then they could possibly imagine.
I can see your point here, it’s backdoor way to pass a law without passing a law and I agree that’s not really a good thing. It’s not quite as terrible as you claim though, 17 states have it as a secondary enforcement issue and 1, New Hampshire, has no seat belt laws for anyone over 18. So it’s not exactly clubbing every state into obedience. I’d like it better if they did just pass a law mandating them.
You’re mistaken on how this law works. Nobody has to replace anything due to the font on the sign. They just can’t replace worn out signs in the old style. No town is paying more to replace street signs then they already would based on wear.
Surely this is an issue with the employer and not the Federal Government? I’m willing to be corrected here, but is there really a Federal law preventing a bank from being open whenever the heck it wants? Plenty of people work holidays and weekends.
Cite that this happens? The law is hardly uniform. “Live free or die” is notable. Are you thinking of speed limits cannot be greater than 65 or 70, which some states (IIRC Montana) resisted?
Oh and federal law says that seatbelts have to exist.
As a general rule, “states rights” is usually a cloak for people in some states protesting doing something the federal government wants them to do, which they do not wish to do. The argument is that it should be up to the state to choose. The biggie was slavery; also high on the list at times have been various excise taxes, etc.
Among the things the federal government has mandated that perhaps you might want your state deciding upon: maximum speed limit on highways, amount of water your shower can use (or your toilet), whether or not and how a state’s schools are forced to meet education goals, etc.
I’ll be more impressed with “states rights” on the day it gets used to object to reigning IN state actions. California might have had a claim on doing just that with the clean air rules on cars, if the feds hadn’t exempted California’s more stringent standards back in the 70s.
That’s Justice O’Connor in her dissent in Gonzales v. Raich, quoting Justice Brandeis’s dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann. It’s a shame that the phrase “states’ rights” is so linked with things like segregation.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. The Federal Government is going to represent some sort of crazy, weighted average between the least and most “progressive” states. Assuming that “progressiveness” is the measure of goodness here, if you live in MA or some other fairly progressive state, you don’t need to get permission from Mississippi to do the things you want to do. In fact, Mississippi has no say in what laws you enact.
Now, this can sometimes be a moot point since the states can still do things alone if they want, but there is a limited amount of tax dollars available if the Feds are gobbling up a big share.
And even to the extent that states’ rights was an issue in the Civil War, it’s mostly in the opposite direction from what most Confederate apologists would have you think: The northern states believed that a state should be allowed to ban slavery, while the southern states believed that no state should have that right.
Let’s say that you live in Wichita, KS. People in Wichita have problems and solutions that are unique even to people in other parts of Kansas. The idea is that local elected officials have more knowledge of what’s best for Wichita than the Kansas Legislature.
Likewise, Kansas has problems and solutions unique to Kansas. People in Kansas can handle their own issues better than representatives in the federal government who are located anywhere from Nome, AK and Key West, FL and all points in between.
Further, if you have a problem, it’s far easier to get a different Wichita city council member elected than to change the makeup of the entire U.S. Congress and the Presidency.
Of course, the Feds are there to protect fundamental rights (in theory). The Wichita city council cannot pass a law prohibiting the publication of newspapers, because a free press is a basic right.
And, as others have said, when progressive ideas come down the pike and get the support of about 30 states, there begins to be a move to impose the idea on the other 20 states. Seat belt laws and open container laws come to mind. If MS wants to let people drink liquor in a car, if NH wants no seat belt laws for adults, and TX wants to have a 16 year old drinking age, then that is no concern of any other state, and the feds should butt out.
Yes. It was a terrible about face by him. He came into office with the pledge to repeal the 55mph speed limit. Clinton (albiet kicking and screaming) finally did that and Reagan added to the federal mandates with the drinking age law.
The speed limit was allowed to rise in rural areas under Reagan, but it was Congress that allowed states again to set speed limits above 55 mph anywhere. Clinton had nothing to do with that other than not vetoing the bill.
I don’t recall what Reagan had to do with the drinking age other than, again, not vetoing the bill.
You are correct that in 1987, the 55mph was amended to allow for maximum speeds of 65mph on rural interstates. Congress in 1995 passed a law ending all federal control of speed limits that was buried in the transportation funding bill. Clinton, not thinking it worth a veto, signed the repeal despite “serious misgivings”: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/29/world/president-signs-measure-repealing-us-speed-limit.html