The states’ rights doctrine has been misused, certainly, but that does not mean it’s always that way. And it’s not as if the federal government is somehow more enlightened on individual rights than all of the states. DC was segregated up until the civil rights era.
States rights is what allowed some blue states to recognize gay marriage. Do you think gay marriage should have been outlawed all over the country until the federal government decided it was okay?
There are cases where it states’ rights allow for more individual rights. For instance, states’ rights to not prohibit victimless crimes like marijuana use, gambling, or prostitution. But it does tend to go the other way, most notably leading up to the Civil War and the civil rights movement a century later.
Plus there’s education, definitely a state issue. Not many people like the idea of a federal unified education curriculum.
Your mean conservatives don’t like it. Progressives have more sense. Even moderate Republicans started to come around until the Tea Partiers freaked out over Common Core.
You could always move to a country without state and local governments. We have 50 states or 57, it’s irrelevant, that have very strong interests in ensuring that the charter of the nation isn’t reinterpreted by shortsighted individuals.
Would you desire to get rid of municipal government as well? No more left wing sanctuary cities that defy federal law? Or do you cherry pick?
Most of them prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, certainly. Because prior to the 14th there was no constitutionally accepted role of the Federal government in regard to individual rights. All of the individual rights enshrined in the constitution only applied to the citizen relationship with the Federal government, not with the States. So while not all arguments in favor of States rights prior to the 14th Amendment were made to advance individual rights, there was no real relationship between States rights and individual rights. Individual rights were the sole purview of State governments, so State’s rights in that time were about State powers vs Federal government powers.
FWIW of course, some of the reasons behind advocacy for State rights prior to the 14th amendment were absolutely being made out of a respect for individual rights. In fact the Bill of Rights itself was largely forced by State’s righters who were deeply concerned that the Federal government might take away individual rights that their States had already guaranteed to them.
Since the 14th Amendment I do think it’s mostly like you imply–State’s rights are often raised as a pretext to discriminate, but even then it’s probably not universal. I imagine during prohibition a lot of people were making an argument that prohibition should be a state issue, not a Federal one, and that certainly was advancing an individual right.
“States’ rights” prior to the 14th amendment mostly meant “right to have slaves”. Note, incidentally, that it did not mean “right to not have slaves”.
Asian-Americans? They are pretty concentrated in big states so they have very few senators per capita and there aren’t a lot of Asian American Congress-critters.
Gerrymandering doesn’t really affect senate seats.
How do you figure when the popular vote tends to go blue.
Not quite that simple even if the left wants to distort history to advance an agenda.
My guess is, if the country can be divided into two types of areas - urban, which tend to be strongly Democratic, and susurban/rural, which tend to be slightly Republican - then there will tend to be more districts with a slim, but definite, Republican majority.
It didn’t really mean that, the right to have slaves wasn’t questioned prior to the 13th Amendment–it was known it was a State issue. There was, I repeat, no individual rights discussions under the Federal constitution prior to the 14th–other than a few things prohibiting the Federal government from infringing rights. 100% of the responsibility for protecting individual rights was on the States up until the 14th (and even after the 14th it was some time before the full bill of rights was “incorporated” to the states.)
So you’re basically factually wrong here. You’re envisioning a modern American Federalist framework pre-14th Amendment that doesn’t exist today. Without the 13th Amendment the Federal constitution never could’ve prohibited slavery, it was simply impossible.
So basically there was no controversy like there has been in recent years where people argue “State’s rights” to try and block Federal efforts to protect individual rights–there was no precedent for the Federal government stepping in to protect citizens from State government infringements of individual rights prior to the 14th Amendment. State governments were considered the guarantors of individual rights, not the Federal government.
The Southern secessionists who broke away were largely reacting to a fear of a long run risk–the Federal government had broad power over the territories, so could make all new territories (and subsequently new States) free states, and they believed that would eventually result in a constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery. Even then it wouldn’t be the Federal government taking away slaves–it’d be the other state’s, through a constitutional amendment.
Which would be an example of exactly what you said didn’t happen, the federal government protecting individual rights.
Because constitutionally (yet not in practice or the last 150 years of legal precedents) the United States is a union of sovereign states fully equal with each other.
I am not seeing how you can interpret it this way. He said they were afraid the Federal government was GOING to enact something like the 13th and 14th amendments. That’s not an example of them already doing it.
Chronos wrote: “States’ rights” prior to the 14th amendment mostly meant “right to have slaves”. Note, incidentally, that it did not mean “right to not have slaves”.
Not to mention “The right to not be slaves.”
My motivation is to strengthen the legislative branch as against the executive. A one-house, undivided legislature makes binding decisions more easily than a two-house legislature. I recall this from a college lecture on The Federalist Papers – our FFs had seen at the colony/state level that the legislature was the biggest threat to civil liberties, therefore they wanted to weaken Congress by dividing it – all the constitutional plans the Convention considered had a two-house legislature for that reason, though the details differed from one plan to another – but subsequent history has shown the executive to actually be a much bigger threat.
Come again? Surely the right to not be enslaved was upheld (as a matter of law) in the states which had abolished slavery.