Those damn liberal Ron Paul fans....

[Liberal]

@Jackmannii

You realize that in both cases you cited (apart from their being relatively ancient history), you’re complaining of the federal government ratifying/enforcing unjust state policies?

Well yes, but that’s the whole point. The state where the letters were sent from was not backed by the feds. And the states that thought Indian removal was barbaric were not backed by the feds. So abolitionists and Indian sympathizers had nowhere safe to go.

In the World The Way It Oughta Be According To Ron Paul, once a state decided to take away one or more of your rights, that would be it. No recourse to any federal court on the grounds that the state was acting unconstitutionally. As it stands now, if a state legislature ratifies an unjust law, you’ve at least got a shot of getting it overturned at the federal level.

I don’t understand why the World The Way It Oughta Be According To Jackmannii is any better since there is one and only one recourse, whereas in the World The Way It Oughta Be According To Ron Paul, there are fifty.

Of course, as one Ron Paul supporter who digs the "states’ rights’ theme explained it to me, if you don’t like what your state did to you, you can move to another state. Never mind family ties, health, job etc. - just up and move.

I don’t see how your defederalized alternative is any better than your friend’s, since it doesn’t give even give you that amount of relief. If a ruling comes down that you don’t like from the Supreme Court, you just have to live with it. In every state. Period.

ETA

That’s an issue I’d like you to address, by the way, since I keep raising it and you keep ignoring it. What recourse do you have when one central judicial authority has stripped you of your rights, and why would you prefer to be in that position?

[Jackmannii]

There’s a fundamental difference in perceptions here, and I don’t think it’s capable of resolution.

When I hear “states’ rights” I think of all the backward and oppressive Southern states of the mid-20th century, for whom the phrase was code for “We’re gonna keep them blacks down and you Feds better not interfere”.

There are echoes of this in Ron Paul’s characterization of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The statements about blacks in his newsletters fit in quite well with the theme. Whether one believes that he’s genuinely renounced those statements or not, he still clings to the notion of a decentralized patchwork of laws that made profound racial injustice possible, and could seriously limit freedoms in the future.

I realize none of this will come to pass, as the Paul candidacy is going nowhere and he will have no influence, except possibly as a third-party candidate who’d help assure a Democratic victory. Still, it makes for an uneasy feeling seeing even a modicum of support for the guy from nominally rational people.

[Liberal]

Honestly, Jackmannii, I can understand why you feel the way you do. In your shoes, I’m sure I’d feel the same way.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Jackmannii

When I hear “states’ rights” I think of all the backward and oppressive Southern states of the mid-20th century, for whom the phrase was code for “We’re gonna keep them blacks down and you Feds better not interfere”.

Then call it “state powers” instead, which is more correct anyway, and remind yourself of the many times these powers have been exercised for good: [ul]to abolish slavery–pioneered in Vermont 87 years before the federal government got around to it[/ul]
[ul]to enfranchise women–pioneered in Wyoming 30 years before the federal government got around to it[/ul]
[ul]to outlaw segregated schools–pioneered in Massachusetts 99 years before the Supreme Court required it[/ul]
[ul]to prohibit child labor–pioneered in Pennsylvania 90 years before the federal government got around to it[/ul]
[ul]to recognize gay marriage–pioneered in Massachusetts ?? years before the federal government[/ul]