# What does "State's Rights" really mean? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [March 1, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103 "2017-03-01T13:23:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/1 "2017-03-01T13:23:17Z")
For months I have been reading about our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and how he was a big advocate for state’s rights. His policy on marijuana seems to be very much against the rights of the states. What does the phrase “State’s Rights” really mean in politics? ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/2 "2017-03-01T13:31:09Z")
Anything the some states have decided and I don’t like are the purview of the Federal government. Anything the federal government has decided that I don’t like, where some states would decide otherwise, is an example of federal overreach and a states’ rights issue. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/3 "2017-03-01T13:41:27Z")
Pretty much what **naita** said, with the additional dash of racism that is a still-living relic of the phrase’s past. States’ Rights used to mean “segregation now, segregation forever”. Period. It is still a bit of a racist dog-whistle, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/4 "2017-03-01T14:35:55Z")
> [@boffking](#): > > For months I have been reading about our new Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and how he was a big advocate for state’s rights. > His policy on marijuana seems to be very much against the rights of the states. What does the phrase “State’s Rights” really mean in politics? In my view, there is a principled view of states’ rights, and it refers to the dual sovereign system of government we have: the federal government is supreme, but has only its enumerated powers; states have plenary legislative powers but may not legislate in the exclusive federal bailiwick. There are some areas in which both the states and the federal government may both legislate; if they do, the federal overrides the state. So to answer your point about Sessions, I’d suggest you need to answer this question: does the federal government legitimately have the power to prohibit marijuana inside a state? It seems beyond cavil that they can exercise their power to regulate interstate commerce, and thus to forbid interstate marijuana trade. But what power can the federal government claim that would allow them to forbid marijuana grown in Colorado from being possessed, sold, and consumed in Colorado? Do they have such a power? ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/5 "2017-03-01T14:37:16Z")
Who do you think should have the biggest impact in your life; the Federal government or your own state? If you think things like marijuana, marriage, gun control and more are best decided on the state level, you are in favor of States Rights. If you feel things like that are better with one national standard rather than a jigsaw puzzle of differing laws, you are more of a Federalist. Most people I know float back and forth between the two; if we think something is good we want the Federal branches to make it happen for everyone. Now if we’re talking something like a National Speed Limit ---- not so much so. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/6 "2017-03-01T14:42:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In my view, there is a principled view of states’ rights, and it refers to the dual sovereign system of government we have: the federal government is supreme, but has only its enumerated powers; states have plenary legislative powers but may not legislate in the exclusive federal bailiwick. There are some areas in which both the states and the federal government may both legislate; if they do, the federal overrides the state. > > So to answer your point about Sessions, I’d suggest you need to answer this question: does the federal government legitimately have the power to prohibit marijuana inside a state? It seems beyond cavil that they can exercise their power to regulate interstate commerce, and thus to forbid interstate marijuana trade. But what power can the federal government claim that would allow them to forbid marijuana grown in Colorado from being possessed, sold, and consumed in Colorado? Do they have such a power? Exactly. This is a question I have been asking since the first medical marijuana laws were passed. It goes way back. Some states (New England, IIRC) had laws that essentially any slave who entered their jurisdiction were free. The great states rights advocates got congress to pass and a president (Fillmore?) to sign the fugitive slave act essentially nullifying those laws. Principles seem to mostly come down to whose ox is being gored. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/7 "2017-03-01T14:51:56Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > It goes way back. Some states (New England, IIRC) had laws that essentially any slave who entered their jurisdiction were free. The great states rights advocates got congress to pass and a president (Fillmore?) to sign the fugitive slave act essentially nullifying those laws. No, I disagree. The federal government clearly had at the time the power to legislate in this area. Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says: > [@](#): > > No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/8 "2017-03-01T14:53:15Z")
The term “states’ rights” is usually thrown around by the right, but both sides wants to have the ability for their cause to be decided at the level which is more advantages for them. In general, progressives want changes in certain issues such as gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, civil rights and such and conservatives don’t want changes. It’s sometimes easier to get changes done through courts, such as with SSM, and this was where many conservatives were saying this should be a state matter. Of course, I want the Feds to keep their hands off the states where marijuana is concerned, but to give insure that transgender individuals the right to use the bathroom of their choice. I think the difference is that we aren’t crying “states’ rights” in one case. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/9 "2017-03-01T14:56:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, I disagree. The federal government clearly had at the time the power to legislate in this area. Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says: I think the point is the philosophical hypocrisy of advocating for “states rights” and for fugitive slave laws at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/10 "2017-03-01T15:32:08Z")
Which brings us around to the hoary debate about the Civil War, in which neoConfeds insist it was about “states’s rights” and not that slavery thing. But, of course, the state right for which they were fighting was the continued legalization of slavery. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/11 "2017-03-01T15:43:38Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Anything the some states have decided and I don’t like are the purview of the Federal government. Anything the federal government has decided that I don’t like, where some states would decide otherwise, is an example of federal overreach and a states’ rights issue. Got it in one. The fact that certain groups can yell “State’s Rights!” at the top of their lungs one minute and then turn around and trample all over them the next is one of the wonders of American Politics. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/12 "2017-03-01T15:46:06Z")
Generally, both parties pick and choose what rights count based on their platforms, and not on an underlying theory of rights. Republicans are big on states rights up until you start talking about medical marijuana or law enforcement related to immigrants, while Democrats tend to ignore the 2nd amendment entirely, and the other amendments when they apply to guns. There isn’t any philosophical consistency, it’s just a convenient argument to use when it suits you, and ignore when it doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/13 "2017-03-01T15:57:55Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I think the point is the philosophical hypocrisy of advocating for “states rights” and for fugitive slave laws at the same time. But that’s illusory. As I explained, the division between states’ rights and the powers of the federal government is grounded in the fact that the federal government’s powers are enumerated in the Constitution. There would be no hypocrisy in simultaneously defending states’ rights and the federal Fugitive Slave Act, because at the time, the Constitution unambiguously forbid states from having the power to declare escaped slaves from another state to be free. The invocation of the phrase “states’ rights,” is not a general claim that that states can legislate in any area they please. It’s a claim that the federal government may only legislate in the areas in which the Constitution grants it power, and that states may legislate in any area they please _except_ those subject areas the federal government occupies. The philosophical hypocrisy you identify is a strawman. The argument is not that states have the right to legislate as they please in any area. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/14 "2017-03-01T16:02:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that’s illusory. As I explained, the division between states’ rights and the powers of the federal government is grounded in the fact that the federal government’s powers are enumerated in the Constitution. There would be no hypocrisy in simultaneously defending states’ rights and the federal Fugitive Slave Act, because at the time, the Constitution unambiguously forbid states from having the power to declare escaped slaves from another state to be free. > > The invocation of the phrase “states’ rights,” is not a general claim that that states can legislate in any area they please. It’s a claim that the federal government may only legislate in the areas in which the Constitution grants it power, and that states may legislate in any area they please _except_ those subject areas the federal government occupies. > > The philosophical hypocrisy you identify is a strawman. The argument is not that states have the right to legislate as they please in any area. The Fugitive Slave Act did a lot more than simply repeat the text from the Constitution, IIRC. Are you saying every aspect of that act was in keeping with that text, and nothing potentially violated any ‘states’ rights’? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/15 "2017-03-01T16:05:09Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The Fugitive Slave Act did a lot more than simply repeat the text from the Constitution, IIRC. Are you saying every aspect of that act was in keeping with that text, and nothing potentially violated any ‘states’ rights’? Are we talking about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793? Or the FSA of 1850? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/16 "2017-03-01T16:35:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are we talking about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793? Or the FSA of 1850? 1850 was the one I was thinking of, but I don’t have it in front of me. IIRC, there were several parts of it that went way above and beyond the Constitutional text about those “in service to others” to the point of legitimate disputes about encroachment upon those other states’ rights. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/17 "2017-03-01T17:01:11Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > 1850 was the one I was thinking of, but I don’t have it in front of me. IIRC, there were several parts of it that went way above and beyond the Constitutional text about those “in service to others” to the point of legitimate disputes about encroachment upon those other states’ rights. I, in turn, was thinking of the original, and a quick review of it suggests it basically implemented the Constitutional provisions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. So a look at the 1850 version says that you’re right: it sought to impose on states a duty to assist in recapture, not merely to invalidate a state law that purported to free slaves. And now that I read it, it rings a bell. :smack: I should have realized this is what you meant all along. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/18 "2017-03-01T17:10:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I, in turn, was thinking of the original, and a quick review of it suggests it basically implemented the Constitutional provisions, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania. > > So a look at the 1850 version says that you’re right: it sought to impose on states a duty to assist in recapture, not merely to invalidate a state law that purported to free slaves. > > And now that I read it, it rings a bell. :smack: I should have realized this is what you meant all along. Thanks for checking and for correcting yourself! Do you then agree that Confederacy-supporters who cried “states rights!” at the same time as supporting this act can reasonably be characterized as being hypocritical? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/19 "2017-03-01T17:11:45Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Thanks for checking and for correcting yourself! > > Do you then agree that Confederacy-supporters who cried “states rights!” at the same time as supporting this act can reasonably be characterized as being hypocritical? Absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![skdo23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@skdo23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/skdo23)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2017, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103/20 "2017-03-01T17:26:06Z")
“States Rights” is basically a cop out. If a politician is against a federal law or SCOTUS decision making it illegal to discriminate against X, he can sidestep and say it should be a matter left up to the states and avoid having to say that he is actually in favor of discriminating against X. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-does-states-rights-really-mean/781103.md?page=2)