Why does the right wing have a fascination with state's rights in today's age

More choices for citizens. Not complicated. Why do you desire a blanket rule for all?

federal government shouldn't recognize any marriage hetero or homo. Neither should state governments.

 

You could use your same logic to justify every country living under the same laws too.

If no governments recognized marriages then your gay-marriage scenario wouldn't but an issue. Less federal government is the answer to your problem, not more.

 

This.

 

Wonder if a compromise position would be that it is a states' rights issue whether or not to perform marriages but a federal regulation to "recognize" marriages for the purposes of federal taxation, inheritance et al. Visitation rights would seem to be more of a state matter, so that complicates things in a critical area...

 

50 laboratories of democracy to try different forms of government, states can compete for people and businesses.

We demand customization and choice in all things, but some people think government should be top down command-and-control one size fits all blanket policy.

 

But remember, "It's not fair!"

If I can't buy a large coke in New York, then people in Houston shouldn't able to either.

hmmphh!

 

The Federal Government is a hindrance to societal progress, if for no other reason that wasting trillions in tax dollars every year. It is a bureaucratic mess run by the best fundraisers, not the best candidates or leaders. Name one government institution that doesn't waste billions of tax dollars with inefficiency and bloat... even NASA, our one federal beacon of hope has been a bureaucratic nightmare for decades.

State governments can be just as bad as the federal government, but on a much smaller scale, so enacting change as needed is far more feasible. The founding fathers knew this, thus the reason for their inclusion of states rights. Remember, they were ruled by an Aristocracy.

I've worked in government, well I wouldn't call it working Bob. Countless government employees milk the system doing a half-assed job, because they don't have a bottom line to worry about. There jobs will be there tomorrow. See the US Postal Service for details.

Today our government's primary goal is expanding their power, thus protecting their jobs and their special interests.

 

I have to side with all the conservatives here. I think the insistence on states rights has a lot to do with the fact that that's what the Constitution says. And, you can't just throw that stuff out summarily no matter how dumb you think it is. You have to go through a legislative process to be rid of it. I'm sure the FBI would like to say the 4th Amendment is antiquated given how the world has changed, but I'm glad courts will still (sometimes) insist on it.

And states rights empower the residents of the states. Your vote counts for more in a local election, so its more likely you get to live under the rules you like.

And looking at marriage particularly, you're right it isn't convenient that definitions are different from state to state. But, it hasn't been very long either. 20 years ago, there was no disagreement. Probably 20 years from now, there won't be either. Give government some time to work it through. This state of flux won't last forever. I wouldn't chuck the Constitution over it.

 

I agree with this.

 

Would the country be better off it it split into two or three federations of states that share a defense budget?

 

Only the states that are can stand on their own economically, and unfortunately that number continues to dwindle tremendously.

 

well, with idiots like you on board, it's no wonder people have a negative perception of government:

 

Yes federal law trumps state law, but the Constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government and reserves everything else for the states or the people. The federal government's forays into arenas not enumerated in the Constitution is playing in a gray area that sometimes violates the spirit of that division of power. Sometimes the meddling is warranted and sometimes it's not. The feds using interstate funds to blackmail states to change their drinking age is an example of the latter, imo, to take an example. The spirit of the guarantee of states rights is violated by these kinds of reach. I don't see a problem with insisting that the state has jurisdiction in this or that arena.

Where I do agree with national definition is where federal civil rights require protection. Federal actions to defeat Jim Crow seems wholly appropriate there because they were trumping states rights to enforce an equal protection clause in the Constitution. You could cast homosexual marriage in the same light, except that sexual orientation is not a protected class.

In any case, I'm just saying the states rights argument has some merit, even if we were to ultimately decide that marriage equality trumps. Your OP doesn't just say marriage equality is more important; you want to say states rights is useless or worse, an albatross, and people shouldn't use it as an argument at all. It has more legitimacy than that.

 

There is also an argument to be made that internet has made the nation too information rich, to the point of being ungovernable. There is too much information to make good decisions. See the link below for an explanation.

So, it follows that government on smaller scales (like state and local) are easier to govern effectively because there is less relevant information for that given area.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/101273-john-perry-barlow-internet-has-broken-political-system

 

I don't think it has as much to do with "upholding federalism" as much as it's simply more effective for most conservative causes at the moment, particularly social causes. E.g., Dubya pledged to get a "no marriage for the gays" amendment to the constitution. Making such a pledge now in DC would probably elicit laughter. However, say it in the Texas capital, and it is taken seriously.

That's not to imply the tactic is naughty per say - it's just the natural tendency for issues that, on a nationwide scale, are drifting away from where a certain group of folks want them to be: circle the wagons and try again on a smaller scale. Other examples are state abortion legislation, the New Hampshire libertarian experiment, even Massachusettes' health plan.

 

Here's what you need to know about states' rights:

I'm fairly certain that if he were alive today, RFK would also include something about states' rights being used as an umbrella of protection for corporations to squeeze and exploit Americans.