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

May I have a link to the to his complete statement?

 

Of course, the elephant in the room is "that's the way the nation's founders intended it."

 

This. Conservatives have flown the banner of states rights because it best served their interest. It's no coincidence that states rights were most closely tied to keeping slavery prior to the civil war as an argument to protect that institution from the direction that the rest of the country was heading towards.

That is not to say that I think states rights are inherently bad and there is a lot to be said to decentralizing power and providing for more local control.

 

I agree the federal government is wasteful, bureaucratic and inefficient but to say that it is a hindrance to societal progress is a truly preposterous statement.

Without the Federal government slavery might still be legalized in some states or at the min. some states might still have segregation. Also no individual state could build the federal highway system or any other cross country infrastructure that has helped to build out society and economy.

 

I'd say yeah but so what? If Democrats saw an advantage in espousing states rights and saw a way to press it with credibility, they'd do it. Politicians have no scruples. States rights has been abused before to deny people civil rights. Gay marriage advocates would say it's being abused now to deny people civil rights. That doesn't mean it's not a real thing, or even (in net impact) a good thing. States rights are defined in the Constitution, they are a good device for governance, and the federal government should respect them even as they sometimes have to override them to protect civil rights.

 

The right wing has opposed civil rights for African Americans and other minorities. It was their battle cry in the 1960's. Presently we see it for instance in Texas with an attempt by the rightists to have a burdensome ID law to try to prevent these folks from voting for federal and other offices.

 

You are correct in their motives, but I still laugh at the idea that id laws are burdensome.

 

ID laws are burdensome when they require you to get ID in a small period of time. I do think that ID laws should be phased in within the next five years.

 

21st century global economy......... let's increase states' rights. Places like Mississippi are doing so well....

 

That isn't being fired...

Government jobs do seem to have weaker performance standards.

 

There were plenty of Lefties that were opposed to civil rights during the 60's

 

Yes Democrats would and have flown the banner of states rights before.

I'm not saying states rights are bad but they need to be balanced with Federal power. I don't think either states rights or federal power is inherently good or bad but some issues are better addressed dealt with at one level and others at another level.

 

Wrong. Federal law can stretch those enumerated clauses so widely that they can justify almost ANYTHING and of course federal law will always override state law.

Also, how did states rights work during the 1800s? Half the country wanted slavery (as it was a vital part of their economy), the other half didn't. Its not about what you want, its about what is best for the country. Sorry, but that's what part of being a collective society requires you to do. You can't just take from the system and refuse to live within the bounds of that system.

Also to everyone here complaining about the federal government, if there were no federal government you'd all be complaining about state government and how they don't represent the wants and needs of your city and how they are shoehorning this blanket rule that you didn't vote for. Then abolish state government. Then you'll complain about your municipal government not accurately representing the needs and wants of your district. Abolish municipal government and so forth and so forth.

Its all a strawman argument for what you really want. No payment of taxes, no adherence to rules that you don't feel like adhering to, not paying for public infrastructure because **** everyone else.

This is not the 1700s anymore. The federal government isn't out to get you. That being said I don't deny that states rights has an importance as well. Checks and balances, important in every stage of the government system. That doesn't mean give the federal government no power and leave everything up to the states.

 

Sub-federal issues are decided and influenced less often by appellate courts or nationwide interest groups and more often by local governments or state legislatures filled with non-metropolitan politicians. The smaller the government and electorate, the more likely power is skewed towards native-born whites, as immigrants and minorities historically moved towards industry or job-heavy large cities, and sub-baccalaureate professionals and business owners; who just have less exposure to diverse people and ideas. Tradition, ethical conformity and established authority and wealth seem to have more weight or influence in those environments and their values more fully reflect the conservative platform.

 

Just want to stipulate I don't find anything intrinsically flawed or wrong with these values.

 

Any currently existing conservative organization or publication that was around in the '50s or '60s opposed minority civil rights. Republicans had the most popular man in the world in the White House for 8 years and he was either too scared or plainly bigoted to push credible civil rights legislation, even pressured his liberal Republican Chief Justice to rule against Brown v. Board. Then, in '64 the GOP was apparently so ashamed of having supported the Civil Rights Act that they nominated one of the few non-Southerners who opposed it. Furthermore, when you throw out a childish term like "lefty," in addition to revealing your own political illiteracy you're basically channeling all those idiot conservatives who called black baptist preachers and war veterans "communists" back then for supporting civil rights.

 

The quote I used with ellipses is taken from page 366 of Robert Kennedy and His Times, by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.

The full quote is found in the closing statement on pages 24 and 25:

Statement of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding S. 1731, The Proposed Civil Rights Act of 1963 and S. 1750. July 18, 1963.

http://research.archives.gov/description/193988

The entire statement by RFK is worth reading, but if you are pressed for time, make sure you read the opening and closing.

 

If that in itself is inherently good then why stop at 50 state governments?
Let's pass all power down to the counties.

Too complicated for you?

 

Federal government is wasteful ? OK.
At least you recognize that State governments can be just as bad ....

On a smaller scale, you said?
That is because the Fed is doing many of the tasks. Imagine if you get rid of Fed government completely? The States will have to assume all of the tasks. Will the States gov. be small still ? Will they do a better job? What make you think they will? They will have to hire the same people to do the job. One of them is you and you won't call it work then , will you?


----
US postal service is an example that people keep using without thinking about what they do.
They do lose money but why? It's because they charge you little for more service and convenience.

Try sending a simple piece of mail to nowhere, Alaska using UPS or Fed Ex and see how much it cost you.

 

I think you said what I just said. Federal law trumps state law. It is often stretched to supercede state law on states issues inappropriately. Other times federal power has been employed to protect civil liberties of citizens against the unjust application of power employed by the states, such as with emancipation and desegregation. It's best to have a balance between federal and state power.

And then there was also some complaining that I have to assume was directed at somebody else, because I'm just about the last person in the world who'd argue for less government and less taxes.