ongoing racist bullshit in arizona thread

eh stevenson, nevermind

there are def practical reasons why you would want everyone who is voting on a bill to understand the technical language in the bill, otoh this is not a major problem in america at all and is only being made into one because people hate mexicans

― iatee, Friday, February 10, 2012 11:26 AM Bookmark

otm

federalism is a smoke-screen for racist policy, basically

― horseshoe, Sunday, 15 January 2012 21:35 (3 weeks ago

this is ridiculous btw

Eh, if not racism exclusively, it's generally a smokescreen for some other anti-social "does not play well with others" policy.

xps "The will of the people" is always a questionable concept, for me. As long as translators are provided where required, essentially putting English-speakers on the same footing as Spanish-speakers elsewhere, that should be fine. It's important that those accommodations would be made though.

Proficiency is a meaningless term without a scale to measure it against. Using the standard European scale she'd probably be looking at operational proficiency, which is the same kind of capacity to use a language you'd need to, for example, understand a degree course. It doesn't sound like that benchmark is formally in place, though - which raises the question of how would she know she'd failed the test?

Federalism has def been used as a means to evade legal norms by creating local islands of difference within the USA, and Jim Crow was clearly the biggest and worst crime that was shielded by "state's rights", but it has legitimate uses, too.

saying that the actual political structure of the united states is "just a smokescreen for racism" strikes me as beyond ludicrous.

As practiced, not on paper. (And even somewhat on paper.)

Racism was woven deeply into the fabric of the USA even before there was a USA. So, racism was going to be woven deeply into the politics of the USA from the start, by default. We've been struggling with it ever since.

saying that the actual political structure of the united states is "just a smokescreen for racism" strikes me as beyond ludicrous.

well, if you really do want to say that the united states itself is and always has been "a smokescreen for racism", then it's not so ludicrous. i mean, i think that's a rather absurdly reductive argument, but it's not totally without merit, inasmuch as the US was founded as much on slavery as on the high moral principles encoded into the constitution and bill of rights.

ilx poster horseshoe: not totally without merit

hey J.D. i meant states'-rights type arguments. i just don't believe "state's rights" is a real thing, now, or in the antebellum era. they still seem like a smokescreen for racist and more recently homophobic policy.

i should have been more precise, because i was thinking of "state's rights" arguments that were essentially pro-slavery arguments in the years leading up to the civil war and their long legacy. but frankly inasmuch as the actual political structure of the united states gives states a lot of leeway to escape federal law, it kind of pisses me off. i am kind of fascist n.b.

or, the way sparsely populated states get as much representation in the senate as densely populated ones just because of statehood. annoying!

my view on federalism:

any time a state passes a cool law like one that legalizes gay marriage, yay, but that should be a federal law.

any time a state passes a shitty law: fuck you, congress and/or the supreme court should be able to overrule you.

hey J.D. i meant states'-rights type arguments. i just don't believe "state's rights" is a real thing, now, or in the antebellum era. they still seem like a smokescreen for racist and more recently homophobic policy.

they are that, certainly, but i'm leery of arguments that reduce complex arguments to a single point of conflict. taxation, self-determination, principled anti-federalism, general paranoia, culture wars of other sorts: these things figure in, too.

at least to the extent that they aren't just a bunch of smokescreens for racism & homophobia...

anyway, that's pretty off-topic i guess.

but states'-rights arguments aren't complex! they're contentless, is what i'm saying, i guess controversially.

i guess

but frankly inasmuch as the actual political structure of the united states gives states a lot of leeway to escape federal law, it kind of pisses me off. i am kind of fascist n.b.

strongly disagree. one of the greatest things abt the constitution is the way it attempts to balance various powers with different interests against one another as a means of preventing any single power or interest from dominating government. tripartite fed, for example, or house v senate, fed v states. really fucking smart. while i'm not opposed to federal governance, nor am i inclined to uncritically support its growth at the expense of states' rights.

anyway, this barring of Cabrera from running for office is some racist bullshit

WHAT ARE STATES' RIGHTS?

seriously makes no sense to me as a concept.

well, the basic idea is that individual states retain authority over all aspects of governance not specifically or by implication delegated to the fed by the constitution. "states' rights" is shorthand for that, right?

it's cool how states could opt out of the patriot act

Horseshoe otm

states rights are stupid things that only lead to wars

what if the states had never united?

as a matter of practicality it's hard for me to find fault with that, but it seems to me when "states' rights" gets invoked in political or legal arguments no one is actually worried about the balance of power between the federal government and that of the states. it's always just this thing that's invoked as a means to furthering whatever agenda's at hand. maybe i am wrong that those agendas are always racist/homophobic, but i still don't believe anyone who claims to care about the balance of power between the states and the federal government really does. i mean maybe crazy conservatives do in the sense that they wish the federal government didn't exist, but i assume they are not super-invested in the rights of their state governments in that case.

xxxxp to contenderizer

like, people can have rights. states? get the fuck out of here with that.

it's all about states rights (until your state needs federal money)

god, right? p.s. all states need federal money.

maybe i am wrong that those agendas are always racist/homophobic

sometimes they are misogynist, for example, as when people discuss abortion as a "states' rights issue"

sorry i drank a lot of coffee today

ur killin it dude

like, people can have rights. states? get the fuck out of here with that.

Yesssssss. States are not real things.

it's kind of like hmm ok

one of the greatest things abt the constitution is the way it attempts to balance various powers with different interests against one another as a means of preventing any single power or interest from dominating government

thats definitely got the ring of truth/sensibility. but like, so does institutionalized racism is bad so

the idea of a 'state' made sense for like 20 years after the revolutionary war when people were still afraid of 'monarchies'

the idea of a 'state' also made sense at the time of the war as a way for the South to keep owning slaves without authorizing in perpetuity in the constitution

beyond that, I have no idea why america needs states

states basically make crappy places & people way more important than they should be and therefore crappier

thats definitely got the ring of truth/sensibility. but like, so does institutionalized racism is bad so

― flopson, Friday, February 10, 2012 7:32 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

that's because it tickles the part of 5th grade social studies that was about the 'founding' of 'america' imprinted onto your brain without you understanding anything at all about it... but maybe you were a smart 5th grader

i'm canadian, dog

one of the greatest things abt the constitution is the way it attempts to balance various powers with different interests against one another as a means of preventing any single power or interest from dominating government. tripartite fed, for example, or house v senate, fed v states. really fucking smart. while i'm not opposed to federal governance, nor am i inclined to uncritically support its growth at the expense of states' rights.

pretty much totally agree with this. federalism means 'state vs local' as much (or more) as 'federal vs state.'

fwiw i think the term "states' rights" is pretty unfortunate and misleading, since it isn't a question of 'rights' so much as proper apportionment of power.

but when has it ever been invoked in American history sincerely for that purpose? i am asking this sincerely; i know you know a lot more about American history than i do.

balance various powers with different interests against one another as a means of preventing any single power or interest from dominating government. tripartite fed, for example, or house v senate, fed v states.

yeah but... what is the "power" or "interest" being prevented from dominating government by the "house v senate" or "fed v states"? why do we need those "balances"?

i feel like the two most resonant invocations of states rights in this country's history were 1) proslavery arguments and 2) mantaining-segregation arguments.

what is the proper apportionment of power xp

what have states done for me lately? the federal government emancipated slaves and ended Jim Crow. South Dakota keeps trying to ban abortion. yay states' rights!

medical marijuana

*burns constitution to light joint*

i vaguely know that thomas jefferson had some reasons for being all about federalism that were probably legit (like i believe he cared about federalism qua federalism), but i still think the legacy of that decentralizing force in american politics has been pretty negative.