ongoing racist bullshit in arizona thread

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.

medical marijuana

― buzza, Friday, February 10, 2012 7:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

okay, well-played

horseshoe is pro-forced bussing

i admit it

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.

― horseshoe, Friday, February 10, 2012 7:48 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

who cares what some dead person thinks

haha well i was going to say, i'm pretty sure he was wrong, but then i was like loooooooooooool i should stop pretending i know shit about shit like i'm some constitutional scholar. i just think people should be forced to do things!

but when has it ever been invoked in American history sincerely for that purpose?

1) kentucky and virginia resolutions (passed in opposition to the alien and sedition acts)
2) several states attempted to reject the fugitive slave law (passed at the behest of the slave states, despite their supposed hatred of fed power)
3) medical marijuana
4) no child left behind

I am interested in the thoughts of a lot of dead people fwiw

particularly the ones they had when they were not dead

xp haha just teasing ya, "some dead guy thought this so we can't do it " is the wool that scalia & thomas et. al have been pulling over everybody's eyes for awhile now

I am interested in the thoughts of a lot of dead people fwiw

― plee help i am lookin for (crüt), Friday, February 10, 2012 7:53 PM (43 seconds ago) Bookmark

yeah but when it's like "people get to buy AK-47s to-day because some guy in the 1780s could buy a blunderbuss", I'm like fuck what that dead person thought

1) kentucky and virginia resolutions (passed in opposition to the alien and sedition acts)
2) several states attempted to reject the fugitive slave law (passed at the behest of the slave states, despite their supposed hatred of fed power)
3) medical marijuana
4) no child left behind

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, February 10, 2012 7:53 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

200+ years of states rights and this is the best list you can come up with?

the first three are certainly all instances where the federally-passed law seems wrong, J.D. it's just that the principle in question isn't really states' rights. it's individual rights in all cases. (so fine, not always racist/homophobic.)

no child left behind is tricky, and i know obama has allowed some states some leeway from it, which is good, but the main problem with it imo is that it holds public schools to a certain standard but those schools are funded unequally. if it funded poor schools such that they were as well funded as schools in wealthy districts i think i would mostly be okay with it? allowing for more varied evaluation?

xposts oh totally, I was just making a throwaway comment. I have been hanging back from serious political discussion ever since earlier today when I misguidedly responded to a facebook friend sharing a Michelle Malkin article & got sucked into a vortex of loonies.

and didn't penalize already struggling schools financially

lol what is this thread about again?

ongoing "states rights" bullshit in arizona

horseshoe otm states p much useless