Do States’ rights really matter to conservatives?
July 13, 2008
Conservatives often bemoan the loss of States’ rights. I think they’re full of it. States’ rights only seem to matter when Conservatives don’t think they can win a national argument and want a fall-back position. Here are some (conservative) political issues that supercede dedication to states rights (feel free to add your own):
- Property law: Slave-owning states insisted that free-soil states had to respect the slaver’s concept of property and were required by Federal law to enforce southern property law.
- Gun ownership: All guns should be legal everywhere, according to conservative maximalist interpretations of the Second Amendment, seeking to have Federal law (and courts) invalidate state and local regulation.
- Abortion: Conservatives have sought federal legislation regulating or prohibiting abortion and have worked hard to place Supreme Court justices on the bench that would ensure those laws survived a Constitutional challenge.
- Drug laws: Conservative federal legislation has refused to acknowledge legalized marijuana laws in the ten states that have them.
- Voluntary Assisted Suicide: Conservatives fought to impose Federal will on states that had, by popular vote, passed so-called “Death with Dignity” acts, attempting to use Federal drug laws to override State wishes.
- Gay Marriage: Conservatives have long sought, and have occasionally passed, federal laws or Constitutional amendements that would prohibit States from deciding for themselves who is allowed to marry and who is not.
Yes, these are all crucial, difficult, and complex issues. That’s the point. States’ Rights often get sorted to the bottom of the priority pile. But when the moral arguments and popular numbers clearly cut against conservatives, suddenly conservatives start hollering about States rights.
It’s almost as though States’ rights are a fig-leaf for embarrassing political positions and not really a guiding principle. Isn’t it?
Posted in Speaking Very Slowly
content rss
July 14th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
While I think #3, #4, #5, and #6 are valid points, I’m not sure #1 and #2 are fair criticisms.
In terms of #1, slave property law was the hypocrisy of yesterday’s “state-righters”. Not sure if its fair to put that on today’s conservative or pro-state-rights person. Most people, today, would completely disagree with #1. See, one could also say that all Democrats are immoral or hypocritical because the Democratic party supported slavery at some point. As I Democrat, I would strongly disagree with that, if not also be offended by that comment. The Democratic party is not what it was in 1958.
In terms of #2, most pro-state-right arguments deal only with those things that are not dealt with at the Constitutional level. Pro-state-right advocates still support some rights and rules at the federal level (that override state law) as long as they are stated as part of the Constitution or its amendments. Guns have never been considered a state-right issue to state-right advocates, since to most conservatives (and probably the majority of the US) the right to bear arms is clearly given to us through the the Second Amendment of the Constitution and thus SHOULD override state laws.
Now, I guess some people may argue that #3, #4, #5, and #6 are somehow found in the Constitution and thus not valid state rights to begin with, but I generally find any those arguments questionable. In general, I don’t mind that someone who is very pro-state-rights might be for #3-#6, just as long as their legal approach to pushing that agenda forward is done at the Constitutional level via attempts at amending the Constitution since in their world-view that WOULD be the correct place to enforce rules that should apply to everyone regardless of what state they live in.
July 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
notify comment
July 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Well, I include the right-to-slavery argument because it ranks pretty highly in neo-confederate apologetics, as in “the Civil War wasn’t over slavery, it was over states rights.” Even then, though, “states rights” was an excuse.
Granted the gun issue is more tenuous, but obviously the right to bear arms does have a rational limit and some regulation is appropriate. I personally happen to believe that regulation should happen at the state or even local level, since North Dakota’s gun issues are quite a bit different from New York City’s.
If someone was arguing points #3 - #6 with me, though, I’d take that as evidence that States Rights actually rate pretty low in people’s priorities and is not the inviolate principle lots of folks make it out to be.
July 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Reading back over my post and caught several mistakes… but the biggest being that I meant to say 1858, not 1958.