What's your stance on state rights?

[MessiahDecoy123]

I have mixed feelings.

I feel a 2nd Bill of Rights is needed. Once states agree on the second Bill of Rights, states are given more independence to pursue experimental public policy as long as those experiments don't conflict with either bill of rights.

So I want State Rights to be expanded after certain conditions are met.

 

[craigdbfan]

States should have most control over rights but if a state ever starts to get out of hand and start to question widely federally accepted rights/laws then the Federal government has every right to step in.

That's my view on it and I feel that's what most people consider fair.

 

[SV Fan]

States rights is the battle cry of people who are losing an issue at a national level. lol

 

[Thundercrack85]

Just no.

It's always the bad states that have problems accepting the federal government's power.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't have a problem with like minded people living according to their own beliefs except when those beliefs are used to persecute or discriminate against a certain group who also live there.

That's why I said, before states get broader state's rights they must agree to respect human rights and civil liberties. Once they do this I don't see anything wrong with them living according to their own beliefs.

This allows people to fully explore their belief system without dragging other states into it.

Let Libertarians, socialist, evangelists, etc build their utopia and then allow it to succeed or fail on its own merits. Then we can all learn from these social experiments.

 

[Clark-Kent]

I think there can be such regional differences based upon race/ethnicity/religion groups in a given area, that can impact what may seem like good laws from state to state. In a way, if everything was Federal and there was no state power perhaps there would be more of a oneness to society. It's almost like each state can be so different that it might as well be a whole other country

 

[Chance Jackson]

States rights is the battle cry of people who are losing an issue at a national level. lol

This

There is no answer that is correct all the time: on rare occasion an individual state has a position more evolved then the federal government and most other states like MA on Gay Marriage and CO on Weed and other times it's the opposite, like the South during the Civil Rights Era or better yet the Civil War.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I think there can be such regional differences based upon race/ethnicity/religion groups in a given area, that can impact what may seem like good laws from state to state. In a way, if everything was Federal and there was no state power perhaps there would be more of a oneness to society. It's almost like each state can be so different that it might as well be a whole other country

So you want all states to be like Utah because people from Utah probably don't want to live based on your rules.

 

[Clark-Kent]

So you want all states to be like Utah because people from Utah probably don't want to live based on your rules.

Not at all, I'm simply saying that with states being so differently for a variety of reasons it would be hard to have everything federal. Based on how separated some states are, it would be almost impossible.

 

[TheBat812]

I believe in States rights, but I do think it tends to result in oppression. The fed is there to make sure natural rights and individual rights are protected, and basic economic and social standards are set. I don't really know where the line is here, though....

 

[Unbreakable Lex]

Since federal laws supersede state laws, most laws should be handled by states. What's the point of states if we all have to follow the same laws dictated by a central government?

 

[Thor The Mighty]

States rights is the battle cry of people who are losing an issue at a national level. lol

This about sums it up.