Mrebo said:
Not all states’ rights people are absolutist (I’m not).You’re not?
You read right.
Could you elaborate? In what way aren’t you a states’ right absolutist? Are you a 10th amendment absolutist?
For example, I think the federal government has the authority to regulate health insurance. And as a matter of policy I can’t say it is best for the states to regulate it. That doesn’t mean I think the federal government can do anything it wants relating to health insurance nor that anything it might do is good, but it’s one area where I’m not opposed to the federal government regulating instead of states.
I don’t know that your second question makes too much sense. It’s sort of like asking whether I am a Constitutional absolutist. That Amendment states:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I absolutely believe in that…but I don’t know that that answers much.
I never understood why the concept of States’ Rights was so confusing.
States’ Rights begin where the Constitution ends. States can enact laws that make sense for their own people, but they can’t enact laws that violate the Constitution.
Our most transformative federal laws came about because of state laws that conflicted with the Constitution. If a state law is unjust for its own people, it’s probably unjust for all people, which over time causes it to bubble up to the national level. It’s ironic that state tyrants end up being the engine for the societal change they’d so like to see held back.