Jump to content
Akkula

States Rights

Recommended Posts

Always remember that when a Republican or Southerner says, "states rights" that is short hand for the following belief systems:

States have the right to deny black people the freedom to live outside of slavery and the right to vote.  

States have the right to gerrymander to disproportionally favor white people to deny blacks and minorities meaningful representation in government.

States have the right to control women and keep them in subservience and men get to veto agency over their own bodies.  

"States rights" is a very 1984 way to put the "state" in front of the individual.  Putting the "state" in ownership and control of an individual body is basically the very definition of fascism.  "The State" in fascism is seen as more important and to have superior rights to the individual.

But lo and behold conjobs never thing the "state" has any right to control anything about guns.  Somehow guns for white men are some sort of individual inalienable natural right delivered by god that cannot be taken by "the state."

These hypocrites don't give a damn about federalism and "states rights."  That was all just a ruse because the wanted to reinvent the reason for the civil war to pretend the whole reason for the war was because states and their racist inhabitants wanted to keep black people as slaves. 

Since these people couldn't co-opt the federal government to enforce their fascist ideology, they chose the level of government the racists could control....the racist and misogynist states.  There is no higher moral principle...it is just keeping white men in the catbird seat where they can physically control everyone else.  There isn't anything more than this.  

"States rights" is just a euphemism to say, "White men reserve the right to control black and female bodies for our own uses."       

The federal government's core function is to protect its citizens from all internal fascism putting "states rights" over the civil and body rights of the individuals.  I am sorry but not matter how fascist of a state you live in...there are just certain fundamental rights that it cannot take away from federal citizens.  

Sovereignty over our own bodies and civil/voting rights are those types of rights that must not be abridged by the states.  Those need to be codified in law even if idiots like Kristen Sinema think we should give fascists a senatorial veto!  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • WTF 1
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just like that on Monday he came out saying leave abortion up to the states.  Then the next day Arizona says, OK hold my beer.  Then he backtracks yesterday basically saying 'no, not like that! you went too far'.  LOL so perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 6:23 AM, Poorohman said:

I just like that on Monday he came out saying leave abortion up to the states.  Then the next day Arizona says, OK hold my beer.  Then he backtracks yesterday basically saying 'no, not like that! you went too far'.  LOL so perfect.

Republicans are idiots who pandered to religious freaks for years on Roe because they never thought it would be repealed.  It was the same stupid shit they did with "Repeal and Replace" Obamacare with no viable alternative.  

The difference here is the dog finally caught the car.  

Any thinking person can understand that they may be personally against abortion but can also understand how there are really "messy" situations...particularly in later stages of pregnancy.  Women aren't going to get a later term abortion just because they are heartless when the pregnancy could have been terminated early.  Now we have women forced to carry braindead fetuses to term. 

Late term issues should be handled with the same care and compassion as an older family member would receive for hospice end of life care.  That idiot Trump would be talking about "Executing Grandma" and "The state" should have to approve putting someone in hospice through complicated procedures or banning hospice all together.

"The State" is simply not equipped to handle all of these micro medical decisions no better than they are in a position to tell you what brand of corn flakes to buy.  "Command and control" doesn't work in these situations.  Individual freedom and choice has some drawbacks but it is a much better way to make complicated personal decisions than some government panel or court system.  Are these people stupid? 

  • Like 1
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

States' rights is literally enshrined in our Constitution. It's the reason the U.S. exists.

There's also the supremacy clause for things like civil rights.

My issue with abortion is that women do have rights over their bodies. They can abstain from sex or use birth control. This is totally within their control. They can do a Plan B. They can get an IUD. I think most Medicaid covers sterilization, like getting "tubes tied."

Where I take issue is with abortions as birth control. I think it's inhuman to repeatedly kill fetuses just because you can't be bothered or convinced to wear a condom or use other birth control measures. And it's disturbing that something like 96% of abortions are abortions that are performed due to the inconvenience of a baby. Only like 4% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. Almost all of them are because the pregnant woman is careless and then doesn't want to be "punished with a baby."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 7:13 AM, CV147 said:

States' rights is literally enshrined in our Constitution. It's the reason the U.S. exists.

There's also the supremacy clause for things like civil rights.

My issue with abortion is that women do have rights over their bodies. They can abstain from sex or use birth control. This is totally within their control. They can do a Plan B. They can get an IUD. I think most Medicaid covers sterilization, like getting "tubes tied."

Where I take issue is with abortions as birth control. I think it's inhuman to repeatedly kill fetuses just because you can't be bothered or convinced to wear a condom or use other birth control measures. And it's disturbing that something like 96% of abortions are abortions that are performed due to the inconvenience of a baby. Only like 4% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. Almost all of them are because the pregnant woman is careless and then doesn't want to be "punished with a baby."

Great...that is your personal religious interpretation that isn't universally shared.  You can choose to "live your truth" and not get any abortion.  

People like you don't seem to understand that there is no practical way to "police" this issue.  What ends up happening is that you end up falsely denying a truly medical procedure because it gets caught up in your religious dragnet.  This is what is being demonstrated to you people over and over and over and over.  

It as if you want the Iranian religious police coming around periodically and beating apostates with a cane to enforce your religion on everyone else.  But if you don't think I should be able to force you to wear a burka and kneel in prayer towards Mecca every day, why do you think you can enforce your religion on other people's bodies?

That is why the fetal viability standard makes sense.  You can make a secular argument that the fetus at that point may conceivably have its own rights.  But when you deny later term abortions you are giving the fetus all the rights and the woman none of the rights.  The facts of these later term cases are usually pretty heart breaking because the families involved generally want the baby.

Furthermore many in your religion want to deny birth control too.  So how does that work if we are just following all of your religious fatwahs?

 

  • Like 2
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 6:13 AM, CV147 said:

States' rights is literally enshrined in our Constitution. It's the reason the U.S. exists.

There's also the supremacy clause for things like civil rights.

My issue with abortion is that women do have rights over their bodies. They can abstain from sex or use birth control. This is totally within their control. They can do a Plan B. They can get an IUD. I think most Medicaid covers sterilization, like getting "tubes tied."

Where I take issue is with abortions as birth control. I think it's inhuman to repeatedly kill fetuses just because you can't be bothered or convinced to wear a condom or use other birth control measures. And it's disturbing that something like 96% of abortions are abortions that are performed due to the inconvenience of a baby. Only like 4% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. Almost all of them are because the pregnant woman is careless and then doesn't want to be "punished with a baby."

That's your opinion and most of the country does not share it.  And you're not an OBGYN, nor a woman.  However you feel entitled to make that choice for the both of them, as if you know better than they do about their personal situation. If you are against abortion, don't get one.  Pretty simple.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 7:32 AM, Poorohman said:

That's your opinion and most of the country does not share it.  And you're not an OBGYN, nor a woman.  However you feel entitled to make that choice for the both of them, as if you know better than they do about their personal situation. If you are against abortion, don't get one.  Pretty simple.

What they shouldn't be able to do is to enforce a religious code that was invented around 1980 for political purposes on everyone in the country.  We keep having these right wingers who keep trying to insist that this is a that this is a "Christian Nation."  There is nothing further from the truth in our founding documents and the fact we don't have a state religion, etc.  

They want to talk about "American Exceptionalism" but in the same breath want to make us just like every other nation who has a state religion.  They want to take a multicultural secular democracy and turn us into another Iran or El Salvador with laws based on religion.  They want America to be very ordinary when the whole reason we have all these religious nut cases was precisely BECAUSE we had religious freedom from the founding.  

People have every right to be morally outraged if they want.  They can educate, persuade, speak out, and do all kinds of things.  What they shouldn't be able to do is use the power of the state to enforce their fascist little theocracy on everyone else.  They shouldn't be able to use implied violence and ban secular decisions based on their bigotry thinking they can impose their religion on everyone.
 

  • Like 1
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 6:10 AM, Akkula said:

Always remember that when a Republican or Southerner says, "states rights" that is short hand for the following belief systems:

States have the right to deny black people the freedom to live outside of slavery and the right to vote.  

States have the right to gerrymander to disproportionally favor white people to deny blacks and minorities meaningful representation in government.

States have the right to control women and keep them in subservience and men get to veto agency over their own bodies.  

"States rights" is a very 1984 way to put the "state" in front of the individual.  Putting the "state" in ownership and control of an individual body is basically the very definition of fascism.  "The State" in fascism is seen as more important and to have superior rights to the individual.

But lo and behold conjobs never thing the "state" has any right to control anything about guns.  Somehow guns for white men are some sort of individual inalienable natural right delivered by god that cannot be taken by "the state."

These hypocrites don't give a damn about federalism and "states rights."  That was all just a ruse because the wanted to reinvent the reason for the civil war to pretend the whole reason for the war was because states and their racist inhabitants wanted to keep black people as slaves. 

Since these people couldn't co-opt the federal government to enforce their fascist ideology, they chose the level of government the racists could control....the racist and misogynist states.  There is no higher moral principle...it is just keeping white men in the catbird seat where they can physically control everyone else.  There isn't anything more than this.  

"States rights" is just a euphemism to say, "White men reserve the right to control black and female bodies for our own uses."       

The federal government's core function is to protect its citizens from all internal fascism putting "states rights" over the civil and body rights of the individuals.  I am sorry but not matter how fascist of a state you live in...there are just certain fundamental rights that it cannot take away from federal citizens.  

Sovereignty over our own bodies and civil/voting rights are those types of rights that must not be abridged by the states.  Those need to be codified in law even if idiots like Kristen Sinema think we should give fascists a senatorial veto!  

Sounds like the rantings of the unibomber. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 7:21 AM, Akkula said:

What they shouldn't be able to do is to enforce a religious code that was invented around 1980 for political purposes on everyone in the country.  We keep having these right wingers who keep trying to insist that this is a that this is a "Christian Nation."  There is nothing further from the truth in our founding documents and the fact we don't have a state religion, etc.  

They want to talk about "American Exceptionalism" but in the same breath want to make us just like every other nation who has a state religion.  They want to take a multicultural secular democracy and turn us into another Iran or El Salvador with laws based on religion.  They want America to be very ordinary when the whole reason we have all these religious nut cases was precisely BECAUSE we had religious freedom from the founding.  

People have every right to be morally outraged if they want.  They can educate, persuade, speak out, and do all kinds of things.  What they shouldn't be able to do is use the power of the state to enforce their fascist little theocracy on everyone else.  They shouldn't be able to use implied violence and ban secular decisions based on their bigotry thinking they can impose their religion on everyone.
 

It's the seperation of church and state eroding that bothers me, not necessarily this one issue.  Something enshrined in the Constitution.  The fact that these aren't real Christians doing this and merely fascists who have co-opted that religion, makes it a very unique problem to deal with.  Aside from 2024, it's going to be a huge problem the country will need to grapple with moving forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 8:30 AM, SharkTanked said:

For the political philosophers, States don't have rights.

That is a great point.  This also reminds me of the famous Mitt Romney quote, "Corporations are People, My friend" :rotflmfao:

While his point was that we basically give "Corporate Personhood" as a legal fiction.....states....nor fetuses for that matter....don't even get the faux personhood legal fiction.

The term "States Rights" doesn't even come up in the constitution.  Perhaps that whole term was made up by a bunch of racist insurrectionist traitors and has become part of the lexicon.  

States have POWERs...not rights.  Most of the time when people say "States Rights" it is them saying they are going to use the power of the state to oppress individuals in some way.

Perhaps we really need an individual rights amendment that basically says that states don't have the power to oppress individuals in certain ways.  All citizens of the USA have certain base level rights.  It used to be that the courts short circuited the legislative branch to make this so...but it is clear that this is a very tenuous set of rights that can be discarded.  The Supreme Court has done away with many voting rights and individual rights that we used to take for granted as US Citizens.     

  • Like 2
  • Cheers 1
Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 6:13 AM, CV147 said:

States' rights is literally enshrined in our Constitution. It's the reason the U.S. exists.

There's also the supremacy clause for things like civil rights.

My issue with abortion is that women do have rights over their bodies. They can abstain from sex or use birth control. This is totally within their control. They can do a Plan B. They can get an IUD. I think most Medicaid covers sterilization, like getting "tubes tied."

Where I take issue is with abortions as birth control. I think it's inhuman to repeatedly kill fetuses just because you can't be bothered or convinced to wear a condom or use other birth control measures. And it's disturbing that something like 96% of abortions are abortions that are performed due to the inconvenience of a baby. Only like 4% of abortions are due to rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. Almost all of them are because the pregnant woman is careless and then doesn't want to be "punished with a baby."

States rights means whatever SCOTUS says it does. There is enough material in the Constitution to allow SCOTUS to say damn near everything is an issue for the states, and there’s enough material in the Constitution to say citizens have so many protections that states would have very little power. This is not an objective thing, it all is a matter of how 9 people in robes choose to interpret certain clauses in the Constitution. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 9:13 AM, CV147 said:

 

My issue with abortion is that women do have rights over their bodies. They can abstain from sex or use birth control.

You sound like the idiots who were screaming, "gay people can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex." 

You're not the libertarian that you pretend to be. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 10:14 AM, retrofade said:

You sound like the idiots who were screaming, "gay people can get married, as long as they marry someone of the opposite sex." 

You're not the libertarian that you pretend to be. 

As I stated in another thread, the Puritanical is alive and well in America. It just migrated from New England to the deep South in the last 300 yrs.

And yes that position is completely antithetical to Libertarian values. Apparently the State is not supposed to interfere with individual freedom of choice, unless it is something I don't like ("irresponsible" sexual activity).

It ends up coming back to "punish the whores," just packaged with the veneer of "saving babies."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I remember in history class that "states' rights" lead to a bunch of states not only seceding, but doing so because they wanted to keep slaves as per their "states' rights". 100 years later, Eisenhower had to send in troops to Arkansas just to make sure kids could go to a school that was nearby, "infringing on states' rights". 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 11:31 AM, son of a gun said:

Yeah, I remember in history class that "states' rights" lead to a bunch of states not only seceding, but doing so because they wanted to keep slaves as per their "states' rights". 100 years later, Eisenhower had to send in troops to Arkansas just to make sure kids could go to a school that was nearby, "infringing on states' rights". 

The flip side is "states rights" also led to civils rights. Two sides to every coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2024 at 8:21 AM, Akkula said:

That is a great point.  This also reminds me of the famous Mitt Romney quote, "Corporations are People, My friend" :rotflmfao:

While his point was that we basically give "Corporate Personhood" as a legal fiction.....states....nor fetuses for that matter....don't even get the faux personhood legal fiction.

The term "States Rights" doesn't even come up in the constitution.  Perhaps that whole term was made up by a bunch of racist insurrectionist traitors and has become part of the lexicon.  

States have POWERs...not rights.  Most of the time when people say "States Rights" it is them saying they are going to use the power of the state to oppress individuals in some way.

Perhaps we really need an individual rights amendment that basically says that states don't have the power to oppress individuals in certain ways.  All citizens of the USA have certain base level rights.  It used to be that the courts short circuited the legislative branch to make this so...but it is clear that this is a very tenuous set of rights that can be discarded.  The Supreme Court has done away with many voting rights and individual rights that we used to take for granted as US Citizens.     

Quick question. What was Lenin’s view on states rights? 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...