People are afraid of states' rights and state sovereignty because they believe we're going to round up all the negroes and put them back in chains. At least, that's the "go to" argument of progressives whenever the subject of states' rights comes up.

At least you can choose to leave a state if you don't agree with their policies. With federal law you have no choice. I don't know why progressives blindly support federal law over state. To me it's much more progressive to support state law. Case in point is the Obama administration and the medical marijuana raids by the DEA (Trampling state's rights even though Obama said he wouldn't pursue compassionate state's).

First off, that is what would happen. Do you not remember the civil war? Or that it still took another hundred years for desegregation?

Secondly, progressives don't blindly support federal law over state. Progressives support federal law when it allows for greater protections of citizens of the united states of america.

Third, those raids occurred because those business were illegally selling their products across state boundaries and violating the principles Obama laid out. Obama said he wouldn't pursue marijuana dispensaries as long as they don't sell near schools, on the black market or across state boundaries.

"Third, those raids occurred because those business were illegally selling their products across state boundaries and violating the principles Obama laid out. Obama said he wouldn't pursue marijuana dispensaries as long as they don't sell near schools, on the black market or across state boundaries." LMFAO You sir are an idiot.

You are an idiot. Plenty of dispensaries were not raided.

That's your rebuttal? Really? "Plenty of dispensaries were not raided" More dispensaries were raided under Obama now than in Bush's two terms of office.

[deleted]

Who said slavery was THE reason for the war? Certainly not me.

What you guys don't get is that it's not about slavery itself but the violation of constitutional rights within it. The will to carry out the act for economic convenience shows that the lowest common denominator will always be found. If it isn't slavery then there would still be wholesale civil rights abuses perpetrated by states.

Do you not understand that the 14th amendment applies much of the bill of rights to the states as well?

Simply using capitalistic survival of the fittest for states rights is dangerous.

You're basically allowing states to run things their way and hoping the people who live there are smart enough to move away. Leave the tards behind.

That's ignorant. I was born and raised in California my whole life and plan to stay there for the rest of my life. I would never want to give up the weather, access to fresh produce, and tremendous opportunities for work.

If we had states rights and California decided to make things unbearable for me based on laws that they enacted that normally would not have worked without states rights, you're basically saying I should move away. That's stupid and ignorant. Why should I move away of I'm happy with what I have.

If current politics has taught us anything, our political constituents do not have our best interests at heart. By giving them more power, you really think the people we put in office would be better off for us? Do you not think oversight and rules protecting the citizens of the united states through federal government is worth having states rights?

It's dumb to assume states rights work better for the people.

List examples where states rights work elsewhere in the world, and I may change my tune.

give us capitalism or give us socialism. don't give us some half-way bullshit that only benefits the rich

also, read the constitution sometime.

I have no problem with states' rights but if there is a controversy, SCOTUS is there to sort it out, as per the Constitution. Abortion (and privacy, in particular) was one such controversy.

yeah, just like they decided the 2000 election for us

such good work they do.

Gore didn't have the votes, even if Bush v. Gore had been ruled in his favor.

Not entirely sure why you are picking on Alabama. We're not leading the way on any pro life agenda. I live and go to school here, and I have never seen a prolife rally.

Alabama has a lot of wealthy conservatives. From what I have seen liberals are the poorer of the two parties.

I really don't know where you got your ignorant opinions from, but I can imagine. The north has quite a bit higher poverty per capita than the south does. I know poor places in Alabama, and they live better than a fair amount of northern.

Also, it's all you Yankees that has thrown this country into the state it is now. Harvard has produced the last couple of presidents and their business graduates have a strangle hold on most big business. Alabama is not the problem. Idiots like you are.

the south is full of retards

if you haven't realized that, then you are probably one of them

look up the bible belt

btw i didn't downvote you (i'm sure you don't care but..)

Ron Paul is from the south, just fyi.

there are exceptions to every rule

why people don't take this into account when people make what are obviously gross generalizations is beyond me

Are you fucking serious?

why people don't take this into account when people make what are obviously gross generalizations is beyond me

....

the south is full of retards

You're really something else dude.

to say something is "full of retards" does not imply that retards exclusively populate that something

lrn2logic

Adjective:
Containing or holding as much or as many as possible; having no empty space: "wastebaskets full of rubbish".

I think you'll find that's the common definition of 'full'

Fuck me, are you like 15 or something?

I don't really see a problem with giving more power to states. If, for example, Alabama is dumb enough to outlaw abortion, over time, anyone who cares about that and has money or can find opportunities out-of-state will leave. Alabama will then nosedive into bankruptcy, since all the intelligent, affluent people, who would otherwise be paying taxes, etc., would be gone. At that point, all the retards in that state would become completely irrelevant, and maybe then every presidential election wouldn't have to be about abortion, fags, terrists, and immigration. As it stands today, dumbass-filled states like Alabama, South Carolina, etc., are kept alive, economically, by the fact that the Feds say abortion cannot be outlawed. If those tards could outlaw abortion and legalize slavery, they probably would, and somehow I doubt that would go very well for them in the long run. It seems like everyone in this country is still just trying to prop up broken-ass systems. Can't we just let the broken, rotten parts of our society die, already (e.g., the south, banks, prisons, the military-industrial complex, TSA, cops, and anyone else who only has a job because of Congressional lobbying)? Whether we should provide a living wage to people or not can be argued, but whether we should continue wasting so many resources, so much time, and so many lives on so much stupid shit can not.

if that isn't a gross generalization I don't know what is.

Bud I know people who can't read that are wiser than what ever liberal arts community college program drummed you out. I just wanted to come here and inform you of it under no uncertain terms that you are an idiot. Odds are you are a troll, but the fact you posted in r/conspiracy and didn't take this to r/politics speaks volumes.

"what ever" lol

yea, i'm the retard.

Acceptance is the first step.

herpderpdance is the ferp derp

enjoy your high horse

and your shift at mcdonalds tomorrow

Lol. So a southern man is looking down upon you? So how low on the totem pole do you have to be for a "state swarming with retards" to look down at you?

Also can't work gotta go see my engineering advisor. But I wish you the best of luck with that barista career. That's all you liberal arts are good for is serving productive members of society coffee.

bla bla bla bla bla i don't care about you or what you think

I don't think he's a 'troll', just a genuine moron.

Bingo!

In my opinion abortion is being used as a wedge issue, and Ron Paul, while he is personally against it, surely knows this too. Our biggest problem right now is the overweening federal government, and any power restored to the states is a step toward solving it. Of course, it means the ultimate break-up of the United States, but that is inevitable under the circumstances; the foundation has [been deliberately] rotted out from under it. Better sovereign states than the free trade regions the globalists have in mind.

Yes, their gonna have a hard time finding a qualified abortionist who takes ammo and moldy venison jerky in trade.

I like to think the post-federal-reserve economy will be one which allows people to afford children again, though there may have to be a bit of coat hanger business during the troubles.

I have a hard time believing the states would just "come around" in a situation like this. It always amazes me that people would talk about giving states the rights to control issues like slavery and abortion without thinking about how fucked up that would be. Maybe being someone who would be personally affected makes me a little less callous on this issue but it always seems like the people who would be least affected by these issues are the ones with no problems. Slavery becoming legal and abortion becoming illegal is no big deal if you are a white male. Unfortunately the majority of us are not. If the states were willing to be reasonable they would never have needed a federally mandated CRA. It might have not been the best solution but considering the shit going down at the time and the lack of action in any of those states it was the one of the few working solutions. Ron Paul types will say it would have come around anyway but I've yet to see anyone who would have been directly affected say that it would have been ok to be oppressed for a few more years while the states get their shit together.

Tell me, as an individual is it easier to affect laws at the state level or federal? The liberal nightmare of back alley abortion clinics and blacks back in chains is not going to happen.

But that's just it. The libertarian fantasy of "The states will work it out" never happened and therefore they had to pass laws to allow blacks to vote and to make abortion a legal procedure. I don't want the states or federal government to tell women what they can do with their vaginas the same way I don't think a state or government should be able to somehow make slavery ok. The blacks in chains and abortion clinics thing already happened and it took the federal government to stop these things. Maybe in some revisionist libertarian version of history these things were handled by the states but in reality they were not and there was little to no effort by the individual state governments to do a damn thing about it. Like I said. Seems like the people who don't have a problem with it are the ones who weren't and wouldn't be affected. i.e. Ron Paul. Convenient.

Preaching to the choir.

i asked a question. i guess i'm correct in my understanding?

I see tremendous problems if you let the states create their own laws concerning abortion. You will end up with people being forced to travel to "free states" to get services that the religious bigots in their state decided were illegal. What is to stop states from making it a crime to travel out of state for this as well?

[deleted]

look up the bible belt

look up the bible belt