That states' rights were used to fight for the right to maintain slavery does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It is slavery that is wrong.
I'm inherently mistrustful of arguments for "state's rights" that don't explicitly state what rights are being advocated for, that the existence of a Federal government is standing in the way of.
It's usually something gross and regressive, like wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy. Otherwise it would be something normal they could just, you know, pass a law about. Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty.
> Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty.
This would be more meaningful if the federal government wasn't involved in everyone's lives to the degree that most people's idea of state sovereignty ends at issuing driver's licenses and license plates.
In general, a call for "states' rights" is a call for the federal government to act in line with the supreme law of the land that is the Constitution and restore the concept of "laboratories of democracy" that states ought to be. Instead, what we have is a federal government that supposedly has the legal authority to regulate activity that crossed no state boundaries and harmed no one[0].
> wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy
I'm not aware of any recent efforts at the state level, at least more seriously than someone trying to make the papers in a primary election, to achieve such goals. Do you have any examples?
And on the flip side states rights is what let half the country not have slavery from the get go, certain states grant women suffrage, basically every singular "good thing" you could come up with started in one state. My state had great public healthcare before the federal mandate.
The current state of weed legalization, and research into medical psychedelic use would probably be a ton better off without the feds sticking their dick places it doesn't belong, to name but one example.
But the unintended consequence is that we were forced to weaken states' rights, so that we could abolish slavery. We could not have federally abolished slavery if we did not first give the federal government the power to do that. Unfortunately, the union had to take that power by force.
Right, but once you fight a war over it, the SCOTUS is forced to make choices to legitimize the actions of the remaining USA, and state's rights were... de-valued.
It's usually something gross and regressive, like wanting to mandate Christian doctrine as law, or to reintroduce racial segregation or to send all the gays to conversion therapy. Otherwise it would be something normal they could just, you know, pass a law about. Because states do have rights, they just don't have absolute sovereignty.