Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by LordNyax113, Dec 7, 2009.
States rights is utter nonsense.
Wrongo Jabb, the Union fought for political moves, I got this info from the Military Channel and from US. Army sources.
There is the value of a decentralized government, but I have never heard anyone use states' rights to defend gay marriage, where it would traditionally go (with the states having the right to grant licenses). I have heard Bush say that Indian law should be left to the states, which the constitution says is not true (literally in commerce clause).
Yes, there are some important technical questions that were not resolved concerning state rights. No doubt there is in every nation. No matter what nation you are in, the true common reason every government will go to war to keep its land is primarily a question of power. And it is primarily for protection that the inhabitants of that land concede to that power.
With states' rights, I can't help but be reminded of Harry's trial in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Bear with me. Harry uses magic outside of school to defend himself and his cousin against a Demetor attack. As this is against wizarding law, he is put on trial, with the threat of expulsion from Hogwarts hanging over him. Technically the only issue should be his current use of underage magic. However it quickly descends into a kangaroo court that involves all previous uses of magic on his part. Two, in particular: the mischief caused by Dobby in book 2, and Harry attacking his uncle's sister Marge in book 3. Fortunately, Dumbledore is there to argue Harry's case, and he quickly puts the Ministry in its place regarding the past incidents: he points out that no charges were pressed in the previous cases, that Dobby would readily admit to his own actions, and that the Ministry modified everyone's memories during the attack on Marge. Therefore, as no action was taken against Harry at the time, it was rather disingenuous of them to bring them up at the present time.
This is where it parallels the states' rights arguments. At no point did the South secede during the nullification crisis. They seceded only once Lincoln was elected, and in their declarations of independence they cite the perceived threat to slavery quite extensively. Their constitutional references are almost all in reference to those parts dealing with slavery. Only after the war, when the "Lost Cause" interpretation became popular, did they cite states rights (other than the right to own slaves and expand slavery into new territory) as their reasons for seceding. So, it's rather disingenuous to claim states' rights so far after the fact, when the states' rights issues they quarreled over never led to a secession at the time.