State Rights and Social Policy

Not what I'm supporting.

Well, you appear to support ignoring the Constitution where it contradicts your value judgments. A fine distinction at best.

Living document blah blah blah.

Look, Doma, let's be honest here: if you're going to assert that the living document interpretation is "ignoring the constitution when it doesn't say what you want it to say," there's really no room for discussion here, now is there?

Tomu, please be a little nicer.

You mentioned a federal gun control law. The "living constitution" argument there first denies that "the people" means the same thing in the Second Amendment that it does anywhere else, and then defends its place in the enumerated powers by claiming that interstate commerce and general welfare can allow pretty much anything the federal government cares to do. That doesn't seem to leave much room to limit government's power, does it?

We can agree that there should be limits on the federal government's powers without agreeing that the states should be in charge of those limits.

What Taoist said.

Neither I nor the Constitution said anything about the states being in charge of federal limitations, but yeah, states' rights are definitely one of the balances. Nevada, Wisconsin, Montana, California, Massachusetts - all give their people control that they could never have on a national level, and sink or swim without dragging the rest of the country into the deep end. To equate all state power with Jim Crow is asinine.

Again: why not municipalities instead of states?

I'd be okay with that. That said, there's still a good deal of BS that the federal government tends to enact and never get around to repealing because of the pressure to not back down from their actions.

Or how about-crazy idea-we don't make broad sweeping statements about how everything should be done at the state level, or everything should be done at the federal level, and actually analyze what types of policy work best at the state level and what types of policy work best at the federal level? Doesn't that sound like a good idea?

I agree. I'm not sure how we got to living constitution point though.

x3 I answered you!

Living document basically means that, while the constitution is the highest document in the land, the common law slowly shifts the implications of it. There's a lot of precedent for what is and isn't acceptable under that interpretation, and shouldn't simply be dismissed as "ignoring the constitution."

Oh, I see. The expanded interpretation of the commerce clause, taxing and spending clause, and necessary and proper clause.

Well, I don't think they should be treated as so scriptural that they override the rest of the constitution. For one thing, they should not override rights of citizens (one argument used against PPACA, and also why New Deal seizures were ruled unconstitutional). Later amendments should definitely supersede them if there's a conflict.

I figure the states demonstrate precedent and effects of policies on a small scale well. As an example, Nevada has loose gun control and a really large city(Vegas) and hasn't blown itself up, which shows that California could very well do the same thing and not fall into the ocean overnight or anything.

Vegas probably has a lower instance of violent crime compared to LA, and it's rife with all sorts of things my state has banned, such as gambling, prostitution(outside of Vegas. Clark county doesn't allow it, but the rest of Nevada does) and loose gun control laws and much looser carry laws.

If Sin City hasn't imploded in a massive display of violence over the years, I don't see why LA or SF would if it implemented similar policies.

Outsider's Viewpoint Time!

My own Britain is not a federal nation (although, it is a 'state' within the greater EU), and so, I cannot possibly comment on that.

However, as far as I see it, the general issue seems to be unrelatability. Not many people can relate to the federal government. The majority of its domestic roles are large - but unseen. You have the paradox of having a tichy tiny federal government, that's actually rather large.

Therefore, calling for States' Rights is much akin to giving the powers of Person I Can See to Person I Cannot See.

But, I do concur with the idea of social policy occurring on a federal level, for the most part. It seems an odd scenario when a marriage in New York state can be accepted in Spain or Brazil, but not in Texas.

I believe that social policy detailing the Rights of Individuals (e.g. gay marriage, welfare) should be left to the federal government, and other social policies (e.g. old-age care) be left to the States.

That's completely backwards, considering caring for the elderly is something that benefits tremendously from economics of scale. Well, I guess the marriage thing also works best at a federal level, just for tax reasons.

You can't claim to be married and filing jointly on your taxes if you're a homosexual couple, even if you're in a state that allows gay marriage.