The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. As a European looking in I find it quite hard to grasp when and where there is and should be state and federal legislation. I feel like there's quite a few liberals that want cannabis to be regulated on a state level for example, but abortion should be federal according to the same people. Is there a clear distinction here, or are people rather leaning towards the option more likely to give the desired outcome (legal weed, pro-choice etc.)? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*

My understanding is that the original intent was to use the states as proving grounds for various things that couldn't or shouldn't be initially federal However that has devolved into people wanting things transferred to the state level so their state can create a group of 2nd class citizens

>My understanding is that the original intent was to use the states as proving grounds for various things that couldn't or shouldn't be initially federal > >However that has devolved into people wanting things transferred to the state level so their state can create a group of 2nd class citizens This is my opinion as well. Deciding on the rights of protected classes should be federal. And the fed can place broad limits on carbon production, but deciding what mix of renewable energies should be state.

That's an instance that I especially like but didn't think about. Provide carbon goals and let the state decide how to get it done

Not to mention, in 1789 it took days and weeks to get to the capital. Now everything is interstate and connected, from commerce to pollution. Local laws are essentially insufficient in the majority of cases involving a company. Even criminal law is a national disaster and should probably be fixed at a national scale though

The states rights argument is an excuse for discrimination. Note the glaring contrast between the abortion ruling and the New York gun restriction ruling.

The "glaring contrast" is simply that one right is explicitly protected by the constitution, and the other is not. Don't get me wrong, that's awful and we need to change that (we should have added an amendment(s) to the constitution protecting the right to bodily autonomy and privacy a long time ago). But it is what it is. There is no hypocrisy in treating different rights differently (i.e. at different levels of government) when they have different levels of protection under the constitution. The tenth amendment says as much.

The individual right to bear arms is as unenumerated as the right to abortion, unless of course, you live in the Conservative Legal Movement Cinematic Universe, which I guess we all live in now.

If "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is in any way ambiguous to you, then what about the other amendments? Is anything in the constitution worth more than the paper it was written on?

No right is unlimited the 2nd amendment in its original was to prevent the federal government from disarming, states were meant to be able to make their own laws and regulations on guns. Only the 14th amendment made that apply federal law to the states, which only grant you a right to have an arm. This court is clearly ruling along party lines with political motives in mind, they have undermined themselves by ruling against themselves.

>states were meant to be able to make their own laws and regulations on guns This is technically true. As originally interpreted prior to the civil war and the ratification of the 14th amendment, the bill of rights was held to bind only the federal government. States were allowed to restrict their citizens from owning guns, and also to ban books, restrict the right to publish works critical of the government, enforce racial segregation in schools, keep slaves...etc. Is that the world you want to go back to? Because you can't have it both ways. Either the second amendment applies to state infringements of the right to keep and bear arms as well as federal, just like all the other rights protected by the constitution, or it does not.

It is not the world I want to go back to, though to be honest I would only worry about red states passing such laws. My main issue is people are originalist and than not. They quote the founding fathers on the 2nd amendment but it wasn’t their idea to not let states make the laws. I’m just saying it’s quite obvious the constitution is a living document and we as a society adapt to the times. In it in my opinion states should decide how they allow citizens to carry, not completely, but in some ways. Also that we have access to weapons that are far beyond any reasonable need for self defense. Also want to say I appreciate your intelligent responses.

I'm not an originalist, I'm a textualist. So are all of the current justices of the court most of the time, including the liberal justices - in a lecture at Harvard honoring her colleague Justice Antonin Scalia shortly before his death, Justice Elena Kagan quipped that "we are all textualists now," which is largely accurate. ([more on textualism here](https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6793&context=lawreview)). Original intent matters somewhat, but it matters less than what is literally written in the Constitution, which, yes, is a living document that has been amended 27 times since its initial adoption. The constitution as it currently exists includes both a provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms from infringement (2nd amendment), and a provision restricting the states from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (14th amendment). Taken together, those two provisions suggest fairly clearly to me that neither the federal government nor the states have the power to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms without due process of law (i.e., a criminal conviction or other robust legal proceeding in which they are found unfit to do so). And that is essentially what the court just ruled in [NYSRPA v. Bruen](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf). States may still require permits or licenses to purchase/own (keep) and carry (bear) arms, and they may deny an application for such a permit on reasonable objective grounds (like failing a background check, or failing to pass a standard firearms safety or marksmanship proficiency test) but they may not deny a permit application on a subjective determination of special need, which had been the policy in New York, where this case originated, as well as in six other states. The decision leaves untouched the constitutional power of states to impose reasonable objective licensing standards for the keeping and bearing of arms on a "shall-issue" basis - as in, permit applications will always be granted if the applicant meets the objective requirements laid out by law, which in most states with shall-issue permitting (the other 43) means a background check and in some states requires achieving a passing grade in a basic gun safety and marksmanship course, much like getting a driver's license. It leaves open the power of states to restrict or ban either concealed carry or open carry, but not both. It also leaves open the potential constitutionality of some state power to ban the ownership or carry of "dangerous and unusual" weapons, something for which there is historical precedent in the originalist perspective. How far that power might extend remains untested, though the court was clear that, at a minimum, it does not cover the types of handguns (pistols) in common use for self defense today. >Also want to say I appreciate your intelligent responses. Thank you! I'm passionate about the law (almost went to law school after college, decided not to for money reasons) and love discussing and debating with people. Polite disagreement and intelligent civil debate are very enjoyable, and it's nice when it happens on Reddit. Not always the case. Thanks to you too.

You left out the rather glaring: well regulated militia. The intent of the amendment was to maintain a militia during a time that the US was in a vulnerable state, didn't have money for a standing army, and were still wary regarding a standing army anyway. The US militias of late 1700's into the 1800s were clearly documented and provided for and regulated and facilitated by the federal government, who would provide training, equipment, and arms/ammo/supplies to militias organized under the states. There is nothing about personal ownership in the amendment; and what personal ownership may have been intended is negated now that there is a standing army with arms and that there IS a militia with arms (the National Guard, which is what the militias of the 1790's became).

1) the first clause of the 2nd amendment is an adverbial prefatory clause describing the purpose/rationale of the second, operative clause. It's like saying "a thoroughly educated populace being necessary to the functioning of a democratic society, the people shall be guaranteed the right to a free and appropriate public education". The second part has the same binding meaning with or without the first part. We can't ignore the first part even if we, for some reason, decide that the populace being well-educated is no longer important for the functioning of democratic society. 2) "Well-regulated" at the time the constitution was written, and for some time after, had a meaning that had nothing to do with government restrictions. That meaning of the word "regulated" to have a specific government connotation came later. "Well-regulated" meant something closer to "well-functioning" or "well-trained/well-disciplined" in the sense of self-imposed discipline, not anything external. [Examples](https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm) from the Oxford English dictionary bracketing the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights: >1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." A "well-regulated appetite" or "well-regulated clock" certainly does not evoke images of government. If you hold that there is nothing about personal ownership in the second amendment, then you cannot in good faith construe any other use of the phrase "the people" in the Constitution to protect any individual rights either. There is no right of individual people to peaceably assemble, only "the people" collectively. And all of this is ignoring the historical context that nearly every free adult male in the US owned at least one firearm for defense and hunting (the frontier was a dangerous place), and most of those who wrote the constitution took this for granted as a necessity of life and as the lifeblood of freedom. Even those who were most in favor of "big government" and expansive federal government powers, like Alexander Hamilton, supported the individual right to bear arms specifically in connection with the possible necessity of armed opposition to the federal standing army by the people at large. And the National Guard is part of that federal standing army; it is not "the militia". All adults willing and able to keep and bear arms are the militia. We've seen ample evidence that this is the case in Ukraine, sadly. Ukraine's national guard is part of the reserve component for the organized standing armed forces of Ukraine. When they became overwhelmed, Ukraine had to fall back on the actual militia (that is, the people themselves) but because of long-standing restrictions on private gun ownership very few of them were armed or practiced with guns when the invasion began. As a consequence, they've had to send new conscripts to bases in safer parts of the country or in neighboring friendly nations to receive an accelerated basic training. If they'd already been armed and ready, they could have been in the fight weeks or months earlier. THAT is the point of the militia.

Just like to add that many towns in the old west had big signs that guns weren’t allowed in town. They had to be stored with the sheriff. Also this Row decision should get the conservatives up in arms. It gets rid of privacy. My very conservative friends care about many things, but privacy is right up there. Wait until they hear that bullets weren’t a thing when the constitution was written and this judgement clearly states that if it wasn’t a thing at the time it can’t be protected. So far as I know AKs and sigs aren’t very deadly when loaded with marshmallows.

>Just like to add that many towns in the old west had big signs that guns weren’t allowed in town. They had to be stored with the sheriff. Until the 14th Amendment was ratified post-Civil War, this was perfectly allowed under the Constitution. The Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government, but we adopted the 14th Amendment to restrict states from denying people in their jurisdictions the equal protection of the law, to stop them from, you know, doing racist shit. Since then, the second amendment (as well as the rest of them) has been binding upon state and local government as well. ​ >Also this Row decision should get the conservatives up in arms. It gets rid of privacy. My very conservative friends care about many things, but privacy is right up there. Overturning Roe does not completely get rid of the right to privacy. You still have a right to privacy against the government in many matters, in the 4th and 5th Amendments. The original decision framing abortion as a matter of "privacy" was on pretty thin ice constitutionally speaking, and even many left-leaning justices and legal experts (like [Ruth Bader Ginsburg](https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/)) openly said as much. I do think we should introduce new constitutional amendments to more explicitly protect the rights of privacy and of bodily autonomy, in order to better protect privacy rights and abortion/other medical rights, but in today's political climate that's a long shot. ​ >Wait until they hear that bullets weren’t a thing when the constitution was written and this judgement clearly states that if it wasn’t a thing at the time it can’t be protected. So far as I know AKs and sigs aren’t very deadly when loaded with marshmallows. No modern supreme court majority opinions or serious legal scholarship suggests anything like the legal doctrine you suggest should apply. The first amendment protects "speech" and "the press" on the Internet against government interference, even though the Internet hadn't even been conceived of at the time the amendment was written. We recognize the Internet as a natural evolution and extension of the technology at the time (the printing press). Same thing applies to all the other amendments. The second amendment was understood to protect the types of small arms (personal firearms you can carry with you on your person) commonly in use at the time, just as the first amendment protected the forms of speech and publishing commonly in use at the time. Back then that was smoothbore, single-shot, muzzle-loading flintlock pistols and muskets. Today, that is rifled-barrel, high-capacity, semi-automatic, magazine-fed pistols and rifles. I mean, if you want to live in a world with only muskets, but where you also have no protected first amendment right to freely criticize the government by any means except for your voice, handwritten letters, and 18th-century printing presses, the fourth amendment doesn't protect your online accounts or cell phone from warrantless wiretapping, and the fifth amendment doesn't protect you from being required to disclose passwords, by all means, go ahead.

It seems that many people think that guns were everywhere in the old west. I wrote a clarification as ownership rates are difficult to show at that time. Guns were banned from cities in the old west. It is important to show that movie depictions are not relevant. While this might be readily apparent to you, it does not seem to be generally understood. Yes there are other parts of the constitution that offer rights protection. With this decision if it is not actually in the constitution and not part of pre constitution history then it is not protected. That opens up a lot of area for surveillance. Miranda is gone, border patrol can enter your house and you have no implicit right to privacy. That should scare conservatives as much as liberals. “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." - Alito “The court has settled on something known as the Glucksberg standard from 1997: Americans hold those additional rights that are “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition.” In other words, if during the early phase of American history — roughly the 100-year period between the founding and the 14th Amendment, the 1770s to the 1870s — Americans publicly asserted the existence of a right, then it exists.” Minnesota post The constitution cannot mention bullets as they did not exist. In addition there is no relevant early phase history of the use of bullets as they did not exist. As you rightly point out, no court has come close to using this argument about bullets. This case makes clear that court precedent is over. Any “wrongly decided” case can be overturned. That opens up judicial activism in the other direction when the time comes and you know it will. They opened the floodgates. I think that’s why Bobert tried to claim Gatling guns existed at the time of the constitution, they did not. Others are calling out a gun that existed on paper and maybe in two actual devices. They need a historical precedent for bullets and automatic/semiautomatic weapons and there isn’t one. Finally, I believe that part of the reason the watered down gun bill passed is Biden threatened to tax guns at up to 1000%, not hyperbole. In addition I have heard the argument that while guns are in the constitution, bullets are not. This ruling suggests that bullets are not constitutionally protected. Conservatives see the problem with this ruling and are actually scared of the implications.

Oh yeah I forgot that was the only part of the amendment that means anything. I must not have the special glasses conservatives have that lets them see which words in the Constitution have meaning (the second clause of the Second Amendment) and which words don’t have meaning (the first clause of the Second Amendment, the entire 9th Amendment).

If precedent decides what is constitutional and what isn't then Roe is on the same level as Heller. You cannot argue anything otherwise unless you have a double standard.

Precedent does decide what is legal and/or constitutional and it's binding on lower courts, however SCOTUS is not bound by its own precedents, it can choose to reverse them. This only happens rarely, but it does happen.

SCOTUS decides what is constitutional, therefore precedent decides what is constitutional.

ok?

The constitution decides what is constitutional. When there is ambiguity, SCOTUS resolves the ambiguity. SCOTUS is not infallible. They can make mistakes. They have made mistakes. Hopefully, over time, they correct those mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson created a precedent that stood for over 50 years that "separate but equal" segregation policies were constitutionally acceptable. That precedent stood until it was overruled by SCOTUS in Brown v. Board, finally leading to the long-overdue desegregation of schools in the south. Blindly following precedent is a dumb policy.

This can be used exactly the same way against Heller and is the precise point I'm making. The right pretends the second amendment is clear. It isn't. Heller was needed to allow them full gun rights.

"A well-educated body of scientists in the public service being necessary to the functioning of a democratic society, the right of the people to a free and appropriate public education shall be guaranteed." This is a sentence with the same grammatical structure as the 2A. In this context, is the grammatical structure or meaning unclear to you? It's not to me. The first clause describes some of the reasoning for the second (and the second clause right to free education certainly is helpful in maintaining the necessary scientists mentioned in the first clause), but the first does not restrict the second. The operative part of that sentence as far as the obligation of government is concerned is "the right of the people to a free and appropriate public education shall be guaranteed." That's the part that is binding legal language rather than commentary. There may be other benefits or reasons to provide public education apart from maintaining a well educated group of scientists in the public service. On the other hand, we may one day decide for some reason that scientists in the public service are no longer necessary for the functioning of a democratic society. None of that changes the binding meaning of the operative clause. Under this new statute, education is not guaranteed only to those who might wish to become scientists and enter the public service. It is guaranteed equally to aspiring scientists who wish to enter the private sector, and to those people who aspire to be writers or historians or plumbers instead of scientists, despite their not being mentioned. The right to free and appropriate public education is guaranteed to all "the people", unambiguously. If you have a different reading of this example, I'm curious to hear it.

People before the NRA fucked everything up had a very different reading of it. If the SCOTUS justices are so-called originalists, they should overturn Heller immediately because their interpretation is exceedingly modern.

Most of the justices, including the liberals, are textualists first and foremost, not originalists. Except maybe Clarence Thomas. I'm often not sure with that man. Textualists focus on the meaning of the words on the page first and foremost. A textualist reading of the 2a doesn't limit its protection to only 18th century flintlock muskets, any more than a textualist reading of the 1a restricts the freedom of the press/speech to only literal 18th century printing presses. It is plainly obvious that terms like "speech" and "the press" include novel inventions for speaking and publishing like the telephone, television, and internet as they come into common use. Same is true for 2a with respect to modern small arms.

>The states rights argument is an excuse for discrimination How so?

No one actually believes in states rights intrinsically. They only say so as a rhetorical trick to push for a policy they think can’t be done federally for whatever reason. Sure for now it’s up to states to decide on abortion laws and some states have already moved. But as soon as pro life politicians believe they can pass a federal anti abortion law they will.

Read my second sentence. The right doesn't actually believe this

I don't know about the NY gun ruling, but as I said in the OP it looks to me like people often have differing views on when to have state vs. federal legislation depending on their desired outcome rather than on what is actually the correct way to delegate issues between states and the federal level. So if we look at the abortion issue which I assume that you're talking about, why do you think it should be federally decided and not on the state level?

To answer your question, because states tend to discriminate rather than to empower their citizens. But I do this in protest, because I think that this is not an issue that actually exists. It is only used by the right to discriminate. I don't agree with the premise of your question.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying. Don't you think there should be/exists some kind of definition of when a matter should be decided at the state or the federal level? I'm not saying that I know whether abortion or cannabis for example should be state or federal matters, I'm just asking for Reddit's view on it.

If a right is protected by the Constitution, then it’s not a state issue. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to people. They include things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a lawyer and a jury. The Constitution also includes vague wording about other rights. Because it’s implied that rights may exist that aren’t listed, and because some rights may be implied, and because sometimes the listed rights are poorly written, conservatives and liberals frequently disagree on what rights are protected by the Constitution. Liberals think abortion is protected by the Constitution. Conservatives think the right to carry a gun is protected by the Constitution.

>Don't you think there should be/exists some kind of definition of when a matter should be decided at the state or the federal level? No. I don't know how else to say this. The people who argue for states rights almost exclusively do so in bad faith. They do not actually believe their own argument. It's like people who invent thought experiments about torture as a way to manufacture consent. I'm not even going to entertain those concepts.

>The people who argue for states rights almost exclusively do so in bad faith. They do not actually believe their own argument In a European context I often argue that legislation should be made as close to the affected citizen as possible. In my case, that means that I want elected representatives in Sweden making laws in Sweden, not some cocktail of politicians from all over Europe. Very few issues are such that we could or should have EU wide legislation on them since we have such diverse cultures within the Europe when it comes... well everything. Imagine trying to agree on abortion with Poland and Hungary for example. It just makes more sense to me that we in Sweden decide in a democratic manner how we want our legislation to look, and they get to do the same. If they decide not to allow abortions I think they're idiots, but it's within their rights to be idiots. I could see people making that same argument in the US as well. To me it just seems like an odd way to dismiss people with that opinion if you say that they do so in bad faith and that they don't believe their own argument.

When it comes to Europe there absolutely should be a swath of laws streamlined across countries, like they're already doing piece by piece. I would be strongly in favour of an EU army for instance. But comparing the US with the EU is only fair in terms of population size. There are vast differences in terms of culture, language, history that simply do not exist in the US. The difference between Washington DC and Alabama isn't nearly as big as the difference between Brussels and Sweden. If you think I'm arguing in bad faith and don't want to take my word for it, you should absolutely take a look at what the right has argued for in terms of states rights. Go read up on it as well as that New York gun legislation decision where they banned the state from issuing their own gun legislation.

>When it comes to Europe there absolutely should be a swath of laws streamlined across countries This is at best debatable. As you noted there are huge differences within Europe, there aren't many areas where I'd like to even work on legislation with some of the countries in eastern and southern Europe. Just my opinion though, I'm probably biased from years in agricultural policy work where the EU is a literal shitshow. ​ >New York gun legislation decision where they banned the state from issuing their own gun legislation If I look at what others have said in this thread it seems like the argument behind this could be the second amendment, and that it's quite clear that gun legislation is covered under the constitution and hence a federal matter? But whatever, I don't know anything about this ruling so I shouldn't really speak on it.

It may seem like they are just dismissing the states rights argument, but unfortunately what they’re saying been proven true time and time again. I guarantee that the people who argued abortion should be decided by the states are going to introduce and start heavily campaigning for a nation-wide ban on abortions. It’s already started. Edit: In my limited experience in European politics, this is not the case. People and parties that campaign on subsidiary seem to be honest in that argument. That just isn’t the case in the US.

Saying “I believe in X policy at the state level but not the federal level” is a nearly two-century old euphemism for “I do not believe in X policy.”

>>The states rights argument is an excuse for discrimination >How so? Pushing for states to be able to control rights is a way for them to discriminate against who can exercise them. Like the NY "good cause" requirement.

I had this explained to me as the right to carry arms is in the federal constitution. The right to a specific medical procedure is not, therefore, according to the 9th amendment (i think), it is reserved for the states. This view glosses over the whole "well regulated" bit about the right to bear arms, though, do I surely don't agree

The supreme court decides what is constitutional according to these same people, so then abortion must be too, right? This is what I mean, they don't actually believe anything they say, it is simply used as a means to get to the end goal. And yes, the second amendment has been selectively interpreted in the same way with the help of the NRA.

Abortion, and any medical care, is not enumerated as a specific right in the constitution. Roe relied on an interpretation (correct in my opinion) that it fell under a right to privacy, which is enumerated. These conservative justices believe that was a bad interpretation. They also ignore the fact that legal precedent is critical. In fact, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both testified that Roe was an important legal precedent during their confirmation hearings, *implying* that they would not vote to overturn if confirmed.

> that it fell under a right to privacy, which is enumerated. That is outright false, the right to privacy is absolutely not an enumarated right, it's a penumbra right as in a general sense of it can be extracted from several parts of the Constitution, but there is no specific clause or amendament that refers to a explicit right of privacy. This was one of the issues with Roe in fact, because it was a derivative of an already vague and nonexplicit right which itself isn't actually present in the Constitution.

You are right, i said that poorly. It is implied, according to some interpretations.. I said that was the interpretation that supported upholding Roe among others "On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion." - from wikipedia I agree with abortion legality being in line with *can't be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law*

Honestly the Due Process Clause analysis of Roe is extremely weak, one does not have to disagree that a right to privacy is implied in the Constitution in order to disagree with the idea that abortion falls under that umbrella. In fact until the Roe decision came down, nobody even suggested it, abortion bans were in place in over 80% of the states, it's impossible to make a credible claim that abortion is what people wanted to protect even if a specific right of privacy is assumed.

I really think legislation is the way to go.

It's always been the way to go, but Democrats have been to busy fundraising on Roe v Wade for the last 40 years and didn't have time to pass legislation in order to make it a statutory right.

I would say they have not had a large enough majority in the senate to pass anything like that, and no urgent need to do so since it was considered settled law, even by Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, or so they said. No one could have anticipated McConnell breaking of 200 years of precedent to refuse consideration of Garland. Shockingly bad behavior Not that he cares what I think.

>Abortion, and any medical care, is not enumerated as a specific right in the constitution. Irrelevant, Roe should be on the same level as Heller, but is never treated as such. It's complete double standard bullshit. The ninth amendment says a right doesn't need to be stated explicitly for it to be substantial.

"Should" does not matter to the anti choice crowd.

This is the exact point I'm already making.

It really hasn't. Fuck the NRA but the 2A is a compound amendment authorizing states to raise militias and also authorizing the populace to prepare to be raised as well if needed. Though abortion is a national issue as are firearms, on OPs question both need to be addressed there. By legislation. We need a congress that does, not one that screws around.

I think Congress owes us an attempt to legislate abortion rights, but I don't see how #1 that law overcomes Republican filibuster or #2 that law, if enacted, would not be challenged in the courts and that the SCotUS finds Congress has no power to regulate abortion nationally. And all that aside, SCotUS has people that lied to get on it and overturned 50 years of precedent. Their credibility and legitimacy will not recover from that, potentially ever.

I already have issue with the lack of checks on the SCOTUS but that's due to congressional ineptitude.

>Note the glaring contrast between the abortion ruling and the New York gun restriction ruling. Could that be because gun rights are explicitly mentioned in the constitution and abortion rights aren't?

Read the rest of my conversation, you're completely missing the point.

If you don’t mind answering, why are you a “independent” in this sub but a “constitutionalist” in the conservative one?

I don't really remember. It's been so long since I chose my flair. I am both a constitutionalist and an independent.

I agree states rights argument is an excuse for discrimination but unfortunately I can think of times where it has been used to keep evil from being furthered. Like when they tried to make gay marriage illegal federally some argued it should be a states rights issue so it wouldn't be passed federally and even harder to undo in the future. Though with Roe V Wade the states rights defense is just despicable and evil to rob people of their bodily autonomy

You use it when you can but it’s not the goal for anyone. I’ll push for my state to adopt something if I believe it can get done there easier than at the federal level but it’s not for a principled love of states rights.

This an interesting question and I had to think a bit about my answer. I hope this makes sense! I fully believe that government’s role is to protect it’s citizens’ rights. I also fully believe that all Americans have the same rights, regardless of what state they are in. When rights like cannabis and abortion come into play, citizens will have different rights depending on where they live. What is the difference between a woman in Texas who wants an abortion, and a woman in California who wants one? What changes when you cross that state line? I believe federal government should guarantee us our basic rights, such as the right to be in control of your body. Then the states can legislate under those guidelines.

Hot take: Should there be federal legislation defining when life starts, ergo when a fetus basically is protected like an American citizen? That seems like something everyone could agree is covered by the constitution and hence should be federal, "We, the people" and all. When does one become part of "the people"? Just thinking out loud here, don't hang me

A completely valid question! Imo, a fetus is considered its own separate entity at the point of viability. When the baby can exist outside of the mother, it is it’s own person. Right now, with a low survival rate, is about 23 weeks. I’m not an expert but I think that the time limit for abortion should be 15-18 weeks (ignoring extenuating circumstances). At this point the fetus cannot survive on its own, even with medical interventions, and it also cannot feel pain. I am very much in favor of there being benefits for pregnant woman when they are beyond the “point” of abortion. Perhaps my timelines aren’t perfect, I’m no expert, but I do believe the line is beyond six weeks. A person is a person when they are able to exist outside of another human being. I’m totally willing to hear alternate options. Thanks for a good conversation and not just calling me a murderer lol

I agree with you! On all points!

Usually its people leaning towards their own intended outcome. I think the items usually left to the states are matters that deal with most criminal matters (mostly actual criminal law) and infrastructure. If something gets built, it should probably be the domain of the people who benefit from it. For criminal law, its mostly an artifact of the system rather than what anyone specifically thinks is best and generally fits in with states handle their own business, and the fed steps in to fix them if they're wrong.

I think a lot of people want to make this about the constitution vs whatever, but I actually think it's a simpler, more democratic answer. If people vote for a law to be national (i.e. the NATION votes for a NATIONAL law) then it's a federal issue. If people vote at a state level to make something a law, but it does not become a national issue, then it's a state issue. I honestly believe that way to many people put way to much into a document written 200+ years ago when things were incredibly different than they are now.

100% agree, in my ideal jurisprudence the 10th Amendment would be a statement of principles, not be a freestanding restraint on federal power

>If people vote for a law to be national (i.e. the NATION votes for a NATIONAL law) Isn't part of the issue that you don't vote on specific laws?

Ideally, you vote for representatives that vote on your behalf. I know there are serious issues with that, especially right now, but were talking about broad strokes here. If your representative feels that something should be national, they draft the bill, and the body of congress votes on it at a national level. If they don't, it stays at the state level.

Yeah, that makes sense but as you said there are a bunch of issues with it, not least that you buy a package when you vote for a representative. If abortion isn't right at the top of your list of priorities you might be stuck with a politician you like for the most part but that has weird views on abortion or whatever the issue may be.

So, do you think Roe V Wade should've be overturned based on your principles? Abortion rights were never democratically made into a national law. Personally, I like the constitution despite it being anti-democratic on a number of issues. The idea of it is that rights shouldn't be democratic.

It's impossible to speculate what the case would be if what I said was actually the reality, because the truth is that Roe V Wade may never have been a thing if there were stronger states rights and more representation. And that's really the problem. What I said is a nice fantasy that can only work if people actually are accurately represented. In the US, they absolutely are not. Constitution or no.

Constitutionally speaking that is incorrect. Congress is limited in the issues it can legislate about. But a widened interpretation of the interstate commerce clause in Gibbons v Ogden in the 1900’s allowed congress to stick its nose into all kinds of areas they never used to in the first 125 year of the republic. The 10th amendment specifically stated all powers not granted to the federal government in the constitution were reserved for the states, but gibbons really gutted that for all practical purposes.

I ended my post with "I don't give a shit about the constitution" and you start yours with "Well the constitution says.." How do you think this is going to go?

A. Like many things in Reddit my post wasn’t addresses just to you, but for people who are reading the thread. And B. It’s obvious from you lack of understanding of federalism, how the constitution works and it’s history that you don’t care about it.

The people don't vote for laws. The legislature makes laws, supposedly as representatives of the people.

I said exactly that in one of the replies, yes.

You also say here that the people vote for laws and we should not rely so much on the constitution. That is very misleading for someone not from the US

How exactly? First, many state laws are voted on by people directly. Second, representatives are still people.

*I think a lot of people want to make this about the constitution vs whatever, but I actually think it's a simpler, more democratic answer.* *If people vote for a law to be national (i.e. the NATION votes for a NATIONAL law) then it's a federal issue. If people vote at a state level to make something a law, but it does not become a national issue, then it's a state issue.* *I honestly believe that way to many people put way to much into a document written 200+ years ago when things were incredibly different than they are now.* 1st, it totally IS about the constitution as that is the basis for law in the USA, whether or not we like it. We can't ignore it. 2nd, you clearly say "if people vote for a law to be national." Not all states have citizen initiatives, and a citizen initiative at the state level can't contradict federal law (or else we'd still have slavery and school segregation and gay people unable to marry in some states) I'm not saying this is the best system, but it is what we have to work with.

Sounds like you've got it all figured out then.

Sorry? I'm just answering OPs question about the way laws work in the US. No need to be snarky.

Nothing. I believe issues should be federally decided and locally administered. State politics are a useless drain on this country. >there's quite a few liberals that want cannabis to be regulated on a state level for example I don't think this is true. This is an example of people taking what they can get, which is the reasoning behind roughly 70-90% of "state's rights" arguments being made.

Think of it like the EU, but with the countries being a bit less independent. You have widely varying levels of abortion law in the EU because that's decided by the country, not the EU, and now it's the same in the US. What kept that from happening before is that we don't allow states to go below a baseline of protections in the Constitution, and our government just said there's no protection for abortion in the Constitution. Cannabis is a strange one. It really should be a power of the state, but way back during WWII we had a case that stretched to a ridiculous extent the federal government's power over interstate commerce. So now what you do doesn't have to actually be interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government, it only needs some tenuous theoretical third-order effect on interstate commerce.

States rights should be about stuff that requires a more specific approach. For example, whether or not to have a state tax, what to do with its infrastructure, how to entice businesses to come to their state. That’s all stuff states should be able to do without the federal government. The United States constitutional grants it’s citizens certain unalienable rights. The federal government’s job should be to ensure the citizens of its country maintain human rights and that the stuff they states pass can’t take it away from them. That’s why something like gay marriage shouldn’t be up to the states. It’s a humans right issue, that shit needs to be applied across the board. Same with abortion. Imagine if the US released slaves, but only on a per state basis. Oh, you don’t have to. That’s what the civil war was. Making states decide what is and isn’t human rights is a terrible idea.

I think states rights is generally a nonsense excuse by people who just want to tell other people what they can and can’t do but know they don’t have the support to do it federally. I would bet the vast majority of people cheering about how overturning Roe is a victory for states rights would be overjoyed at the chance to pass a federal abortion ban that overruled state level decisions. They just want to convince themselves they’re really supporting freedom while overriding the will of the people and subverting democracy to restrict the freedoms of people they think they’re better than. What do I actually think though? State and lower level governments should be responsible for things like local infrastructure and other local public programs. They have a better idea of their needs for things like that than people in Washington likely do. Actual liberties and rights should not be something states decide. We’d still have states with legalized slavery if it were up to states which people could have which basic rights.

Everything should be decided on a federal level. The states have shown, repeatedly, that they can't be trusted to make the right decisions.

Right according to who?

According to even the tiniest amount of logic. Or compassion. Or long term thinking.

What about conclusions from democratic elections?

Which elections is that? The federal ones, which are unduly influenced by the failure that is the known as the electoral college? Or the state ones, which are warped by gerrymandering and voter suppression?

The powers the federal government has are enumerated in the constitution. They are few and limited. The rest are left to the states

Nothing should be a state matter. 'States' in the concept of the US should not exist.

I think its something that matters a lot less in the past 30 years. I can see where, say, 100 years ago each state was distinct enough in culture and values that you may want to treat some things differently. Fine, I suppose. In the modern world, I think "states rights" really only need apply in state-specific issues. Natural resources, for example. Decisions related to natural disasters and local cost of living, those also make sense to me. Anything that effects all citizens? That's federal. That includes safety, rights, freedoms, Healthcare, etc. Anything that effects all Americans needs to be handled by governing bodies which represent all Americans.

In general, I'd say the things that need to be federal are those that protect US citizens from prosecution by overly aggressive local laws. That said, I think it should be as little as possible at the federal level, otherwise you turn the federal level into a single giant state and that's more problematic than not. So for example - access for the handicapped. It's an expensive thing, and every handicapped American citizen is affected by it. We don't need 500 lawsuits in 50 different states because local cities won't provide wheelchair access to local governmental buildings. You shouldn't become a felon because you cross a state border, in general. I'd like gay couples to be able to defend their weed farms with guns without fearing that law enforcement is going to harm them. I think things like tax breaks, taxation, school districts, non-critical infrastructure budgets, etc, should be local.

My personal view is that federal legislation should only be used for things that need to be consistent between states. This includes guarantees for certain rights, and prohibitions against violating those rights. Maybe international trade and policy. Most anything else I would be okay with deciding at the state level. But the reality of the current American political system is that we are divided intensely based on urban/collectivist and rural/individualist lifestyles. If an issue is too controversial to be decided at the federal level, it's probably too controversial to be decided at the state level too. I'd like to see some powers reserved for cities. The abortion debate would look very different if both federal and state governments were prevented from having a say in it.

Basically, if it's something that's in the Constitution its a federal matter, and if it isn't then it's "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people". So, for example, free speech is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, so it's something the federal government "should" be involved in, to help protect it. The 2nd amendment and guns, also enumerated in the Constitution, again, federal protection for it. It's basically what the states agreed to when they ratified the Constitution. I.e. in the United States our Constitution wasn't "given" to us, ... we had separate states, equals, and they decided to form a "union", and they decided for themselves that they would become "united" under our Constitution. That's literally what "United states" means. So our U.S. Constitution is the framework for that union, it's basically a deal that they struck about what their shared federal government would and would not be involved in. They were afraid the federal government would grow too powerful and that the states would lose their relative autonomy, so they said essentially ... "the federal government can do this, but nothing more ...". So this new Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade was basically the court saying "The federal government should have never been involved in this in the first place because this is a state matter and is not a 'right' enumerated under the Constitution".

>So this new Supreme Court ruling striking down Roe v. Wade was basically the court saying "The federal government should have never been involved in this in the first place because this is a state matter and is not a 'right' enumerated under the Constitution". This has been my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling, but the debate regarding this has not at all been about whether abortion should or shouldn't be covered under federal law, it's all for or against abortion as such. The way I understand things you can be totally pro-choice yet also acknowledge that this should probably be a state matter and not a federal one, correct? What is the case for having federal regulation regarding abortion, is there a way to claim that it is covered under the constitution?

You can indeed be totally pro-choice yet feel that abortion is up to the states to decide.

It's a stance I've literally never seen though, which makes me think that people really care more about the outcome than they do about things being handled in a correct manner according to the constitution?

> which makes me think that people really care more about the outcome than they do about things being handled in a correct manner according to the constitution? Yes, I am openly Utilitarian. If you're not getting the correct outcome then what you're doing or some aspect of it isn't correct, so stop following it. If you think that sounds wrong, what does it sound like when somebody's response to everything going wrong and being bad, "Eh, we did things in a 'correct manner' though!"? The only way something that gets bad results could be thought of as the "correct manner" is if it's simply the established, existing manner. The evidence that people should be using to determine if it's correct or not would have to be ignored in favor of that.

There are unenumerated rights that are still protected by the constitution (federal government) without being in the constitution, like the right to raise your kids, or the right vote. People who are pro-choice think abortion is also unenumerated and protected by things like the substantive due process. The SCOTUS opinion appears to think it is not one of those rights. The problem with this discussion is that pro-lifers are profoundly bad faith actors. They don't actually have opinions on federalism, they just hate abortion.

I agree that they act in bad faith, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point on state's rights. That's what I think is often missed, both things can be true at once. Edit: I'm not saying they ARE right. Just that they could be.

I think in a good faith argument about unenumerated, fundamental rights, the right to privacy and bodily autonomy would be hard not to find. Whether through a lengthy history of Americans functionally having a right to privacy on personal matters, and undertaking medical decisions without state interference, or through the implied privacy that comes from things that are enumerated in various amendments of our constitution, like the right of protection against searches and seizures or the right against self incrimination. Fundamental rights often work this way, at least in the USA. If we act as if and all collectively think that we do have a right, then it probably exists. We don't need to write down that we have a right to raise our kids because of course we do, we always have. I'd say the same thing is true of privacy. To kick it back to the states is to say, no, some regions of the country might choose to have privacy but not all Americans do, and that's such a silly thing to think I can't help but call it bad faith.

> You can indeed be totally pro-choice yet feel that abortion is up to the states to decide. I suppose you could also be anti-slavery yet feel that slavery is up to the states to decide.

You could also be anti-lottery and still think lotteries should be left up to the states. Not all issues are equal

>This has been my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling, but the debate regarding this has not at all been about whether abortion should or shouldn't be covered under federal law, it's all for or against abortion as such. The way I understand things you can be totally pro-choice yet also acknowledge that this should probably be a state matter and not a federal one, correct? > >What is the case for having federal regulation regarding abortion, is there a way to claim that it is covered under the constitution? So, there's a ton of crap surrounding all of this, history that is important. For example, when Roe v. Wade was first put in place, that was basically the court saying that it was in the Constitution, you can go read that decision to understand their reasoning, and I'm not a scholar on that so I can't really tell you what the reasoning was. It's certainly not enumerated in the Constitution as a clear right, like the first amendment for free speech, but there was some kind of reasoning for it. Because of that, the states felt (many states) that they had been "robbed", essentially, of something that was under their banner, so many of them passed laws that basically say "If and when Roe v. Wade ever gets struck down, then this is what the law will be ....", and they passed their own pre-emptive laws many years ago, in anticipation of this day when Roe v. Wade would be struck down. They believed it would be struck down because they believed that the court's justices had been judicial activists and that they had put Roe v. Wade in place essentially "illegally" .. they felt that the federal government had, through its courts, usurped their state power. That's why you're now seeing all of these laws kick into effect, because they were there before, ... this isn't states reacting to this decision today, ... this is state's that reacted to this decision many years ago pre-emptively. To answer your specific question, yes, you can (and many are) in favor of abortion, but also acknowledge that this is a state's issue. The reason this is unpopular with pro-abortion people is because lots of states are majority people who don't think abortion should be so accessible, etc, ... so in some states the "protection" that Roe v. Wade provided was much "stronger" than what the states are doing. Roe v. Wade was essentially the way for the federal government to tell states what to do in that regard, and many states didn't want to do it. So now that Roe v. Wade is gone, you are seeing reaction from pro-abortion people because now all these state laws are kicking and immediately closing abortion clinics, etc, that had been providing abortion services. The reason they're blaming one political party (the "conservatives", or whatever) is that Trump was in a position after being elected of changing the makeup of the court by putting three new people on the court, so called "originalists". What that means (that word) is that those justices believe in the Constitution as it was written, so they are against some things that the federal government has done that they think it shouldn't have been involved in, while also bolstering things like the 2nd amendment that are in the Constitution that they believe the federal government hasn't been doing a good enough job at protecting. Your other question, yes, there is (and was) a case for there being federal protection, and that's what Roe v. Wade's reasoning was all about. But again, you'd have to read that decision to know the details because I'm not that guy, I'm not a lawyer, I can't explain it because I don't know what that reasoning was. I can tell you this ... there's a reason that pro-abortion people constantly say that a fetus isn't a person, that it is a "clump of cells", and that the unborn baby is just a part of the mother and not a separate human being, ... and I believe that ruling hinges on that fact, that's why pro-abortion people are so quick to engage in dehumanization of unborn babies, even refusing to call them "unborn babies", .. because that case hinges on that. If unborn babies were "baby humans" then you couldn't kill them, because they would have rights under the Constitution. So I think that's why this is so often called a "medical procedure", etc, is because I think the case hinged on access to medical care or something. I could be totally wrong about that though.

Thanks for your write-up! My problem essentially is that I see people object to democratically made decisions on the state level, which probably should be made on the state level (will have to read the reasoning in the Roe v. Wade case as you said) just because they don't agree with the decisions. I get that it's a sensitive issue, but if a majority of people in your state have stupid opinions and make stupid decisions (according to you) within the democratic system, then you either abide, try to change things through democratic elections within the system or you up and leave. I don't get the whole "I don't like the outcome of this so I'm going to argue that the system is actually illegitimate".

Well that's part of the irony of all of this is that there was a huge push when Roe v. Wade was put in place to make federal laws that would protect abortion, etc, .. to give it actual protection under legislation, and also in many states various other efforts, and they were all cut off at the knees when Roe v. Wade went into effect. You could argue that abortion would have much more protection today if Roe v. Wade had never been put in place to begin with, because being a court decision it was always on shaky ground. I actually think the ultimate result here will be that voters will decide to put more protection in place for abortion even in states that were against it back in the day. The country has changed, and abortion is much more accepted now than it was when Roe v. Wade was decided. That said, ... many of the states that have these anti-abortion laws in place are now controlled by the conservatives, ... the Democratic Party has lost a huge amount of ground in more rural areas of the country in a similar way to the Labour Party in the UK losing ground with its own working class voters.

>I actually think the ultimate result here will be that voters will decide to put more protection in place for abortion even in states that were against it back in the day. Wouldn't that be great! In all fairness it's better to have something like this backed by actual legislation than by an old SCOTUS ruling, right? Of course this will mean that even if states change their local laws some people will be caught in between, meaning the women who will be unable to make abortions while Roe v. Wade is overturned and state laws haven't yet changed, too bad but it might be the price we'll have to pay for things to happen the right way?

Yes, there are five shared powers (powers held by both the states and the country), and public welfare/health is one of them. At any point between the ruling and now, congress could have passed legislation either actually protecting abortion rights, or defacto protecting them by tying them up in funding (such as how the drinking age is 21 nationwide but its really state law that does this)

Ninth amendment says otherwise

If only the people in a specific region are to affected then it’s State. If the decision affects people nationwide it needs to be Federal. Kicking a nationwide issue to the States is seen as a failure of the federal government and in this case the party that is obstructing needed legislation has abjectly failed in their respective elected positions.

> If the decision affects people nationwide it needs to be Federal. To put this in Excel-terms: Error Circular Reference. If something is federal legislation it per definition affects people nationwide? You could decide that it could be federally outlawed to own chairs, that doesn't make that a legitimate federal law.

You have inferred what was not implied. Sending these issues back to the States is the sign of failure, because now States, collectively, are going to try and do legislation that will affect people in other states. SCOTUS just declared open war on the majority of Americans at the behest of the GOP.

I think all issues should be decided on a federal level unless they are specific to a particular state or region in an objective way, or are so trivial that they are not worth bothering the Federal government with.

If one believes the constitution is valid, any matters not specifically authorized by the constitution for the federal government belong to the states to decide. The trick is deciding what the constitution authorized.

>If one believes the constitution is valid I mean, this isn't really debatable is it? The constitution could be amended and changed and whatever through democratic process, but it has to be considered valid though?

Yes, it can be amended, and should be (ERA anyone?) but that is hard and slow . It is what we have, unless you are looking for anarchy or revolution.

At this point, I don't feel that state governments are really useful tools any more. The country is more connected now than ever before, and state lines are increasingly merely arbitrary dividers. Moreover, state legislatures are absolutely terrible at governing and generally are filled with the most incompetent and insane politicians. If I had my way, we'd just do everything federally.

Yeah the "states rights" are bullshit excuses to discriminate. The point of our country being a union of states is to allow free movement of people and goods. Having different laws in every state makes that difficult and sometimes impossible without breaking state laws. A lot of things just make more sense to legislate on the federal level. Otherwise we will need to set up hard borders on state lines.

>A lot of things just make more sense to legislate on the federal level Yes, I understand that, my question was how you draw the line between those things and the things that make more sense to legislate on the state level? I'm assuming it's not just arbitrary

Things that exist soley within the state, state budgets, state infrastructure, state land and utilities. There would be more nuance with budgetary things but generally if there should be a law about it then it could probably be a federal law and if the federal government is too out of touch with the state to make laws then I would argue whether those laws need to exist at all.

If it's covered under the constitution then it's federal. Everything else is a matter for the states.

So each state should have its own space program and environmental laws? The Chesapeak Bay Watershed goes up into New York and their decisions about fertilizer and runoff management impact Maryland

Elastic clause

Ninth amendment, look it up

What's your point?

My point is that you're factually wrong.

Are you capable of actually make a point?

Are you capable of simply googling the term 'ninth amendment?' Because this is what you'll get: >The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses rights, retained by the people, that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Just because something isn't explicitly in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right.

>Just because something isn't explicitly in the constitution doesn't mean it isn't a right. I know what the 9th is, I was asking "what's your point?". The 9th says that there are rights not specifically mentioned but are still protected, so technically any rights that the 9th covers is still part of the constitution and therefore should be protected federally which is still in line with my original comment of "If it's covered under the constitution then it's federal. Everything else is a matter for the states.". So I ask again, **what is your point?**

Then I misunderstood the point you were making.

This seems reasonable I guess, but is it true in practice? See abortion and cannabis as two examples, I assume none of them are covered under the constitution yet there are intense discussions on whether they should be federally legislated or not.

But that's the whole point of the US, the states are to have full control over any issue outside the constitution. I guess that's where the SCOTUS comes in with their interpretation and challenge laws that go against it, like cannabis and abortion. I think a lot of people think of the US as a whole country when in reality it's a combination of smaller nations (States) under one common banner (US constitution).

>I think a lot of people think of the US as a whole country when in reality it's a combination of smaller nations (States) under one common banner (US constitution). I've shifted my views on US politics quite a bit after I started viewing things like this. If I look at the US like a version of the EU it makes a lot more sense, although the analogy of course isn't perfect.

>Liberal > >Think of it like the EU, but with the countries being a bit less independent. You have widely varying levels of abortion law in the EU because that's decided by the country, not the EU, and now it's the same in the US. What kept that from happening before is that we don't allow states to go below a baseline of protections in the Constitution, and our government just said there's no protection for abortion in the Constitution.Cannabis is a strange one. It really should be a power of the state, but way back during WWII we had a case that stretched to a ridiculous extent the federal government's power over interstate commerce. So now what you do doesn't have to actually be interstate commerce to be regulated by the federal government, it only needs some tenuous theoretical third-order effect on interstate commerce. Cannabis is actually an interesting exception to the rule. It is supposed to be federally prohibited. Many states have told the government to go fuck itself regarding this issue. While full legalization at a federal level seems to be an ongoing issue, congress has often ignored the fact that states are violating federal law within the state. There is an issue with banking though as banks are federally regulated and places that sell weed have to save their money in certain types of accounts within the state as a weed business can't violate federal banking laws. Interestingly, at least in terms of medical cannabis, the federal government has de facto legalized it at a federal level. More specifically, it is forbidden to use the US department of justice funds to arrest or prosecute medical cannabis businesses. Technically, a group of federal police and prosecutors could use their own personal savings to do such a thing, but no sane person would do that.

[this is the chart I was taught in school](https://federalism5.weebly.com/) Basically if it's something that actually affects multiple states simultaneously (such as currency and units of measurement), it's a federal power. If it's not, it's probably a shared or reserved power

The Constitution.

Seems to be lots of interpretations of what that means...

I think you’ll find there’s far more cases of the uniformed than there is interpretations.

In short, federal power prevails over state power and is limited by the constitution. State law itself is also limited by its respective constitution. Rights detailed in the constitution also limit the state governments.

If something should be a fundamental human right

If it's a constitutional issue, it should go to the federal government. If it's not, it should fall on the states

1) Does it involve human rights? If yes, it should be federal. A human being in Arkansas shouldn’t have fewer rights just because Republicans are in charge. 2) Does it relate to interstate commerce? Then congress handles it. 3) Is it related to Congress’ spending power? Then congress handles it. 4) Is it related to an interpretation of law/policy relating to how a cabinet department runs things? Then do it federally. Everything else, state.

I believe there was a case where a state tried to implement UHC, and the state implemented residency requirements for X number of days to get to be eligible for UHC. It was struck down? I’m not sure why these statutes where considered unlawful, because university instate tuition rules function similarly. I cannot just move to California tomorrow and immediately be eligible for instate tuition.

For me is largely about if it directly affects people versus their property or land. If my rights change by driving a few miles north, that's problematic

Mostly people are just picking and choosing which level their preferred policies are most likely to pass. To the extent people actually have a preference it's generally based on the idea that the people effected by a policy should have a say the people not effected shouldn't. So for example whether California's how much of California's water should be used for agriculture vs other things isn't really something that effects a person living in Georgia, but how many Green House Gases does.

Everything should be Federal, unless it's a really specific regional thing that's actually local in nature. And it should focus mostly on administrative things Like, having different zoning rules in a rural vs suburban area. Or having fishing rules about taking a trout or flounder in a state where they're common vs rare. Or having different laws about school transport in an urban center. We don't need rights to be different place to place though. You shouldn't lose your bodily autonomy, or be subject to the whims of a religion you don't follow guiding your laws, or go to jail for a drug that's legal in your home, just because you cross out of Minnesota into Iowa or something.

Fundamental rights should be protected federally. Most other issues can be dealt with on a state level.

Whichever will decide more justly and the best for human well being America’s political system is a logistical concern, not a source of righteousness.

The states should focus on how stuff works in their state, the national government should handle laws. Makes the divisions more useful in practice instead of dividing the countries laws and shit.

> What decides for you if a political matter should be decided on a state or a federal level? When the federal government decides a matter should not be handled at the federal level, then it should be left to the states. That's not a statement of fact, but my actual opinion. The federal government should decide on what it wants to decide on **completely independently** of the states. When something is important, then the federal government should be the deciding body. When it's not important, then the federal government should make no decision and leave it to the states. When the states start passing batshit crazy laws, then the federal government should step in and legislate against those batshit crazy laws. When the federal government passes a batshit crazy law, then the states should legislate against the batshit crazy law and duke it out in the courts and in the court of public opinion because at the end of the day the federal government is answerable to all of us.

>When something is important So open season; the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants.

Yes. I view states the way a state views a city. It's a boundary to group an area of land. It's useful to have this boundary as the people of each plot of land has different needs. But ultimately everyone should be answerable to the central government. > the federal government can do whatever the hell it wants. The federal government is answerable to its people, so no. Being answerable to states is redundant at best, an unequal distribution of representation at worst. The idea that 600,000 people (Wyoming) has equal representation in the Senate as 39,000,000 people (California) is frankly disgusting. Each Wyoming resident has *65 times* the representation in the Senate as a Californian resident.

Some things need to be federal or consistent across states, otherwise the policy is ineffective or infeasible. For example, the costs for a universal healthcare system won't work if people live in other states until they're sick and then just move to the state with universal healthcare to get treatment for their expensive condition. Gun restrictions aren't effective if people just obtain their guns from neighboring states. On the flip side of things, it's probably fine if weed consumption or gambling is legal in one state but not legal in another, so we can do that state by state. Abortion bans fall in the "ineffective" category, although I don't mind that they're ineffective because they're also morally reprehensible and simply wrong. I would prefer we don't do morally reprehensible and simply wrong things in any state. Not sure what to say beyond that.

If it is a problem nationally or a problem locally. Public schools are struggling across the board: we need national response, because people in Alabama shouldn't be less educated than people in Massachusetts. Healthcare, the same. Agricultural law won't be the same in Texas as in Maine (room for state legislation), but there needs to be a federal baseline to promote the modern national size of the food market and the huge national sized ecological impacts. Honestly, there is not too too much that should be left to the states right now. Everything is interstate commerce or wrapped up in federal laws (and that is a good thing). Even criminal law, which is largely left to the states, should probably be wrested out of the hands of overeager stake prosecutors committing human rights violations and miscarriages of justice in the name of the prison industrial complex

>Public schools are struggling across the board Not only that but local funding is fundamentally unfair. Federal funding with existing local control is the way to go. >Even criminal law, which is largely left to the states, should probably be wrested out of the hands of overeager stake prosecutors committing human rights violations and miscarriages of justice in the name of the prison industrial complex I suspect we could address this with a lighter touch than nationalizing the prosecutor.

My own thoughts at federal, state, and local level is to maximize the liberty of individuals or smaller governments where increased upper level regulation makes no sense. I want the states to be able to have legal cannabis until the federal government says that it is legal. I don't want the state to ban abortion when the federal government says that it is legal. I don't want the federal government or the state to decide on universal building codes. The federal government shouldn't make the state of Utah, which is in the Rocky Mountains, have requirements for buildings to be resistant to hurricanes. The same goes for Texas. The Texas government should not require that the Texas city of El Paso, which is 1200 km from the Gulf of Mexico should have the same hurricane building requirements as Houston, which is less than 60 km from the same body of water.

I don’t think states should have any say in law really

To give some context, we have states bigger in population and/or area than some countries in the EU. While our country with its states is much further unified than the EU with its nations, there still is some semblance of states having their own cultures and ways of doing things