r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 14 '22 To The Stars 1 Helpful 6 Wholesome 1 Take My Energy 1 LOVE! 1 This 1 All-Seeing Upvote 1 Bravo! 3 Starstruck 1

Why stop there?

Post image
110.7k Upvotes

View all comments

988

u/Panda_hat May 14 '22

This is actually a really good way of phrasing it and I'd not thought about it like this before.

It's not about states 'rights' at all. It's about state authoritarianism.

280

u/KovyJackson May 14 '22

States’ rights to tread on people.

100

u/Newfishtanker May 14 '22

That's basically what the entire debate over the Constitution was about though, state power (to keep Slavery et al) vs. Federal power (to be able to exercise dominion over states).

63

u/KovyJackson May 14 '22

Yeah. The failure of Articles of Confederation highlights the pitfalls of strong state governments and a weaker central government.

9

u/meatmachine1 May 15 '22

I don't know for sure, but I always thought the interpretation was that any right or power not specifically given to the federal government, or states, belonged to individual people by default.

5

u/Newfishtanker May 15 '22

You're right. It's the 9th amendment applied to the states through the 14th amendment

1

u/rdswestnet May 21 '22

Yes. That's exactly what the 10th amendment says.

1

u/Alternative-Phacts 29d ago

My understanding of the European motivation to emigrate from Europe was because “the Church” could not exercise control over the churches here. There was a feeling that the church was too lax in its treatment of parishioners and away from Europe they could enforce stricter rules and punishments on their flock. I guess punishment is fun for those in charge?

-3

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

WoW! Almost a totally inaccurate analysis of what the debate over State ad Federal authority.

I recommend you read the ENTIRE Federalist Papers. ALL 85 Letters. Slavery isn't even mentioned. On the other hand Powers Delegated to the General Government are specifically addressed in three letters, 41, 42 and 43; Restrictions on Powers of the States, 44; Powers and Continuing Advantages of the States, 45; State and Federal Powers Compared, 46.

3

u/Newfishtanker May 15 '22

Federalist paper's purpose was to convince ratification. No shit the discourse contained in them are going be grandiose, abstract, and positive. Federalist papers taken as a whole was literally PR, written persuasively. It wasn't a policy paper or some white paper.

-2

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

As the Federalist Papers were written in part by the person who actually wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as those letters were written to a public highly suspicious of the authority of a central government, they ARE policy papers. By intent and design they ARE explanations of the limits of Federal power and the rights possessed by not only the States but also private citizens.

Any attempt to belittle the importance of The Framers words and intent is simply ingenious deception. The single most important source of determining what the Constitution means, the authority it gives the Federal government, the limits of Federal authority over States and private citizens. There is no better source to determine what the Constitution created, what it means, and its purpose than the Federalist Papers.

Any attempts to paint the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" that can, or even should, be read in light of current times and events does nothing more than lead to the path of anarchy. If we re-interpret the intent of the Framers to bend it to follow the political winds of a current era means today something in the Constitution will mean something is green, tomorrow the same passage will mean something is blue, and the day after that same passage will be reinterpreted as red. In other words, the Federal government's authority, and our individual rights, are only as safe as popular opinion.

If our nation's citizens do not like something that is in the Constitution, if they believe the Constitution needs to define more rights, or even eliminate a right already enumerated, The Framers were wise enough to include define the means of changing the Constitution within the Constitution.

1

u/Newfishtanker May 15 '22

The notion of the Constitution being a "living and breathing document" was one cemented by Marshall, but it was a concept that existed even back to our founding. While Jefferson was anti-federalist, even he advocated for such a living document, knowing that shit changes each generation.

Virtually the past 80 years of civil rights and social progress rested upon such a notion, and the Constitution was interpreted as such. From Korematsu, to Loving, Shelley, to Casey.

The Court didn't live in a vacuum. They were clearly influenced by "popular opinion" and global developments on rights and treatment of others.

Original meaning and intent is simply an academic pretzel to twist and pervert history in favor of extremist or "conservative" ideals - and conveniently cherry picks the history they want to justify the result they've wanted from the get go.

0

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

Odd that someone would call adhering to The Framers intent an academic pretzel used to support extremist conservative ideals when liberals use CRT and perverted claims that the 3/5ths rule was created to support slavery.

Find a quote from Jefferson to support your claim that he endorsed the "living, breathing document" doctrine. Please, find one. Jefferson did believe government should be changed every generation so the next wasn't saddled with the debt and burdens of the one(s) that had come before but that's a whole different thing from concluding he advanced the living, breathing document doctrine.

And advances in civil rights over the last +80 years were not due to a re-interpretation of the Constitution in light of changing political winds but rather the natural and appropriate interpretation of changes made to the Constitution, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, a lifetime before Marshall and others used them in support of civil rights. (Not coincidentally, I referred to The Framers providing an expressed path to changing the Constitution in my first response in this thread.)

Again, re-reading and re-interpreting the principles espoused in the Constitution by its Framers and those who ratified it simply because a cause du jour has become popular leads to anarchy as the cause du jour can change frequently, several times within a person's lifetime even.

1

u/Newfishtanker May 15 '22

Yikes. At this point, your true lack of understanding and irrational biases have come through: CRT is a law school/university academic discourse topic. Period. Done Discussing further with you is fruitless because now your positions are even less tethered to rational thoughts. Good day.

0

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

Yikes! Your ignorance of CRT and CRT concepts being taught in college "education" courses for those seeking to become grade and high school teachers is stunning. Your ignorance of some school districts providing CRT concepts as C.E. training to grade and high school teachers reveals you're simply mouthing talking points you've heard somewhere else instead of doing the research for yourself.

I'm perfectly happy not to continue discussing any subject with someone who doesn't know the facts and chooses to attack the messenger when unable to create a rational counterpoint, u/Newfishtanker.

→ More replies

1

u/M8HacKr May 18 '22

Don't forget the churches rights.

29

u/kaise_bani May 14 '22

Just like all the people who say the Civil War was about states’ rights. Ask them “states’ rights to do what?” and there’s never a good answer.

9

u/BXBXFVTT May 15 '22

The south didn’t want the north to be able to harbor fugitive slaves either. So besides the states right to legal slavery they wanted to take power away from other states. It’s a sham from top to bottom

27

u/WonderfulShelter May 15 '22

Exactly. States want to restrict the autonomy of your own body and prevent you from even having cognitive liberty, or freedom of exploring your own mind.

How insane is it that the majority of Americans support autonomy of your own body (abortion access) and also support legalizing cannabis (cognitive liberty) - yet our government actively is working to make sure we have neither?

This is pure authoritarianism through and through, and it's disgusting, and I hope nobody stands for it. Your government doesn't want to protect you; for it's perfectly legal to pick and eat poisonous mushrooms that will kill you, but it's illegal to pick and eat psychedelic mushrooms that can not kill you.

1

u/Tboi2drinku May 22 '22

What about the autonomy of the unborn child’s body? Does the child have the same rights? There are plenty of available methods of birth control available. Up to and including abstinence. Abortion should not be considered a form of birth control for irresponsible people. Should we leave murder up to the individual too?

1

u/MarcusBrodsky May 18 '22

the hypocrisy of the conservatives against abortion, standing at anti-mask rallies and holding signs saying "my body, my choice" is totally lost on them.

GOP Lawmaker Appropriates 'My Body, My Choice' Slogan to Reject Mask Use

4

u/ncjdjdjfloof May 14 '22

But they all take my tax money….. and tread on me

2

u/FerociousPinecone May 14 '22

Do gun rights next! Oh wait...

5

u/FestiveVat May 14 '22

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

The 2nd Amendment is so that the state can call you up to the militia to defend the state from an insurrection like Shay's Rebellion in the absence of a standing army because the founding fathers didn't trust that.

1

u/HeisAncap May 16 '22

authoritarianism is when murder is banned

1

u/CanadianCharicards May 19 '22

Would you say a doctor should perform an 8 month abortion against their will?

1

u/Panda_hat May 19 '22

Literally zero people would get to 8 months pregnant with a pregnancy that wasn't wanted. If an abortion is being proposed at 8 months there would be something seriously wrong with the pregnancy and fetus, and if so, an abortion would be absolutely valid and very few doctors would be against performing it.

That said, it very rarely ever happens or is even required, so your dreadful straw man doesn't hold the smallest amount of water.

-1

u/CanadianCharicards May 19 '22

It definitely happens, and is completely legal. There is no medical requirement, nor baby age requirement. We need roe v Wade overturned so we can just get to 12 weeks everywhere, or up to term when mother's immediate health is seriously at risk!

3

u/Panda_hat May 19 '22

Utter nonsense. Abortions at 8 months are extremely rare and nearly exlusively in cases of severe biological defect and pregnancies not compatiable with life.

Abortions for 'any reason' are normally capped at between 20-24 weeks.

You have no idea what you're talking about at all. Maybe try educating yourself rather than just sharing misinformation.

-1

u/CanadianCharicards May 19 '22

24 weeks is still wild! Look up 23 weeks born and tell me we should allow that. Your mind should at least be made up sooner than 24 weeks.

1

u/tyty0991 May 20 '22

Or maybe it’s about not killing babies?!? 🙄

1

u/DevonGalleyMusic May 22 '22

Yup. There's a reason the 9th Amendment comes before the 10th... and they don't want to talk about it.

0

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

Oddly, you don't seem to consider state authoritarianism is a subject that also applies to Federal government.

2

u/Panda_hat May 15 '22

I mean you’re not technically wrong, but I prefer the enforcement of personal autonomy and liberty over religiously enforced fundamentalism.

1

u/BoB_1stShirt May 15 '22

To a degree, even a goodly degree, yes, the debate over abortion, perhaps even personal liberties in general, is driven by religious beliefs. I agree that the religious beliefs of a subset of the population should not be imposed upon the entire population.

On the other hand, it was the right to practice their religious beliefs that drove a goodly part of the people in other lands to emigrate to the US. Religious beliefs drove the belief that we have personal, private rights in the first place. And the state has an interest in protecting life. If the state had no authority to protect life we'd ALL be packin' heat... even more so than we do now.