My States' Rights Epiphany

[puglogic]

I have listened in the past with interest as the more conservative members of my social group railed about the protection of states' rights, and I admit that I never really "got it". Not that I thought it shouldn't be important, but I was mild about it: just why was it so foaming-at-the-mouth rant-worthy? I think I get it now, when you get something like this crowbarred into law: http://www.mintpressnews.com/monsanto-quietly-lobbies-feds-to-ban-states-from-passing-gmo-labeling-laws/

It will be interesting to see where our conservative friends/family fall now. Do they take their traditional position of protecting "job creators" like Monsanto, and the infinite wisdom of the Market, empowered consumers vs. protective legislation, etc.? Or do they see this for what (I think, fwiw) it is --- a dreadful boot tread right on the face of states' rights to protect their own citizenry?

I notice that the only people worried about it in the media are the progressives....nary a word from the other side. Maybe this states' rights thing was all just a sham to begin with? Just another reason to complain about Big Gubmint Doing What I Don't Like? I'm really hoping not -- because I think this is an ugly thing indeed, for many reasons.

I also now see other issues in this light in a way I never did before. Finally she wakes up >8)

[ApatheticNoMore]

Or do they see this for what (I think, fwiw) it is --- a dreadful boot tread right on the face of states' rights to protect their own citizenry?

It's not even states proposing to protect their own citizenry in this case, this arose directly from a popular iniatiative (not state legistlation). I see it as a direct consequence of the initiative in California. And oh my goodness is it dirty - hard to describe what a scummy chess move that is. The labeling iniative only lost by a small margin in California, really bummed me out, but I realized ok this *will* eventually pass in other states (and maybe even eventually here), it's inevitable (kind of like pot legalization or gay weddings - it's the way things are going - this is only a matter of time and inevitability - especially when states way more environmentally oriented than California - like say Washington or Oregon get a crack at it!). But I gusss Monsanto saw the same thing, and scumbags ... They want California to be the last chance the people in the U.S. will *EVER* get at labeling. Freezing their CA victory against the citizens ever having a vote on it, ever again, for all time (even Californians will not be able to vote on it again if they change their mind). And it just makes we want to pull out my hair that the CA movement to get this passed was so disorganized (I really got that impression that it was so half-hearted, and barely even trying to get the word out there, not even trying to build momentum in support of the law, and also had basically the entire political ESTABLISHMENT either opposed or utterly indifferent to it, and still it almost passed).

By the way, taking democratic accountability away from people by going over thier heads is also a pattern, it's precisely what the Trans Pacific Partnership is, an attempt to take the ability of people to have any say on things away from them for all time by making almost everything illegal under international trade laws forever. The time to fight is NOW, speak NOW of FOREVER hold your peace.


Maybe this states' rights thing was all just a sham to begin with? Just another reason to complain about Big Gubmint Doing What I Don't Like?

I'm really hoping not -- because I think this is an ugly thing indeed, for many reasons.

I also now see other issues in this light in a way I never did before. Finally she wakes up >8)

We have a few issues I think noone knows how to deal with: 1) runaway corrupt corporations doing whatever they want 2) our Federal government is throughly corrupt. In many ways but a great deal of this corruption is money driven - unlimited money flowing into Washington. If the Federal government was NOT corrupt it would not even be considering the legistlation Monsanto wants, it would be out of the question.

So one turns to decentralization to overcome the basic corruption of the Federal government. But then states are fighting multinational corporations, and are battered by larger forces (environmental damage crossing state lines etc.). Or one turns to the Federal government to deal with large scale issues, but the Federal government is throughly corrupt and is completely and utterly in bed with every corrupt corporation imaginable. It's a tough contest but I think the latter is worse, we probably do have a better chance with the states (even the voting is less rigged). In such a situation, what does ideology even matter? And the basic philosophical virtues of decentralization: more accountability, more accomodation of regional differences, limiting the damage (though also the good) that can be done etc. are all true also, but UTTERLY PALE in comparison to the simple fact that: our federal government is throughly corrupt!

[iris lily]

If the argument is exactly as you stated, well, then sure: I am not in favor of the Feds passing legislation that the states can't do something. Does this break new territory for Federal overreach into traditional States' arena? I have no idea. But today it's Monsanto lobbying the feds, tomorrow its Move-On.org so NO, not a fan.

But the devil is in the details and I don't know enough about this issue to comment beyond what I've already said.

[Gregg]

A bit of a broad brush stroke, but with the exception of national security/defense kinds of issues and some programs that are too large for states (SS, medicare, etc.) I think state's rights should always trump federal. In my mind this is a classic example of powerful lobbies trying to ram through policies that promote federal overreach. IMO, it is an example of the worst of our political system. It will be interesting to see where our SCOTUS comes down.

[ApatheticNoMore]

A bit of a broad brush stroke, but with the exception of national security/defense kinds of issues and some programs that are too large for states (SS, medicare, etc.) I think state's rights should always trump federal.

That's most programs though, but no I have no particular investment in the Dept of Education or anything either, though some localities would do a worse job. However, what I have often said is environmental issues are not local. Issues of environmental pollution and natural resources - those aren't local. You could construct a rickety state SS long before you could stop smog at the state border and ask if it passes state air quaility regs before letting it in. Not that the Feds are on any environmentalist's side much at this point, of course they aren't. They go to bat to defend BP as often as not.

By the way if we can't label GMOs, what about banning them outright? Probably illegal under various trade stuff but someone should look into that.

[Lainey]

Lest we forget, the late Gov. George Wallace defended segregation as a "state's rights" issue, so it's a historically loaded argument.

That said, we've also seen some states pass euthanasia laws and the feds have retaliated saying they will sue any doctors who provide it. In my opinion, if voters approved that, then the feds should back off. At the same time, if voters approved lowering the legal age of marriage to 12, then I think the feds have a right to step in and say No.

To me it's a question of what the issue is, where do most voters stand, what's in the best interest of public health, etc. Lots of things to consider.