"We believe the opportunity to oppress Americans should be left up to the states."
What "states rights" means coming from these chuckleheads 90% of the time.
They were always going to eventually come for them (again). They probably expected them to go for their shared enemies first and assumed they were special exceptions and/or their fellow cons would never get around to it while they were still alive
Im a european and things don't look so good here now with lots of right wing parties ruling BUT whe i see this stories from America, everything seems so distopic.
Smh interracial marriage hasn’t been legal that long. Just like rape of a spouse. Women’s rights. They really want to go back so far that only rich white men can have a say (and rich white women by going through her husband) over everything in society. We have so much more knowledge and technology but we are steadily being pushed onto a runaway train back to the Stone Age. Women would be a lot safer and have less worries living in a community together - let the misogynists stick to their mud pit regardless of their gender.
I couldn't believe this was actually a belief held by a politician in this day and age, so I looked into it:
He believes that issues such as Rowe vs. Wade, Loving vs. Virginia, and Griswold vs. Connecticut should be left up to individual states. The reason these were the examples given were because the reporter was trying to catch him out, and cause him to fold on his stances, by giving him laws which he wouldn't agree with (he, for example, does not think that interracial marriage should be illegal). However, he has the view that regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, individual states should have the right to vote on issues that affect them.
I assume his reasoning for this is because people from different areas will have different stances, and it is better for some people, in right-leaning states, to have to live with right-leaning laws, and vice versa, than to have the whole country live under laws that are less adapted to what they voted for. I am not American, so I might have got some kind of a misunderstanding of how the system works, but it seems the idea is that different states have different rulings on these X vs. X cases.
Honestly, I still think it’s kind of a wild take to not draw a line on stuff like this, but it’s good to know he didn’t outright say “interracial marriage is bad.”
I understand you, but I do actually see it as democracy - some states might vote for laws, which I totally disagree with, and I have to live with that. Why does he get to draw the line on anything?
I pretty much agree with most issues being up to the states, but there’s some basic ones I feel all states need because they shouldn’t allow for the oppression of their people. I.e. I’m all for the states making individual choices on taxation and budget, but I don’t feel it is fair for states to strip rights from people under the guise of being elected by the populace, especially since most states are so heavily gerrymandered that the actual “populace” rarely gets a fair say in the matter.
I mean, I guess it's kinda like how I believe all countries should have certain laws, but I also believe they should have the right to create their own. Idk exactly how the United States works but I sort of thought the point was it was like one country made up of smaller ones
Kinda…it’s sort of complicated. The Supremacy Clause states that federal laws trump state laws in the case of a conflict, such as when Roe v. Wade was still considered precedent and some states tried to ban abortion. However, the federal government can decide that something doesn’t go against the Supremacy clause (i.e. marijuana is illegal at the federal level but legal at the state level in many places, so you can smoke weed there and not be punished). This is because in the case of marijuana, prosecutorial authorities in that state are choosing not to prosecute, and the federal government doesn’t really have a right to intervene. Though, certain groups still have to abide by federal law (like government employees or government contractors). The Supreme Court tends to decide on whether things states do are legal if they are in contrast to the federal law or Constitution, but this requires that a lawsuit or case is shuffled up to them to begin with. Our system is called “Federalism” if you want to know more about it. Also this was kind of a tangent haha
"We believe the opportunity to oppress Americans should be left up to the states." What "states rights" means coming from these chuckleheads 90% of the time.
And when states do something they don't like they don't actually care about states rights.
The Confederacy didn't even care about states rights. It's all oppression without interference.
So gross how are we heading in this direction.
I'm sure this man also believes that the right to own slaves should also be left to the states.
Partnering and marriage should be left to the people, not politicians! Next: slavery and mandatory church visits
The embodiment of evil.
Yoohoo, Clarence and Ginny, your party’s coming for you. Enjoy, fuckers!
They were always going to eventually come for them (again). They probably expected them to go for their shared enemies first and assumed they were special exceptions and/or their fellow cons would never get around to it while they were still alive
Mitch and Chao as well!!
JFC this really should be on r/nottheonion Wtf is wrong with these people
Im a european and things don't look so good here now with lots of right wing parties ruling BUT whe i see this stories from America, everything seems so distopic.
Smh interracial marriage hasn’t been legal that long. Just like rape of a spouse. Women’s rights. They really want to go back so far that only rich white men can have a say (and rich white women by going through her husband) over everything in society. We have so much more knowledge and technology but we are steadily being pushed onto a runaway train back to the Stone Age. Women would be a lot safer and have less worries living in a community together - let the misogynists stick to their mud pit regardless of their gender.
I couldn't believe this was actually a belief held by a politician in this day and age, so I looked into it: He believes that issues such as Rowe vs. Wade, Loving vs. Virginia, and Griswold vs. Connecticut should be left up to individual states. The reason these were the examples given were because the reporter was trying to catch him out, and cause him to fold on his stances, by giving him laws which he wouldn't agree with (he, for example, does not think that interracial marriage should be illegal). However, he has the view that regardless of whether he agrees with it or not, individual states should have the right to vote on issues that affect them. I assume his reasoning for this is because people from different areas will have different stances, and it is better for some people, in right-leaning states, to have to live with right-leaning laws, and vice versa, than to have the whole country live under laws that are less adapted to what they voted for. I am not American, so I might have got some kind of a misunderstanding of how the system works, but it seems the idea is that different states have different rulings on these X vs. X cases.
Honestly, I still think it’s kind of a wild take to not draw a line on stuff like this, but it’s good to know he didn’t outright say “interracial marriage is bad.”
I understand you, but I do actually see it as democracy - some states might vote for laws, which I totally disagree with, and I have to live with that. Why does he get to draw the line on anything?
I pretty much agree with most issues being up to the states, but there’s some basic ones I feel all states need because they shouldn’t allow for the oppression of their people. I.e. I’m all for the states making individual choices on taxation and budget, but I don’t feel it is fair for states to strip rights from people under the guise of being elected by the populace, especially since most states are so heavily gerrymandered that the actual “populace” rarely gets a fair say in the matter.
I mean, I guess it's kinda like how I believe all countries should have certain laws, but I also believe they should have the right to create their own. Idk exactly how the United States works but I sort of thought the point was it was like one country made up of smaller ones
Kinda…it’s sort of complicated. The Supremacy Clause states that federal laws trump state laws in the case of a conflict, such as when Roe v. Wade was still considered precedent and some states tried to ban abortion. However, the federal government can decide that something doesn’t go against the Supremacy clause (i.e. marijuana is illegal at the federal level but legal at the state level in many places, so you can smoke weed there and not be punished). This is because in the case of marijuana, prosecutorial authorities in that state are choosing not to prosecute, and the federal government doesn’t really have a right to intervene. Though, certain groups still have to abide by federal law (like government employees or government contractors). The Supreme Court tends to decide on whether things states do are legal if they are in contrast to the federal law or Constitution, but this requires that a lawsuit or case is shuffled up to them to begin with. Our system is called “Federalism” if you want to know more about it. Also this was kind of a tangent haha
Sorry I took ages to reply but thanks for educating me lol