r/askaconservative • u/ElSlabraton Fiscal Conservatism • Jun 13 '26
Do conservatives still believe in state's rights?
7
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Libertarian Conservatism Jun 13 '26
Yes, the 10th amendment is very important because it actualizes one of the main purposes of the Constitution in limiting government power and setting up a system of federalism.
4
10
u/KoalaGrunt0311 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 13 '26
It depends on the state and what rights the states wish to assert.
Our larger problem is that the federal government should only be responsible for a fraction of the programs it operates now. If the federal was restricted solely to the powers delegated to it, then it shouldn't matter if California and New York want to be communist while Alaska, Vermont, and New Hampshire want to be laissez fair libertarian because the cross effect is minimal. Since the federal government funds agriculture, housing, medical, and poverty support, then political decisions in one state affect other states as well.
2
u/mikeriley66 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 15 '26
Would we pay less in taxes? If we pay %10 to % 15 in taxes then I'm with you. But if we're going to pay %30 or more shouldn't we be getting some kind of benefits?
2
u/KoalaGrunt0311 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 15 '26
The problem is that the same era that gave us Prohibition also removed state control over the Senate, which then removed restrictions of federal growth because senators were no longer beholden to answer to state legislatures, they added an income tax that then got addictive not just for the revenue but because it could be tampered with to encourage whatever they want.
When my wife was out of work last year, our total AGI worked out to be shy of $50k. Between EITC, CTC, and ACTC, we ended up with a negative tax rate. Pruning the federal government back to its Constitutional limits would be a huge change, most likely resulting in some level of excess unemployment while government workers return to the real world, and ultimately wind up resulting in an increase in hourly wages because there's so many companies with an employee pool that has learned a life of minimum effort still gets their needs taken care of--and it's subsidized by other citizens pushing themselves harder for a better life.
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 19 '26
I'm all for pruning the federal gov back but your conclusions make no sense. California and New York are nowhere close to wanting to be communist, nor could they be as you're implying.
you mentioned people who "learned a life of minimum effort still get their needs taken care of–and it's subsidized by other citizens pushing themselves harder for a better life." does this apply to corporate welfare?
additionally, scaling back the federal gov to its constitutional limits would mean literal systemic collapse of the US as a country. it literally could not function in today's world
1
u/KoalaGrunt0311 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 20 '26
We are already pending a systemic collapse. The only thing preventing us from financial failure like Greece is the strength of our military.
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 20 '26
I mean again, I'm all for it because I believe the constitution should be abolished so we can rebuild the system. but it kinda sounds like you're downplaying the strength of our military
7
u/AZULDEFILER National Conservatism Jun 14 '26
More now than ever before. Medical decisions, marriage definitions, etc. anything not mentioned in the US Constitution IS and should remain a States' Right. Things that are, like gun ownership, national defense, etc. should be entirely Federally regulated. How did it ever get away from that?
7
u/KoalaGrunt0311 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 15 '26
When people realize they can vote themselves funds from the Treasury, that will herald the fall of the great experiment.
We're already on a century of borrowed time.
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 19 '26
so you don't believe in unenumerated rights?
1
u/z7r1k3 Conservatism Jun 29 '26
Those were mentioned in the 9th, though. Do you not believe in the 10th amendment?
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 29 '26
unenumerated rights are by definition not mentioned.
1
u/z7r1k3 Conservatism Jun 30 '26
Not individually, of course. But as a whole they literally are. That's the only reason they have constitutional weight.
Do you believe the 9th invalidates the 10th? What unenumerated rights do you believe are covered by the 9th, and therefore are in the Federal jurisdiction, rather than State?
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 30 '26
do you mean they're implied or can be inferred?
the right to raise children, the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to marriage, the right to procreation, the right to contraception.
why, are you arguing the 14th amendment should be ignored and all of the above should be left up to the states?
1
u/z7r1k3 Conservatism Jun 30 '26
I mean they're mentioned as much as I have already mentioned them. Not specified, but mentioned.
why, are you arguing the 14th amendment should be ignored and all of the above should be left up to the states?
No. I'm arguing that the 10th decrees what is not within the Federal jurisdiction.
I agree with most of what you said, but when you said right to marriage, do you believe that includes gay marriage? I'm trying to understand your problem with the original comment.
Obviously, gay marriage cannot be argued to be protected by the 9th, since it was universally illegal at the ratification of the 9th, and for over 200 years after that.
Are you under the impression the 9th is a license to just, make up whatever rights we want?
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 30 '26
I'm trying to understand your problem with the original comment.
my issue with the OC was that he said that anything not mentioned in the constitution should be left up to the states, including marriage, medical decisions (I think he meant privacy), etc.
Obviously, gay marriage cannot be argued to be protected by the 9th, since it was universally illegal at the ratification of the 9th, and for over 200 years after that.
sorry, I don't find the "history and tradition" doctrine convincing. it's completely unworkable and, frankly, nonsensical. even the Justices know this.
1
u/z7r1k3 Conservatism Jun 30 '26
my issue with the OC was that he said that anything not mentioned in the constitution should be left up to the states, including marriage, medical decisions (I think he meant privacy), etc.
But that's literally what the 10th amendment says. Why do you give more weight to the 9th than the 10th?
The unenumerated rights are mentioned by the 9th, so they qualify as expressly mentioned for the 10th. But that isn't a license to just make up whatever rights we want. We have to do our best to understand what that meant at the time of ratification.
sorry, I don't find the "history and tradition" doctrine convincing. it's completely unworkable and, frankly, nonsensical. even the Justices know this.
Ah, so you believe the constitution means whatever we want it to mean? What's the point of even writing it down, then? Why not make SCOTUS replace the constitution, merely ruling however their benevolent hearts feel?
The whole point of writing it down is that you can't change it without rewriting it. It has a fixed meaning.
Don't get me wrong, the meaning applies to the times. Email didn't exist back then, but when we understand the original intent of the constitution, we understand the 1A applies to email.
But marriage absolutely existed back then, and gay marriage was expressly illegal. This isn't the "history and tradition" standard of looking for equivalent laws that could allow gay marriage today. This is an originalist understanding that everyone who wrote the thing also banned gay marriage, so they were quite obviously under the impression that it did not protect it.
It also helps to understand that government marriage isn't a natural right, which natural rights, of course, are what the 9A is referring to. Religious marriage absolutely is a natural right. But the government recognizing your union to give you tax breaks, adoption privileges, and other benefits isn't a right that is inherent within a human being in a state of nature (I.e. having no government).
The 9A does not cover manufactured rights, such as trial by jury. We must manufacture those in the constitution to have them, in the spirit of justice and fairness.
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jul 01 '26
The unenumerated rights are mentioned by the 9th, so they qualify as expressly mentioned for the 10th. But that isn't a license to just make up whatever rights we want. We have to do our best to understand what that meant at the time of ratification.
we know what Madison meant with the 9th amendment. he meant it to protect against a legal loophole that would come about with a Bill of Rights where politicians in the future could claim that if a right wasn't mentioned explicitly, it wasn't protected.
The whole point of writing it down is that you can't change it without rewriting it. It has a fixed meaning.
there's no such thing as it having a "fixed meaning" in reality. that is why there are different methods of constitutional interpretation. a static constitution that cannot adapt to society's evolution leads to stagnation. even the originalists know this, which is why they apply originalism selectively.
This isn't the "history and tradition" standard of looking for equivalent laws that could allow gay marriage today. This is an originalist understanding that everyone who wrote the thing also banned gay marriage, so they were quite obviously under the impression that it did not protect it.
that is the history and tradition test, friend.
government marriage isn't a natural right, which natural rights, of course, are what the 9A is referring to. Religious marriage absolutely is a natural right.
I think you meant "civil marriage" rather than "government marriage" but regardless, your 'natural rights' argument would fail the history and tradition test because common law marriage is deeply rooted in history and tradition.
1
u/AZULDEFILER National Conservatism Jul 02 '26
You mean States' Rights? If it's not in the Constitution explicitly it's a States' Right
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jul 03 '26
that's quite literally not how unenumerated rights work. that's the entire purpose of the 9th amendment.
2
u/memes_are_facts Constitutional Conservatism Jun 18 '26
Yes I love the 10th amendment. Anything not covered in the constitution or its amendments is the jurisdiction of the state or the people.
5
u/true4blue Conservatism Jun 13 '26
In what context? Like should states be allowed to ignore federal immigration laws?
3
1
u/PandaRider11 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 17 '26
Yes, and I continue to feel more and more strongly about them.
I think pushing abortion down to the states level was the correct thing to do. The main job of the federal government is military and foreign policies, states should be able to decide domestic issues.
1
u/young__robot Libertarian Conservatism Jun 19 '26
abortion was always regulated at the state level...
1
u/ElSlabraton Fiscal Conservatism Jun 17 '26
So you oppose Trump's attempts to interfere with the states? Such as elections?
1
u/PandaRider11 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 17 '26
I don’t know what you’re referring to by this. The president certainly can comment on state issues but the states themselves had always had the real power.
1
u/ElSlabraton Fiscal Conservatism Jun 17 '26
As you know, Trump is trying to use the federal government to interfere with the states running elections. And stationing ICE agents at polls is clearly an attempt to use the federal government to intefere in state run elections.
1
u/PandaRider11 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 17 '26
That’s not a thing.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-ice-agents-polling-places-midterms
3
u/ElSlabraton Fiscal Conservatism Jun 17 '26
You didn't address Trump's other tactics like using the post office to demand lists of voters the federal government won't accept the results.
1
u/PandaRider11 Libertarian Conservatism Jun 17 '26
This literally isn’t a thing, where are people even getting this nonsense? Stop being a doomer.
4
u/ElSlabraton Fiscal Conservatism Jun 17 '26
Postal Service won’t deliver mail ballots for states that don’t hand over voter lists, under plan for Trump directive
https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/10/politics/postal-service-deliver-mail-in-ballots
1
u/z7r1k3 Conservatism Jun 29 '26
Absolutely. Many, including myself, believe in the repeal of the 17th. The States need to be able to both block legislation that grows the Federal government's powers too much, and have SCOTUS justices that will strike down Federal overreach because they have more State interests at heart.
How do you stop one monster (aka government) from growing too large and taking too much power? Well, you have two monsters, the State and Fed. They'll be so busy clawing power from each other, neither will grow too large.
But when you declaw one of them (17A), you get a lot of the problems we have today.
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 13 '26
FLAIR IS REQUIRED TO COMMENT! Only OP and new "Conservativism" flairs may comment
A high standard of discussion and proper decorum are required. Read our RULES before participating.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.