grufty jim wrote:
Now, if his stated rationale is that this "expands individual rights" then fair enough. But, there is a slight problem *IF* Obama is using "State rights" as the reason for doing this. That's all I'm saying.
I don't think Obama's overtly saying that this is about the rights of state legislatures... I think it's more about doctor-patient rights.It's a philosophically difficult position to support "the right of a State to make it's own decisions" but only when those decisions tally with (a) your own principles, or (b) some pre-defined notion of "individual rights". Could a person in Mississippi not argue that their individual right to set their own laws (on, say, abortion) are being trumped by some centrally controlled moral compass?
The past is thick with Fed vs. State's rights battles, and for the most part, I have to side with the Fed. Slavery would have lived on much longer than it did without the Civil War. Institutional racism would still be in place in many states if Kennedy hadn't made it a national issue.