I'm not sure if you missed it or just ignored it, but I literally already mentioned to you (about 4 comments above this one): "correct, state's rights are not inherently opposed to Civil Rights; however, they were absolutely used that way during the southern strategy..." I already gave you my entire explanation in which I AGREED with you that "states' rights" are not inherently bad, but they can be used that way, as they often are, which is exactly what the comment you are responding to was about.
It makes perfect sense for states like California and Kansas to have different state laws that are unique to their own needs, which is an important feature of any localized government to be able to do so. HOWEVER, when it comes to things such as basic human/individual rights, access to medical care, etc...these are NOT things that individual states should be denying or even taking issue with. Human rights SHOULD be nationally instituted, because all people should enjoy equal access to such kinds of freedoms and basic rights. There is no reason why an individual state, or any government, should be limiting or denying access to human rights for its people. It is unnecessarily cruel and inhumane and often times blatantly discriminatory against certain marginalized communities. "States' rights" is not an inherently bad argument, but it is bad when used to deny people basic rights.
Lastly, all your insistence on legal talk just sounds like your entire argument boils down to "if it's legal, then it must be okay", which I shouldn't have to explain to you is NOT how that works. Legality is no basis for morality, and if laws allow for unjust decisions like that, then those laws should be abolished/changed.
Be the first to reply to this comment.