Talk:States' rights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon politics USA.svg

This United States politics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Shouldn't the phrase be "States' rights"? It is possessive, after all. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:12, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

I was just going to ask that. Do ' break the system or anything? If not, I'll relocate it.

--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Nous naissons tous fous. Quelques-uns le demeurent.» 15:23, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

I don't think apos are a problem at all in titles. After all, we have all those "some blogger's law" articles. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

USA is the US states combined[edit]

Part of States Rights is the fact that unlike every other country I can think of, US states aren't subunits of the USA, the USA is a supraunit of the US states combined, the USA is an entity formed from the component units, not the other way around. It needs somebody who knows the terminology better than me to put the words together.

  • In practice, I doubt the distinction is meaningful from a legal or logical standpoint. Anyway, it's not true that the US is the only one -- the Soviet Union inherited that structure from the Russian Empire (although the "republics" had very little devolved power, obviously). Weimar Germany was like that (although Prussia dominated the territory) and so is modern Germany. Switzerland's cantons are almost exactly like the US's states in my understanding as well, and I think you could call the UK a quasi-federal state because of the devolved powers to Scotland, NI, and Wales (the main thing holding the UK back from going to a federal structure is that no one has any idea how England would be handled, since its population is bigger than the other three regions combined). EVDebs (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would primary elections, or, for that matter, political parties be considered unconstitutional from the originalist viewpoint? Neither involves any federal government activity or recognition. 131.107.192.112 (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of the examples are suspect, and others are flatly wrong. I think that some of the editors are concerned more with goodthink than with factual accuracy. ... of liberals? (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It adds a little something.[edit]

The John Green quote, I mean. It sums up very succinctly the most core objection to the concept vis-a-vis slavery and the civil war. But at the same time, I feel like someone has said that in a less annoying way than blog brother #2 or whatever he is. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Technically, he's quoting his American history teacher. Also, John Green is "annoying?" I smell heresy here... RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I, personally, do not care for his style. It's a bit smug and preening even while covering relatively basic stuff. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
The quote's formatting was terrible so I was either going to undo it or fix it. If you think it's worth including feel free to add it to the page with the correct formatting. CowHouse (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going to come back and fix it but I don't know how to make those big quotes. Tabula Rasa (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)