Jacob Sullum on the return of states' rights.
Reason Magazine
Most Popular Stories
- Fox Business Network Cancels Judge Andrew Napolitano's Freedom Watch (2.9)
- Breitbart on libertarians in 2012 (2.11)
- Did the Drug War Make it Any Easier for Whitney Houston to Seek Help For Substance Abuse? (2.12)
- The Inside and Outside of CPAC 2012 (2.10)
- One Possible Reason There Are So Few Liberals, Starring Jonathan Chait. And Some Stuff About Tax Progressivity. (2.10)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Romney Most Electable Candidate, Yet Gingrich in Statistical Tie Among GOP Voters (1.31)
- Explaining Newt’s Second Surge (1.26)
- George Washington Would Beat Out Romney as Richest President; John Kerry Would Have, Too (1.25)
- New Poll: Americans Aren't Ready for Another War (1.20)
- 2012 Election Match Up: Romney Wins, Paul Might (1.13)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
|11.26.04 @ 11:52AM|#
I keep popping up on threads like this, but I keep getting the cold shoulder. Whassa matter? I got halitosis? (I haven't been dead that long, ya know.)
sic semper tyrannis!
|11.26.04 @ 3:26PM|#
Could federalism be the answer to our nation's pressing barbecue crisis?
|11.26.04 @ 7:03PM|#
Two points:
First, while segregation was a stupid practice, and always resulted in the minority getting shortchanged, Brown v. Board was very bad law. That the 14th ammendment forbids the states to segregate is an arguable proposition at best.
Second, recall that one of the arguments offered by the State of Texas in Roe v. Wade was that the 14th ammendment's Equal Protection Clause required that states prohibit abortion -- to do otherwise would be to deny the protection of the law to fetuses. If the SCOTUS were to rule that fetuses are "persons" in the eyes of the law, it's possible that abortion would be automatically made illegal.
|11.27.04 @ 12:15AM|#
That quip about cherry picking your federalism describes Scalia and Thomas. For all their supposed support for federalism, they have not cast votes against the drug war or other "conservative" encroachments on states' rights.
|11.27.04 @ 3:07PM|#
States don't have rights. Neither does any aggregate of people. Only individuals have rights.
|11.28.04 @ 12:50PM|#
I was going to the make that point, but Phil beat me to it. When it comes to indivdual (negative?) rights, I'd very much like it if they were enumerated at the state and national level. It makes them somewhat harder to take away.