Out of context, it doesn’t even really make sense to be “pro states rights.” Whether or not the state has a right to do the thing is literally the entire question. Nobody is for the state’s right to do anything.
The argument is specifically that the state has a right to decide a given thing, and thus the thing itself is the entire question, not the existence of rights out of context.
Why doesn’t it make sense? The point is to keep the powers of the federal government narrow and well defined, to prevent too much power from being centralized in the hands of a small number of people.
Out of context, it doesn’t even really make sense to be “pro states rights.” Whether or not the state has a right to do the thing is literally the entire question. Nobody is for the state’s right to do anything.
The argument is specifically that the state has a right to decide a given thing, and thus the thing itself is the entire question, not the existence of rights out of context.
Why doesn’t it make sense? The point is to keep the powers of the federal government narrow and well defined, to prevent too much power from being centralized in the hands of a small number of people.
Exactly and thank you. Dipshit reframing for rightwing numbskulls to repeat.