That states' rights were claimed to keep slavery, or any other morally reprehensible thing, does not mean that the concept of states' rights is wrong. It means slavery and other morally reprehensible things are wrong.
Of course, at any given time, there exist a number of issues facing the public over which there is no clear consensus on whether they constitute something morally reprehensible.
You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming. I challenge you to claim that this is the case for, say, federal law forbidding marijuana versus states allowing it, or as was the case until very recently, enthusiastic support for pediatric gender reassignment from the federal government versus states outlawing it.
They are making the point that "states rights" is empty hypocritical talking point. It is meant to win argument by pretending you care about something you don't.
Everybody knows "state rights" imply conservative policies, but don't apply to anyone else.
> Everybody knows "state rights" imply conservative policies, but don't apply to anyone else.
Is that right? Has there been a widespread backlash on the states' rights grounds against, say, Colorado or Massachusetts legalizing marijuana despite it being classified as a Schedule I drug federally with no acceptable use?
How about sanctuary city or state laws? Those in support of such policies base it on the concept of shared sovereignty between federal vs. state and local governments, i.e. states' rights. So there's clearly liberal or progressive uses of states' rights, in addition to conservative uses.
>You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming.
Nope. The word I used is "usually." Go back and read it. You're the one who decided to replace that "usually" with "always" and I'm not obligated to play the strawman role for you.
When states make a special case out of states' rights it's usually not for a good reason, otherwise they could just pass state laws. States' rights arguments imply things the Federal government would be opposed to, that states would need to weaken the power of the Federal government to accomplish, usually where regulations or anti-discrimination laws are concerned.
Of course, at any given time, there exist a number of issues facing the public over which there is no clear consensus on whether they constitute something morally reprehensible.
You're making the argument that what the federal government decides is right is always or usually the right thing compared to what states are claiming. I challenge you to claim that this is the case for, say, federal law forbidding marijuana versus states allowing it, or as was the case until very recently, enthusiastic support for pediatric gender reassignment from the federal government versus states outlawing it.