State or Federal?
"States rights vs. Federal control"
The Facts
>> Sources
The Convenient Constitution
There is a contradiction in American politics. The same people who declare “states rights take precedence” simultaneously demand federal intervention when states do things they dislike. This is not constitutional interpretation—it’s political opportunism dressed up in constitutional language.
Both conservatives and progressives routinely flip between celebrating “states’ rights” and demanding federal authority based purely on convenience. This happens despite Article VI of the Constitution clearly establishing federal supremacy.
Conservatives championed state autonomy during Obama’s healthcare mandates, then later demanded federal override of state COVID-19 restrictions. Progressives supported federal civil rights enforcement for decades, then celebrated state-level sanctuary policies that resist federal immigration law.
The Details
A Pattern as Old as the Republic
This selective federalism has deep American roots. Southern states invoked “states’ rights” to defend slavery, then used identical language to resist federal civil rights legislation a century later. The same argument reappeared to oppose environmental regulations, only to be abandoned when conservatives wanted federal action against sanctuary cities and permissive abortion laws.
Meanwhile, progressives who once demanded federal intervention in education and civil rights now champion state resistance to federal policies they oppose. Neither side maintains consistency about federalism—both invoke whichever level of government currently serves their agenda.
What History Shows
Though all sides show bias, the historical reality is that “states’ rights” arguments have primarily been deployed to resist federal protections of civil rights. From slavery to segregation, environmental protection to fair labor standards, the pattern is clear and documented.
This doesn’t mean federal power is always right or that states can’t serve as valuable test beds for reform though. States led on women’s suffrage, marriage equality, and pollution control. But when someone invokes “states’ rights” to oppose civil rights protections, fair labor standards, or environmental safeguards—instead of expanding them—history shows that skepticism is highly warranted.
The Civil War wasn’t fought over abstract governmental theory, it was fought because wealthy men claimed the right to enslave other human beings. The federal intervention that ended segregation wasn’t overreach, it was the fulfillment of constitutional promises against state violations of basic human rights.
The Real Problem
The issue isn’t whether states or the federal government should hold more power. Scholars across the spectrum have legitimate disagreements about federalism. The problem is weaponizing these arguments for short-term political gain rather than engaging in genuine debate about governance.
When political groups treat constitutional principles as sound bites, they erode the framework they were sworn to defend. This prevents meaningful discussions about how to actually protect rights and serve the citizens.
Americans deserve leaders who apply principles consistently, and honestly acknowledge when federal intervention serves the essential purpose of protecting, and expanding, the rights of the people.