It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down.
If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.
Comments
It illustrates the way the "leave it up to the states" argument grates on some ears. It's a slippery slope argument, which is not automatically faulty. It is a call to know how you expect things to not slide down.
If the suggestion is "anything shy of complete chattel slavery", people get worried.
Why have states at all then? Why not just one giant national government?
Why have a federal government at all if states are perfectly well suited to all forms of human rights oversight, lawmaking, etc?
Collective defense?
The US has been that since 1861.