I think the "states' rights" argument gets confusing and hindered (or helped) by the fact that "equalizers" to the states' powers exist - for example the electoral college. I do think that states' right matter and that was the intended goal of the Constitution, but then we forget that we are also UNITED states - so what one does necessarily affect the others. I think in a perfect world, we could have the conservative states and the liberal states and everything in between and people could choose where they wanted to live based off the ways those states operated, and it would not be a problem. But people are still people. We are still technically one nation - not multiple different nations like the EU. Because we see inequalities in statistics like "blue states" often are paying much more into the federal budget than "red states," yet "red states" take more of those moneys back for subsidies. Also, with geography and resources, the states are not equally positioned to operate as solo entities. I see the federal government as more of a "checks and balances" of the states' rights, which essentially it has chosen to set a minimum and not a standard.
As it stands now, the states' rights argument is so hindered by the fact that people can leave and come to each state and participate in activities that their own state would find illegal (and vice versa) and, due to the federal government, states often do not face the natural consequences of their actions (like Texas deciding to have its' own power grid). Rights are, like so many other things, problematic when people want for others what they do not want for themselves, and vice versa - like Texas trying to prosecute citizens who go to other states for abortions. It reminds me of that saying that your rights end at the line where they impair another's free exercise of their own rights.
It seems the challenge isn’t whether states’ rights matter (they do), but how to keep them from becoming tools of exclusion in a union that depends on shared constitutional commitments.
The “gravitational pull” isn’t really about politics being moderate—it’s about how the Supreme Court sets a national baseline. Once the Court defines a right, every state has to follow that rule at least at that minimum level. States can go further, but not below it.
Polarization changes how that feels. States push harder to test the limits, and people argue more about what the baseline should be. The Court’s decisions still pull everyone toward one national standard, but if the Court itself leans one way, that “center” shifts and feels more political.
So the pull is still there, but polarization makes the baseline feel less neutral and more like part of the fight.
I think the "states' rights" argument gets confusing and hindered (or helped) by the fact that "equalizers" to the states' powers exist - for example the electoral college. I do think that states' right matter and that was the intended goal of the Constitution, but then we forget that we are also UNITED states - so what one does necessarily affect the others. I think in a perfect world, we could have the conservative states and the liberal states and everything in between and people could choose where they wanted to live based off the ways those states operated, and it would not be a problem. But people are still people. We are still technically one nation - not multiple different nations like the EU. Because we see inequalities in statistics like "blue states" often are paying much more into the federal budget than "red states," yet "red states" take more of those moneys back for subsidies. Also, with geography and resources, the states are not equally positioned to operate as solo entities. I see the federal government as more of a "checks and balances" of the states' rights, which essentially it has chosen to set a minimum and not a standard.
As it stands now, the states' rights argument is so hindered by the fact that people can leave and come to each state and participate in activities that their own state would find illegal (and vice versa) and, due to the federal government, states often do not face the natural consequences of their actions (like Texas deciding to have its' own power grid). Rights are, like so many other things, problematic when people want for others what they do not want for themselves, and vice versa - like Texas trying to prosecute citizens who go to other states for abortions. It reminds me of that saying that your rights end at the line where they impair another's free exercise of their own rights.
It seems the challenge isn’t whether states’ rights matter (they do), but how to keep them from becoming tools of exclusion in a union that depends on shared constitutional commitments.
Does the idea of a "gravitational pull towards the center" set by the Supreme Court change at all with rising polarization?
The “gravitational pull” isn’t really about politics being moderate—it’s about how the Supreme Court sets a national baseline. Once the Court defines a right, every state has to follow that rule at least at that minimum level. States can go further, but not below it.
Polarization changes how that feels. States push harder to test the limits, and people argue more about what the baseline should be. The Court’s decisions still pull everyone toward one national standard, but if the Court itself leans one way, that “center” shifts and feels more political.
So the pull is still there, but polarization makes the baseline feel less neutral and more like part of the fight.