State's Rights Arguments- a Tool for Democrats and Republicans alike

Political parties claim that their relevant policies are backed by either a Hamiltonian (strong federal control, weaker states- typically democratic) or Jeffersonian (state empowerment, weaker federal government- typically republican) ideology, but their larger policy goals dictate the political means to achieve them, not the other way around. For example, on the issue of marriage equality, Democrats adopted a Jeffersonian perspective through a States' rights argument while it was politically effective for them to do so.

In a statement on a presidential memorandum, President Obama wrote, “My Administration is not authorized by existing Federal law to provide same-sex couples with the full range of benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples…. [The Defense against Marriage Act is] discriminatory, it interferes with States' rights, and it's time we overturned it." To many this was surprising, as Republicans are typically associated with this type of argument.


Republicans at the time opted to let the issue run its course in the Supreme Court. They believed that conservative agenda would prevail, and thus chose not to present an argument on the basis of States' rights. Ultimately, once they were unsuccessful, Republican leaders immediately began discussing the issue in terms of States' Rights. After the ruling, John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House at the time, said, "I am... disappointed that the Supreme Court disregarded the democratically-enacted will of millions of Americans by forcing states to redefine the institution of marriage.”


Despite the political messaging around States' Rights, the case itself, Obergefell v. Hodges, has no direct mention of States’ rights in the majority opinion nor in the dissents, though it is alluded to by Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. This indicates that the States’ rights argument was significantly weaker than the direct consideration of whether or not the constitution protects same sex marriage. Democrats, under President Obama’s leadership, constructed that narrative as a form of political messaging rather than pushing it as a legal argument, which is why it is not addressed in the decision or dissent. Opposed to the Republican outcry, Democrats made no mention of States’ rights after the ruling came down from the bench. Since the Democrats were successful in achieving their policy goal, they no longer needed to use States' rights as a means to achieve an end. Republicans, on the other hand, found the Supreme Court’s response suddenly lacking consideration of States’ rights, and adopted it as the same means as President Obama to the opposite end.

While both political parties use States’ rights arguments to gain public support and occasionally battle in the courts, the utilization of such arguments have strayed significantly from Jefferson and Hamilton’s original ideological separation. Through war, the courts, and the political party system, Hamilton ultimately won, and there is little to be done to move back to a Jeffersonian perspective on federal control. Democrats and Republicans only invoke those arguments now to achieve tangential policy goals and to message their respective bases.