https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_and_States%27_Rights
https://web.archive.org/web/20180427082228/http://www.civilw...
https://news.wttw.com/2022/07/14/states-rights-supreme-court...
This is simply history. Calling it absurdism indicates a lack of historical knowledge. https://xkcd.com/1053/
Historically, it was slavery. Now it’s immigration, reproductive rights, etc. History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. It’s always about control exceeding genuine governance. Maybe that'll change, but until evidence and outcomes demonstrate otherwise, "the purpose of the system is what it does."
Can you provide an example of such evidence?
https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2022/07/repu... | https://archive.is/2022.07.18-235856/https://www.theatlantic...
The issue was that it was not a law in the first place but rather court ruling.
It's a disservice to associate a fundamental characteristic of our structure of government with one particularly egregiously unpopular use of it, or to wholesale dismiss it because it tends to be associated with things a lot of people find unpopular. That's rather the point. Arizona or New Mexico can tell off Nevada, who can tell off Utah, or Maryland that how they (Utah/Maryland) do things doesn't fly here.
If you've never been a State hopper, it doesn't quite click, but once you've traveled the U.S. and lived in several different regions for long enough periods of time, it clicks. Not all States are the same, and that's okay.
In particular, states shouldn’t have the right to restrict travel. If the slaves had free travel they would just leave for northern states. If people are able to leave to other states (even if it means rebuilding their life), plenty of bad state laws are OK because those affected will do so.