An Open Letter from the VodkaPundit
My Dear Fellow Conservatives and Libertarians:
We need to give up this notion of “states’ rights.” First of all, it’s in bad taste. The phrase used to be code for “Jim Crow.” And while I’m certain that’s not true for 99% of us, we can — and should — do better than to emulate vile racists. Secondly, however, “states’ rights” is a misnomer. It’s an impossible thing. It doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t.
Let me explain.
I remember reading once somewhere that:
All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In other words, individuals have rights, and governments are instituted with powers to protect those rights, and are (or ought to be) restricted from abusing them.
With me so far? Individuals have rights; governments have powers.
A few short years after Thomas Jefferson wrote those words, our Constitution was designed in such a way as to protect our individual rights, and not just by the legal fiat of enacting it. Our system of government was constituted to prevent, or at least slow down, the accumulation of government powers in ways that would restrict our rights.
We have three branches of the federal government, each in tension with the other two — as everyone should (but probably no longer does) learn in civics class. But there’s another level to it. The federal government also has tensions and oppositions with the governments of the several states. (Less tension and opposition than there used to be, thanks to the 17th Amendment — but that’s an open letter for another day.)
This is all well and good and as it should be. Fast, efficient government is an oppressive government.
This boils down to a rather tiresome issue of terminology. The proper term is probably closer to ‘the right to local governance’, but “states’ rights” is easier shorthand.
As for how it is ‘viewed’ by our opposition: who cares? They aren’t honest people. They will frame everything they cannot logically defeat in the most negative way possible, and I for one am not in the least bit interested in playing their word games.
Amen, bro. No pun intended.
How about calling them 10th Amendment rights? I’m not about to cede all power to the federal government because something sounds “icky”.
There is a reason to abandon the term “states rights” in favor of “individual rights” that has nothing to do with Jim Crow. The idea of “states rights” connotes legalistic wrangling over the meaning of the Constitution. The idea of “individual rights” is a basic moral principle defining the very purpose of government — whether federal, state, or local. As such, it is much more fundamental, and a much more inspiring idea to rally around.
See here for a couple of pithy comments from Ayn Rand on the subject: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/states_rights.html
I have never associated “states rights” with Jim Crow and I have been a Conservative for 30 years. Rand Paul was talking about a constitutional matter and it is a legitimate point, whether we all agree on the 64 Civil Rights act or not. Nobody is saying the goal of eliminating the barring of people from private businesses due to ethnicity is not a laudable one.
However, telling people who they must associate with and what they can do with their private businesses (property) does leads to overreach and abuse by government. That was the point Paul was making. There is no reason to avoid these discussions based on some fear of being mis-characterized by the left, who will always do that no matter what we say or how we say it.
I find it amazing that a principled debate on these matters did take place in 1964, but we need to censor our speech now. That some on the right are advocating these restrictions on discourse is disheartening. We are once again accepting the premise of leftist reactionaries and prostrating our selves accordingly.
“I have never associated “states rights” with Jim Crow…”
Life is not always fair. Most Americans disagree—and strongly believe that states rights is merely a term to justify outright racism. Gay now means homosexuality and a liberal is someone who advocates the principles of statism. It perhaps best to abandon a term that has mostly lost its original meaning.
The view of states rights starting with (or predominantly referring to) Jim Crow is ahistorical. Republicans (old version) used it as an argument against the Alien and Sedition acts as far back as 1798. It was arguably the primary cause of the Civil War. I appreciate your point, but abandoning the language to historical illiterates does not appeal.
States rights refers to the 10th amendment of the Constitution first and foremost. Do liberal morons try to twist the term to mean support for segregation? Of course. I don’t care because I am tired of playing their game.
If we keep allowing liberals to hijack the language and set the terms of every debate we will lose. If you want to allow the grievance mongers to limit what you can say that is your problem. I am also hearing complaints that the Constitution itself is racist, are going to agree to that too?
I have never associated the phrase “states’ rights” with Jim Crow either. I always associated it with the arguments for slavery, and apologists for the Confederacy. I can see that the two are not unrelated though.
When I hear people blathering about states’ rights, I know that they have no regard whatsoever for individual rights.
“When I hear people blathering about states’ rights, I know that they have no regard whatsoever for individual rights.”
Yet, when folks are blathering on about federal government powers you have no similar feelings? Come now, you are just being partisanly argumentative.
Good arguments are regularly used in defense of bad ends. No one would argue against the desire to improve automobile traffic safety, especially at busy intersections, yet the use of this argument to justify stop light cameras (that are widely seen as little more than revenue generation engines that often statistically worsen intersection safety) hasn’t led to folks to think safety is a bad goal.
Call it “States’ Rights” or call it “States’ Sovereignty,” it basically boils down that unless there is a damn good reason, federal government should stick to handling agreements between the States and providing collective services, such as defense, and leave the day-to-day governing to a more local level.
“When I hear people blathering about states’ rights, I know that they have no regard whatsoever for individual rights.”
The problem with this is that the concept of State’s Rights is a further insurance that we can retain our individual rights. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of the 10th Amendment (which is the basis for the idea of State’s Rights) is to prevent the federal government from becoming all powerful. When more power is given to the states it allows us to have more influence on how we are governed, and thus allows us to keep our individual rights intact.
All this article is doing is giving more ammo to the PC idiots on the Left to keep centralizing power and turning us into a “Federal Republic of America” rather than the United STATES of America.
This could also be said for opposition to burka and naqab bans. Just as it is sick and twisted to overlook the discrimination and bigotry of segregation, to accommodate a purist ideology towards private property rights, it is also sick and twisted to ignore the oppression of women who are stoned to death, and forced to live a life without ever feeling fresh air and sunlight on their face. We must ban burqas and naqabs for the women left unrecognizable to fellow human beings. Americans, who would have gladly marched in a civil rights demonstration, are turning their backs on women who are far more segregated from society than any American could imagine. I can understand feeling uncomfortable with banning an article of clothing, however, like private property and state rights, this adherence to ideology is unacceptable when you consider the oppression it enables. Think of it as banning segregation. I understand there are Muslim women who argue it is their right cover their faces, but the right for women to show their faces without fear and intimidation is more important. I have nothing against the head scarf, or other head coverings, but to completely erase a person of their identity should not be tolerated in the name of tolerance. I hope one day we’ll look back on these days and laugh at the silly Rand Paul like politician who tries to argue in favor of oppression just to strictly adhere to an ideology.
I completely agree with your points and argument. There’s one major incident though that has ruined our chances in pursuing this: Iran being allowed to sit on the Women’s Rights Council in the UN. Thanks to having no opposition whatsoever Iran waltzed into a seat and has now enacted the following for their nation:
1) A woman counts as half of a man in all legal matters.
2) A woman may be punished by any method deemed necessary; the extreme being stoned to death.
3) A woman is able to be tried at the age of NINE (9) years old as an adult.
Now, none of these punishments are new to Iran. Iran, however, now sits on the Women’s Council meaning that they are setting a standard for all other nations in the UN to follow.
All those things aside, however, I hope that we maintain our own rights and privileges. I also hope that the women in our country continue to be given the respect and position they deserve as human beings.
Beautifully said!
(Mrs. Mudd, here)
You are absolutely right. It’s one thing to be denied a seat on the bus or the dining counter. It’s quite another matter to be imprisoned in a mask, detached from the world. The image that came to mind was from the movie “Elephant Man,” where our tragic victim is seen wandering through a crowded train station with a dingy cotton sack over his head (with a single eye hole) lest anyone gaze on his hideous deformity and be offended (never mind his own desperate state of existence.) How can any human prefer that? (unless they are already severely damaged.) We must not allow the naqab or burqa in any shape or form, any more than we should allow men to shackle their women in irons before allowing them in public. We must absolutely outlaw this cruelty in America. (Call it “cruelty,” not “a cultural preference,” or the “right to clothe my wife as I see fit.”)
So, yeah, it’s ok to pass laws to uphold human dignity…to protect the rights of the individual. And to get back to Steve’s point of whether it’s necessary–it will always be necessary to consciously and deliberately protect the rights of the individual–and add to the list, the unborn.
Shall we say that the several States have rights against the individual? No. Shall we say that they have rights against the Federal government? Why not?
Utter nonsense.
I’m afraid the author has fallen victim to the same warped media/education complex that calls socialism “progressive”, claims “socialist” is really a code word for black, a blow job isn’t really “sex”, “is” may or may not be “is” depending on what your definition of “is” is.
Let the statest rely on sound bites for those they keep ignorant. If we can not educate people to understand that the term “state’s rights” has a broader meaning than slavery then we don’t deserve to win. Of course the quote chosen was also from the Declaration of Independence; a letter to the British king, and a document without the force of law. The Constitution as originally written clearly shows that we are a Republic and Federation in which States as well as individuals have rights.
Sorry, but this Libertarian brother says that getting bogged down in semantics is exactly what the left wants. This dog don’t hunt.
On the contrary, this is not a matter of semantics. This is about using a term originated by the defenders of Jim Crow, to describe a political fiction. There’s no good there.
As conservatives and libertarians we should — must — be concerned with individual rights, and the best way to defend them. A good start, in my book, would be seeking the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
A bad start, is to continue using the phraseology of embittered dead-enders.
The shameful politics of racial division were practiced skillfully by the demagogues of the day. They were all Democrats. If you’re of a certain age, you’ll remember, among others: Georgia’s Lester Maddox, of ax-handle fame; George Wallace of Alabama, who stood in the schoolhouse door; Harry Byrd of “massive resistance” Virginia; and the everlasting Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, who, along with Sen. Al Gore Sr. of Tennessee and other Democrats, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 57 days. (soource: http://bit.ly/c6ZJm3)
States rights originated with the specific mention of the states in the Bill of Rights. What’s Jim Crow got to do with it, aside from its proponents having used the term?
The constitution is as much about states rights, as it is about individual rights.
Remember the wording of the 10th ammendment.
Rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the states, and also to the people.
No. 10th Amendment says powers, not rights:
Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am10
The Ninth does talk about rights of the people:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
“A good start … would be seeking the repeal of the 17th Amendment.”
Amen, brother. Many like to rail against the 16th, but for my money the true growth of Leviathan can be traced to the point at which the State as an entity ceased to have any federal representation and Senators, instead, became little more than glorified at-large candidates with a triple term. When everyone is glad-handing and promising bread and circuses there is little incentive to say “woah!”
Uh, which Declaration of Independence are you reading? The text I find says, “let Facts be submitted to a candid world,” and nowhere uses any honorific title or style for addressing the King directly.
http://usinfo.org/docs/democracy/1.htm
When a state is not being treated equally in matters of commerce, the application of federal laws or even border enforcement it is the “states Right” and duty to take necessary action to uphold and guarantee those rights for it’s citizenry. It is also true that in many cases a state can find more practical ways of applying federal laws.
This article reminds me of how the left is quick to yell racist when anybody criticizes the policies of the present administration. I would hate to think that this is an effort to end the debate over “states rights”. There were many that felt that they were not being treated fairly about 150 years ago(without including slavery)and sometimes I wonder if we haven’t come full circle on many of those issues.
States do have rights. It very specifically states in the constitution of the united states of america that all powers not specifically vested into the federal government of the united states of america are reserved for the states, local government or the people. That means that states do have the right to make laws. Generally speaking, the one flaw I can note in the constitution as crafted by the original founding fathers is the fact that all rights of individuals specifically protected by the contitution were not automatically incorporated into all constitutions of the states and prohibited from encroachment by local governments such as city and county. There are states rights, and those rights have been significantly encroached upon by the federal government.
By the way, arguing not to use a basic term such as state’s rights because some bad person used it is basically playing into the hands of the progressively regressives which a website such as this are supposed to be opposed to. Your whole idea is to fight under the terms of your enemies as they change the rules of engagement every single turn.
They attack you on christmas, as you prepare your counterstrike, they calmly tell you that from now on no attacks may come between christmas day and new year’s day. Then on the 30th and 31st of december they finish killing you off while you follow their rules and wait for the 1st. Sorry charlie, but that is just plain stupid and if you propose that we fight our battles based on our enemies open rules of engagement for them and totally restrained engagement for us, then you are not on our side. GET LOST libtardarian.
please not the use of the word “powers” and not “rights” in the 10th Amendment, you’ve just proven Mr. Green’s point on the terminology.
The left won the ideological war in the 20th century, in part, by changing terminology. Many of the “95%” of African Americans who are “in the bag” for Democrats used to be loyal Republicans before the 50s…Green’s not talking about changing what we’re (we, “conservatives and libertarians”) fighting for, but perhaps admitting that an alternative terminology might serve us better…this is why I never refer to the US as a “democracy” and the left insists on using the term.
We don’t need to convince libertarians of the value of individual rights (they already understand), but if we are to make back any of the popular support we have lost in the last 80 years (and we have lost a lot since FDR), we need to speak directly to reasonable people who vote Democrat out of habit or inertia, never realizing how much they would disagree with the party platform if only they truly understood the issues and what’s at stake. That may seem silly to those of us with a good handle on the history and true definitions of the terminology, but when it comes to getting the votes we need in elections, popular perception is 100% of the game…
So, if I have the power to make laws, i do not have the right to do so? Power = Right. When you take someones power, you steal their right. So, explain to me where the two words make any kind difference in usage?
If I use the power I have I am exercising a right I have. I have $100, by the power of that $100 I can buy something. I have the unfettered right to spend that $100 on anything I so choose. If someone else comes along and says that they have the power to decide what I can buy with my $100, then have they not taken my rights away? What if they usurp the power to take my money away from me, which is also my power to purchase something, have they not taken my power from me? Right and Power are interchangeable in this instance, so you have lost the argument and would not convince a 10 year old to give up her lollipop.
The 10th Amendment would be the last amendment in the Bill of Rights, yes?
With me so far? Individuals have rights; governments have powers.
People also have powers as well, as in “ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Conservatives are in a no-win situation, as soon as we use “State’s Powers” instead of “State’s Rights” we will be accused of being duplicitous racists. It goes with the turf.
Ah, yes. State’s Power? That’s like White Power, isn’t it, racist!?!
This stuff writes itself anymore.
Can’t these objectives be achieved without violating the constitution?
If it’s about state powers, then why not just let the state implement the rules themselves? If it’s about Property rights, why not amend the constitution? Why not do it the right way instead of violating the constitution in the name of expediency? The fact that it is tedious to make an amendment is not an excuse.
The concept that the government can violate someones rights by proxy via a private company that holds a public utility monopoly is a genuine concern. And it would be a good idea to address it in the constitution.
But the hole idea that the supreme court can decide out of the blue that the constitution means something other than the exact words in it, just because they like a certain policy, is absurd.
Words, words, words…. Don’t tell me , show me … It’s about POWER, POWER alone. WHO has it and WHO lacks it. Those WITH POWER — interestingly lawyers, academics and “media” professionals interpreting as “judges” what the words mean, e.g. their history of the meanings of “rights”. Those of us, non-members in these clubs/clerisy are merely the audience of their performance. BUT — in the end the words are just words. In, even or especially?, the legislatures, academies and media culture POWER is what counts. We can now acknowledge, and if alert while the “liberals” are in control of the educational,influence and legal machines of the USA, POWER has always been the goal. All the rest is costume and staging. We now see that those who love power shall do, and have done, what THEY WANT, unless the POWERLESS STOP THEM. In a Country of Law, how does any powerless group stop powerful,lawless, “experts” and “leaders” of the society from doing precisely what they want, with full cooperation and support from other membes of the powerless? Arguing over words may be necessary, but hardly sufficient.
It seems that the enemies of Liberty have won the war. Why? They have fought with monomania to supplant our academy to snatch the minds of our children. They have siezed the flag of our once free media and turned it into a megaphone for their propaganda. They now own the “narrative”, they define the “context” of all discussion and debate, they weild magical words like “Racist!”, and evoke ghosts like “Jim Crow” to squelch discussion and debate. They now control the definition of terms, and in Obama, they have seized the levers of power through the highest office in the land. Daily they tighten their tentacles on our necks and threaten America with worse to come.
ALL Americans are on their way to becoming slaves when the debate is deemed to be over. Yet that appears to be exactly what Vodkapundit seems to be asserting. The concentration of power in Washington is all about the tyranny of emerging elite despots over The People – and the alembic of State Law is daily being eroded and destroyed by the Washington Leviathan. The fact that “States Rights” has been successfully reduced by the enemies of freedom to a dead issue in the minds of many is a grave warning — a warning for all who love freedom and individual rights. I don’t buy into this emotional appeal, and I reject that the death is over on States Rights. The debate is never over, and should never be over.
Actually, the cry of “racist!” has steadily been losing its punch, largely because it’s been pulled out so often, and so often in reference to things that really have little or nothing to do with race.
However, as Mr. Simon wrote yesterday, the lefties feel in their guts that their narrative is unraveling, so we can expect to hear that accusation a lot more in the future. The lefties are in a reality bubble, so disconnected from the rest of the world, that they may even be able to convince themselves that it’s working. But the rest of us out here in “flyover country” will have realized by then that “racist!” is just a lefty’s way of saying, “Okay, you demolished my arguments, now I am just going to call you a name.”
Much as I like Stephen Green, from PJTV segments, I must say that I am unconvinced of the wisdom of his suggestion. He has effectively ceded ground to the Left and the PC semanticists. Therefore, I take issue with his reading of history which ties Jim Crow to states’ rights, when states’ rights pre-date Jim Crow. To the extent that liberals have succeeded in conflating the two works to their advantage in diminishing and marginalizing, and even discrediting, the notion of federalism.
I agree with you, Morton Doodslag. Anecdotally, I NEVER think of Jim Crow when I hear the term “states’ rights,” but I ALWAYS think of federalism. Stephen Green’s essay merely demonstrates the success of the democrat-media complex more recently and of our public school system these past 70 years (and Hollywood) in RE-EDUCATING the masses in the mindset of the progressive zeitgeist, the redistributive project. I say fight it, don’t join it.
States’ rights = federalism. States’ Rights is not an impossible thing; you have perhaps not done your homework, Mr. Green. Please see Constitutional Government: The American Experience by James A. Curry, et al.
We have a teachable moment. Let’s use it. And lastly, I will never agree to rolling over and playing dead because although 99% of Americans might understand states’ rights the way I do, 1% do not so we have to accommodate THEM so as not to hurt any feelings and bring up bad memories. Balderdash.
“State Power”. There, done.
It also used to be ‘code’ for state’s rights.
According to the article,
I disagree. I also disagree with the notion that it’s merely a matter of semantics.
The United States Constitution provides, in Article X of the Bill of Rights,
The Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment limit to some extent the rights of the States and of the People; I think the Commerce Clause has been distended beyond recognition for many years and the Fourteenth Amendment less so.
Still, the Federal Government derives its legitimacy from the States and their citizens; I am aware of any other legitimate source – not the United Nations, not an European Consensus, and not pundits. The rights of the States are central to our form of government, and to acquiesce in the notion that the concept of States Rights is “racist” is wrongheaded. That partially funded federal mandates in numerous areas have cowed the States does not mean that the States are powerless in the face of the Federal Government, and neither does overreaching by the Federal Government in other areas.
The “Jim Crow Laws” were bad. They are gone. They are unconstitutional. I am unaware of any serious attempt to revive them. The United States Constitution as originally adopted recognized slavery. It provided, among other things, that
It no longer does. Does that mean that references to the United States Constitution have a racist connotation and should cease? I certainly hope not.
By accepting what I must refer to as absurd notions that the term States Right is irreparably blemished by history and by the derogatory comments of some who view the Federal Government as the only legitimate vehicle for good, I think we accept a pernicious notion.
The author makes a good case, but so do the comments above. The problem with retreating from one term is that our opponents will just demonize the next one. I doubt “states’ powers” would even be acknowledged as a different term; “state power” is even worse, given that it means something already, and also happens to sound like “white power”. Changing our words won’t give the liberals any less to work with.
But that’s not really Stephen’s point. He’s saying this is something we should do for ourselves. We have a phrase here which, fairly or unfairly, has strong associations with racism. That’s an unpleasant reality, and we’re conservatives — we face reality, we don’t ignore it when it’s not what we’d like it to be. This is a conversation worth having. At the very least, we should have other terms to use alongside “states’ rights”.
Language in general is something our side should put more thought into. I still can’t believe the Orwellian term “coercive interrogation” gained currency. And just look at the Tea Party situation — here we have a popular grassroots movement with huge numbers, and yet somehow we’ve let the liberals get away with naming them after a sick sex act. It seems like even independents are as likely to say “teabaggers” as “Tea Partiers” now. That wouldn’t have happened if we’d fought back harder, and maybe come up with a punchier term of our own.
I am going to take issue with the premises that “States’ Rights” are not a possibility, and that the term refers to a mental image of Jim Crow Laws. First, those who do not understand or even bother to read history (after all, what party was behind Jim Crow? Hint: Lester Maddox, George Wallace, Harry Byrd, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr. But I digress.) have not studied the Supreme Court case initially generated the motivations for Jim Crow laws. Nor do they have a clue what the resulting Amendments were from it. Throwing “Jim Crow” out as an argument against the 10th Amendment is identical to the favored leftist verbal weapon, “racist”. Second, as for States’ Rights not being a possibility, I won’t concur. The States were intended to be sovereign, separate entities when the Constitution was ratified; so sovereign in fact, they were thought of by newly independent Americans as separate countries… a “Federation”, right?
The limited powers given to the Federal Government in the Constitution were just that: limited. As stated in the Bill of Rights, the right to powers of each of the 50 States was to not be overrun by a giant government. And at present, that government truly is demonstrating, as you state, that a “fast, efficient government is an oppressive government.” The Federal Government has no rights, power, strength or weight behind it to conduct oppositions to the States from a strictly Constitutional basis. Tensions, yes; but they are to be a part of “checks and balances,” not a overseer.
All other rights not granted to the Feds are reserved to “the states and to the people,” under whatever form of government each of those states were to form by those people – such as a Republic, a Commonwealth, or whatever. Further, the “guarantee to every State a Republican form of government” is not specifically a power granted to the Feds; rather, it is an acquiescence by the Feds. The Federal Government shall not deny the states that form of government.
The balance of powers so ingeniously designed by James Madison and the other Founders has two centuries later been so deeply corrupted in function, so misconstrued by its own partakers, that the word “balance” has become almost irrelevant. In the three branches, there was to be no “winner,” no final say. Matters were to go back to the states to be reissued, revisited, reworked until they had it right – easy to do when a Federal Government is granted only 17 specific powers as stated in the Constitution.
Madison in the Virginia Resolution in 1798 (quite prophetically) expressed “deep regret, that a spirit has been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases . . . so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.”
Words and their meanings do matter. I’m sticking with “States’ Rights” as terminology. And I’m happy to give a history lesson right along with it.
Back at the time of the signing, the US was usually refered to as “these united States”.
Sometime after the civil war, that phrase had morphed into “the United States”.
Great article, and the spirit of it is truly in line with a more American style of Western Democracy than what exists in Western Europe. I have always associated “State’s rights” with the provision made by the 10th amendment that allows for state governance in line with the US constitution. I do think, however, that the phrase “state’s rights” has long since passed its sell-by date and doesn’t really help us to promote conservative/libertarian ideas; after all, is it really much better to have bureaucrats in Atlanta or Raleigh churn out tomes of free-market stifling business regulations than bureaucrats in D.C.? It may sound better, but bureaucracy is bureaucracy and is not improved by a local address.
This focus on individual rights is not found in many places in the world, and perhaps more than anything else, distinguishes us from the majority of the Western countries. (Switzerland is a notable exception.) Applying the same concept to economic issues, we could phrase it this way. Do the uninsured have a right to taxpayer funded health coverage that is greater than my individual right not to be excessively burdened with “I am my brother’s keeper” style wealth redistribution schemes? It is clear where Obama stands on this issue; he is a European style social democrat who favours collectivism at the expense of individualism. The European welfare state has been expanded largely in the name of group rights that supersede individual rights until they socialized themselves into sovereign bankruptcy. This is very possibly the unavoidable end result of collectivist “group rights” policies. When, at the end of the day, can a government decide that “I” have enough but society’s collective “we” needs just a little more gravy on their biscuits to be truly happy? By upholding individual rights, it will not only help us to drain the collectivist welfare swamp, but will also spread responsibility by letting us “own” our successes and failures. “Group rights” remove personal responsibility for our actions and make us more likely to waste the resources we have at hand. (Ex. A: Do you ever see someone polishing and buffing a rental car? No. They have no long term interest in the outcome because they do not own it. Ex. B: see Greece.)
As much as I despise the argumentum ad Hitlerum, it is quite pertinent to this discussion. In the 1920′s, the NSPD platform’s highest moral law was found in the expression “Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz”, or “Communal/public good before individual good.” The slogan also encircled the Reichsmark and led to the creation of a type of “Communal body” (Volksgemeinschaft) that was meant to ensure the rights of the German people from outside forces; what is relevant for this discussion is that it very clearly was an extreme example of promoting the rights of a group (ethnic Germans) at the expense of the rights of individuals. In the name of group rights, individual rights were completely and totally abrogated. This is, of course, an extreme example, but European welfare states have consistently expanded state power in the name of the common good. The completely predictable result is that individuals without responsibilities do not make responsible citizens.
Spread the responsibility, not the wealth. Individual rights are the way to go.
Some people (*cough-cough*, I think we know who those people are) would say our founding fathers are “historically icky”.
It wouldn’t matter what we do or say, the Marxist/Pinko/Regressive-Lefties will call us racists anyway or if someone is ‘blind’ enough to be a Black/Hispanic/American-Indian/Gay/Woman evil conservative then they are labeled ‘race-traitors’ or ‘uncle-toms’ or ‘self-haters’.
Yaknowhat? In order to have solid principles ya can’t please all of the people!
Gee, next thing ya know, there will be some whack people thinking the Constitution is an outdated, ancient, icky, racist document that needs to be a ‘living and ever-changing’ thing according to whatever is the latest, greatest gripe and ‘grievance’.
Oops. I typed too soon! *sigh*
Why not simply say ‘Power to the People’ not the politicians.
Tongue in cheek.
Re my comment #14: I goofed here: “I am aware of any other legitimate source . . . .” My dear wife, who read it, observed that I had probably meant “unaware” or “not aware.”
She is smarter and better looking than I am. I stand corrected.
Totally understood. Almost daily I stand corrected by my smarter and better-looking wife.
Not only that, but the comment number either changed from #14 and is now #13, or I am no longer able to count beyond twelve.
I shall now go to bed and (try to) read.
I hate to say this but I’m going to hang on to the term out of sheer stubbornness. We give, the left takes. It’s time to stop giving them anything.
If we say States Rights, they call us racist, imperialist, fascists.
If we say “I like pizza” They call us racist, imperialist, fascist.
These are the consistent functions of dialectical materialism. Any action that any member of western society takes, who is not flying the flag of progressive/leftist will be judged on these terms.
I heard today that there are no more liberals, only leftists, I dont know if thats true but Ive seen enough to suspect that it might be.
The only thing that we can do to change this is to beat them at the ballot box, and then when we’ve done that, burn the bridges that they crossed to get into power.
It’s a far flung analogy, but if you think about part of The Road to Serfdom, it talks about the Bismarkian state apparatus already being in place when the Nazis took power–in other words the tools of the State Machine already existed, it was their usage by the likes of the nazis and communists that was the problem–
Well, if we dismantle the machine of the State–we dismantle their tools to inflict their will on us!
I held onto the same position for years, and for the same reason. But sometimes there does come a time to re-examine things, and see if there might be a better way to proceed.
As others have said, if you change the way we refer to ourselves, then your opponents have won the argument. It also fosters confusion within our own ranks.
For many/most of us, we became conservative in later life, with life experience.
You won’t get ‘converts’ by a name change, it has to be by valid, logical arguments.
Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929):
“Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.”
to millions, “states’ rights” is also a convenient shorthand for “Jim Crow.”
If you want to get right with those people, try to avoid other phrases that they think are code for “Jim Crow”, such as:
“Republican Party”
“Private property”
“Education vouchers”
“Personal responsibility”
“Tea party”
-there are more, of course.
Only individals have rights. Governments, be they state, federal, whatever have only powers that are delegated to them with the consent of the governed.
There is no such thing as states’ rights. A state doesn’t have the right to anything, not even the right to exist.
According to the Declaration of Independence, “these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be free and independent states.”
The term “State Sovereignty” is being used by a number of States, including Oklahoma, when referring to the powers noted by the 10th Amendment.
Jack, you’re right on target. “States’ rights” is a dead term, not because of the current “perception” of Jim Crow (who cares what the lefties think) but because it technically doesn’t make any sense. (www.mosov.org)
And Stephen, kudos for zeroing in on repeal of the 17th Amendment. Smitty over at The Other McCain is also pushing for repeal.
Sorry for the scattergun nature of these posts –
Perhaps we should emphasize the idea of “States Responsibilities” – in that the Feds have encroached on areas the Founders intended to be the responsibility of the states.
When you allow the enemy to dictate the terms of the fight you have lost the war before it began. I’ll pass on being PC and mealy mouthed or the tactic of blunt honesty.
Well put, VP.
Like many former leftists, I came to conservatism through libertarianism–partly it was the war on drugs thing, but also a natural reaction to having been drafted during the Vietnam era. To my immature mind, the simplicity and clarity of the libertarian creed seemed self-evidently reasonable and congenial.
And then, as they say, it came time for me to put away childish things.
The central problem with the libertarian creed is its inability to cope with the existential reality of evil. A libertarian purist, after all, can’t fathom why the owner of a public accomodation could possibly engage in behavior (discrimination on the basis of race, creed or gender) that was not in his or her economic self interest.
Similarly, Libertarianism in its Puritan-Paulist form, cannot explain or engage with the reality of Pol Pot-style genocide, or the seemingly irrational behavior of Islamic terrorists.
As an alternative to and avenue from infantile leftism, the libertarian faith has been, is and probably will continue to serve as a useful set of intellectual training wheels for future conservatives; but those of us who have completed the journey have an obligation to speak out against its logical absurdities.
So you’re saying that Libertarianism is a gateway drug to conservatism?
Personally, I consider myself a libertarian, but I don’t really like many of the national leaders of the libertarian party. I certainly am not an isolationist à la Ron Paul for example. I don’t think I could ever swing into social conservatism though, largely because I am a supporter of individual rights at the expense of group rights in many cases. I support cartoonists over those that want to kill them for this reason; I also oppose many welfare policies on the same grounds.
It’s quite obvious that you never dealt with any actual libertarians. The idea that libertarians are unable to believe that people are evil is so laughable that it leaves me speechless to properly describe it.
As to the claim that we believe people will always operate in their economic best interest.
That depends, who’s a better judge of an individuals best interest, you, or that person?
The racist honestly believes that his racism is in his best interests. The fact that you believe differently is only proof that you and the racist have different defintions for what “best interest” is.
The definition of the word “right” from Merriam-Webster: something to which one has a just claim: as the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled. States are justly entitled to have power or privilege per the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So the arguement that the term “State’s Rights” is without meaning is itself flawed. And given the reality (as pointed out by other commentors) that the “progressives” are Orwellian in their use of language and tactics there is no reason to give them one more inch and grant them that some “code” exists that only they can seem to understand.
As to Mr. Paul’s original comments that were the nexus for this article, exactly how does restricting the ability of the state to discriminate against a particular class of its citizens have anything to do with dictating to private property owner’s how they may utilize (or whom they may allow to utilize) their property? If a private person (or group) funds the construction of an apartment building by what power does the government have to dictate to that private citizen or gorup who they may or may not rent their property to?
For starters, trade the word “rights” for “responsibilities”. States have responsibilities and the Federal Government should have some very limited responsibilities that the states do not have. Put it that way and the Federal Government has no right to take over responsibilities that States have. In other words, the states have a right to carry out their responsibilities, and the Federal government has no right to interfere. So in that since, states do have rights, just in a different sense than individuals do.
So let the states carry out their responsibilities to their residents. Some will do better than others. Some experiments will fail, but the entire country won’t fail because failed experiments won’t be country wide. People will vote with the ballot and they will vote with their feet. It’s called competition. The residents of successful states will reap the rewards. Failing states will be forced to change direction or lose residents. In true competition, what doesn’t work, is inefficient, or is prohibitively costly absolutely has to go. In a government centrally controlled out of Washington, failed states can’t fail because all the other states are forced to take up the slack.
Yes, states do have rights.
Individuals, and states, are _sovereign_ or _free_ .
The shorter, anglo-saxon word is better, because it
shares its origin and root meaning with the word
‘friend’; Both imply a common set of core values.
Today, the people are defending those common values
against attacks by the Federal government which will
destroy both the freedom and the friendship while
claiming to protect them.
Then use one word: Constitutionalists. When people ask, then pitch the distinction between individuals having rights, and governments having powers.
FYI, I’m a Canadian.
I use the term “decentralization.”
It’s a purely technical term and not bogged down in the moralizing rhetoric of rights. It’s just a simple conservative belief that power is best managed “close to home.”
The danger of using rhetoric of individual rights *all* the time is that it artificially divides the debate into terms of Man vs. the State. Even the strictest of libertarians (or even anarcho-capitalists!!!) don’t believe in the absence of government, they wish to reduce (or abolish) the power of the State. Civic associations, businesses, churches all have governments–what we wish is for those governments to be removed from the central coordination of a State whose rules can only be backed by the force of the gun in a government hundreds or thousands of miles away. In the truest sense, and individual living in harmony with his brothers and sisters in society is just a perfectly aligned and unconflicted form of government. We should strive to create “governmental” associations that are harmonious, natural, and of human scale in contrast to the overwhelming monstrosity of the machine state.
Wrong on one detail – 10th Amendment states all rights not explicitly granted to the Fed Gov are reserved to the states AND the people. IOW – the various states are the voluntary groupings of the people, and the Fed Gov is the voluntary grouping of the various states. “States Rights” was the late 60′s shorthand for this ideal. I don’t care either way. In 2010, the problem is out of control Fed Gov, and the solution is the supremacy of the Constitution (incl. 10th Amendment).
http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
[For a light hearted take on our present peril]
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men
are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights …”
When people deny a creator, then the declaration has no
meaning or authority. Natural Rights are there only because of a creator. One
can’t speak of equality without reference to a creator.
Since the left denies all possibility of a creator or
Creator (your choice of words), there cannot be an appeal to equlity, there is
no source for it in a dog eat dog existence.
Many conservative teanaggers defend Rand Paul by pointing out that it wasn’t Republicans who were the most vocal opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act when it was in Congress. Of course, they conveniently ignore the fall-out from the passage of the CRA:
The true history of the Civil Rights act, according to Princeton university Sean Wilentz, is simply a matter of conservative selective memory.
“Everybody knows that in 1964, a proud southern Democratic President, Lyndon Johnson, pushed hard to secure the Civil Rights Bill, with the aid of a coalition of northern Democrats and Republicans,” Wilentz said. “This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party, where its remnants, along with a younger generation of extremist conservative white southerners, including Rand Paul, still reside.”
Wilentz said that any suggestion that Democrats talking about the Civil Rights act is somehow hypocritical is pretty much a complete rejection of the actual facts — and the political landscape at the time.
“In many ways, the 1964 Act defined the modern political parties — with the Republicans becoming the heirs to the traditions of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, and the Democrats embracing the tradition of Abraham Lincoln,” he wrote.
He said that the history of the bill shows that Republicans didn’t hold the high ground when it came to supporting Civil Rights.
“Conservatives may have forgotten that Lyndon Johnson ran for president in 1964 against a Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater, who repudiated the Civil Rights Act,” Wilentz wrote.
Ah, the Republican selective memory.
Robert KKK Byrd.
BTW–The correct response to the term “teabagger” is the term “Barack Sucker.” you see, it’s funny because it’s actually double or even triple entendre. I’m explaining this to you because, well, you’re not very intelligent.
Orval Faubus, Governor of Arkansas in 1957, refused to integrate the schools. President Dwight Eisenhower dispatched troops to Little Rock to force integration. Faubus: Democrat. Eisenhower: Republican.
George Wallace, Governor of Alabama in 1963, similarly refused to integrate schools in his state. Wallace: Democrat.
And there’s the already mentioned Mr. Byrd.
A majority of Democrats voted against the CRA. If it wasn’t for an overwhelming percentage of Republicans voting for it, it would never have passed.
You are, as usual, being both a hypocrite and a liar.
Wilentz was a moron and democrats have selective interpretation.
Wilentz said. “This sent the defeated segregationist Southern Democrats (led by Strom Thurmond) fleeing into the Republican Party, where its remnants, along with a younger generation of extremist conservative white southerners, including Rand Paul, still reside.”
Except that this does not appear to have actually happened. Save for Strom Thurmond, the southern Democrat senators who voted against the CRA, stayed in the Democrat party. Many were re-elected numerous times AS Democrats.
I have sought long and hard for this polar shift in the polity and can find no evidence of it. When did Fullbright join the Republican party?
He who controls the present controls the past, and he who controls the past controls the future–Orwell
And, in true Orwellian fashion, we are forced to use language whose meaning is endlessly perverted by our foes. The suggestion that we accept this, coming, as it does, from a conservative site, bodes ill for our future success.
For Wilhentz to be right, one would have to believe that the racists left the party that voted against the CRA, to join the party that overwhelmingly voted for it.
A majority of Democrats voted against the CRA.
A majority of Republicans voted for it.
States are comprised of individuals and as a collective, the state is to a degree an individual. When the collective agrees on a point, i.e., Arizona’s immigration law, and it is supported by the majority, how can this be interpreted as a code word for “Jim Crow”? I agree with the terminology, state’s rights and am by no means a racist. I supported the Civil Rights Bill and still do. To Hell with Rand Paul, another looney like his dad! He and another member of the three righ circus, McMahon, will help sink the chances of Republicans and conservatives come November.
“[S]tates’ rights” is a misnomer. It’s an impossible thing. It doesn’t exist, and shouldn’t.”
Ya think?
I think different.
*************************************
Here’s the thing.
State entities pretty much manage day-to-day issues. You know; highway construction. Drivers’ licenses. Criminal courts.
You don’t need too much dough to pay these people to do what they need to do.
So.
WHY are they making such good salaries, and HOW can we change it!
I guess what I’m saying is, let’s reduce necessary government functions down to where they need to be.
At the lowest cost.
Is that nuts?
Constitutional Federalism
Sorry Mr Green, the commenters make a lot more sense than you do. As for me, I’m sick to death of leftists unilaterally redefining the language, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for abetting them. You lost me in your first paragraph with that talk about “code words” and “vile racists”. Those are what passes for intelligent discourse among leftists.
Words mean what they say. “Gay” means happy. “Is” is the present tense of the verb “to be”. And, as Francis W Porretto so eloquently writes today, “racist” is the antonym of “fool”.
As George Will said in the passage you quoted, the Civil Rights Act destroyed the rights to freedom of association and to private property. You seem to think that was a good thing. And you claim to be a “fellow” conservative and/or libertarian? Apparently you have redefined those words, too.
Let’s have a little less hysteria, and a little more of facts and logic.
I don’t associate the term “states rights” with Jim Crow, but I’m a foreigner. The phrase “states rights” refers to various freedoms that state governments used to have, independent of Federal Government approval or disapproval. The Federal fist has squeezed and choked most of those freedoms.
If you must have a new label why not use the phrase “constitutional freedoms”?
Nicely put, Steven. I fully concur.
I cringe whenever I hear a conservative use the words “state’s rights”. I am old enough to remember George Wallace carrying five states in 1968, and it is his image that comes to my mind whenever people use that term. I wonder if the commenters who are baffled by this observation are simply not old enough to recall that era. I suspect they may not know the original words to the schoolyard rhyme that starts “Eenie, meenie, minie, moe”, either.
And thanks for clarifying the constitutional distinction between rights and powers. It is a subtlety I had not fully appreciated before.
I wish I had a catchy term to replace “state’s rights”. All the alternatives that we use are dry and technical. Words like “devolution” and “local sovereignty” and even “federalism” and “10th Amendment” don’t really capture the feeling of rejecting federal control over our lives. I suspect the term is still in use because it sounds good to the people who don’t remember George Wallace.
In any case, I await your exegesis of the Invasion clause of Article IV, Section 4, and how it relates to Arizona SB1070.
BBB
..um I don’t speak for the young, while not old, but this came out of left field. I am guessing the term is on it’s way out if it was ever in (my guess would have been abortion related). just my 2/100$. you da man.
So what would you suggest a politician say in a public speech. Hear is what I have been saying.
The 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
This is a Kentucky civil right. It’s a civil right because it’s in the constitution, it’s one of the amendments that is part of the bill of rights, and it was voted on and passed by the first session of the US Congress.
If Kentucky’s right to govern itself isn’t a civil right, or it can be ignored by our elected officials then is anything in the constitution a right.
I think the Kentucky House needs to do more to challenge the federal government.
It should pass Representative Stan Lee’s House Resolution 10, affirming the 10th amendment of the constitution.
How about “states’ powers?”
Stephen,
I suggest you also add the word “boy” to your list. Or if not, please give even one reason that does not also apply to “States’ rights”.
Just going down a list of democrats who opposed the CIvil rights act in the Senate. . . couldn’t be bothered to finish it, but I think even this makes the point. . .
Hill from Alabama: Retired a democrat.
Sparkman from Alabama: Retired a democrat.
McCLellan of Arkansas: Died a democrat.
Fullbright from Arkansas: Retired a democrat
Holland of FLorida: Lifelong democrat
Smathers from FLorida: A lifelong democrat
Russel from Georgia: Democrat, never switched
Talmadge from Georgia: Retired a democrat.
Ellender and Long from LOuisiana: Democrats until out of politics.
Stennis(Miss), 41 years – all as a democrat.
Eastland(Miss) 35 years, all as a democrat
JOrdan and Ervin of NOrth Carolina, both lifelong democrats.
JOhnston of SOuth Carolina: Lifelong democrat
Strom THurmond: Here we find the FIRST party switcher
Al GOre Sr(Tenn) Lifelong democrat
I suggest we form a search committee to find a language that no one is currently using, because so many of us seem resigned to ceding English to the bed-wetting libs. “States’ Rights” is only code for racial discrimination when conservatives use the phrase. Lib-Dems, like Chuck Schumer, are perfectly comfortable using the phrase in defense of unconstitutional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. Oddly, they don’t believe states have any “rights” to pass gun laws more lenient than those legislated by the US Congress.
Here’s the problem we have today: the CRA64 was well intended, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. The federal legislature and/or the federal judiciary had every “right” to ban de jura racial discrimination. People have the right to control their own property and Jim Crow made it illegal for a business owner to serve whomever he chose to serve. However, subsequent federal legislation, regulation, and judicial activism have FUBARed any hope of a color blind society.
It’s not very likely that a proper constitutional amendment would have been achievable in 1964, but it would pass easily today. Private property rights are not unconditional, nor is the right to free association. However, restrictions on those rights should be narrow and tailored to serve the intended purpose of equal access.
The libs absolutely do not want to have that conversation, though. They much prefer our current system of “words and the constitution mean what we say they mean”, and do not want The People (those louts!) deciding how much bureaucratic interference into our daily interactions is just and proper. I believe the America of 2010 would heartily approve of an amendment that strikes a decent compromise between individual rights and government coercion in the interest of non-discrimination. It would, however, lay waste to great swaths of the “progressive” agenda.
Talk amongst yourselves.
Last time I checked, it was titled the United STATES of America. Guess, I’m wrong. How about reprinting everything the Federal Republic of America for a little truth in advertising. Then maybe we can get along with doing away with 50 redundant sub administrative governmental layers of the Beltway mandate crowd.
Every year we seem to accept more and more laws that prohibit our rights as business owners to serve our customers as we see fit. Starting with bans on smoking and later extending to the use of cooking oils we use to produce a flavor that people actually want to consume. Every year we see more and more things demonized and the Government continues to strong arm business to the point where people no longer enjoy our product.
After years of regulations like this, I finally opted to take my ball and go home. Without states rights, the Federal nanny state would ban, restrict and make our lives as little fun as possible.
this topic seems best suited to a santa barbara cocktail party…..Much Ado About…zip
I wish someone would enumerate the state’s rights. Before the Civil War, “State’s Rights” was a mantra that meant the right to squat on Indian land, the right to elect crooked legislatures and judges, and right for each state to either choose slavery or abolish it.
Of course, the champions of state’s Rights were great supporters of the federal Fugitive Slave Law…
I’m just curious…to those who think the Civil Rights Act was such a good thing…reverse discrimination is the order of the day, with everyone but white anglo-saxon males getting one benefit after another. Do you think this is fair? To be unfair to some in order to achieve what one person thinks is equal?
I have a better idea. Let’s scrap all the laws that tell us how to think. After all, fifty years after trying to desegregate blacks, they have segregated themselves. After outlawing whites only anything, we have blacks only everything.
This is a success?
Racism is a fact of life. That it is bad is a liberal lie. Everyone else in the world practices racism. Like any self-defense trait, when it is used with false information, it is only you that gets hurt. Let’s stop the liberal lie that tells us we have to think this way or that, be fair to this or that by being unfair to someone else.
Stand on your own merits or fall. If you get help, let it be from someone who gave it voluntarily, not from someone who took it from someone else involuntarily.
Hate crime laws are simply laws against conservatives to punish them for daring to hurt a liberal. Don’t believe me? When one liberal hurts another, no news…black on black, etc. When conservatives hurt each other, good for some laughs, but no real outcry. When a conservative hurts a liberal (invariably not a white male, but even those rare times it is, he gets the good treatment from a fawning press), Katy bar the door, it’s a travesty, a miscarriage of justice, it’s worse than Hitler somehow, etc., etc.
It’s just the left’s way of cutting you up into smaller groups, then setting you against each other.
Wise up.
Having govt usurp private individuals property rights by telling them what their racial policies must be is bad. So bad in fact that the only response to it is to have govt usurp private individual property rights by telling them what their racial policies must be.
God bless you, Stephen Green.
It was the states that created the federal govt, not the people. The federal constitution primarily defined the relationship between the federal govt and the state govts. At the time of the signing, it was believed the the people would spend most of their time interacting with their local and state govts, and have very little contact with the national govt.
To put it another way.
The people who wrote the constitution, were sent to the convention as representatives of the various states.
Or, for those of you who need to be led by the hand, the states existed first, and the feds got their rights from the states. Got it?
I want to win, in November 2010, January 2012, and beyond. If winning the battles and the war is helped by using terminology that doesn’t immediately cloud the statists eyes with blood so that they have no hope of listening to reason, I’m good with that.
Well written, Steve, thanks.
This might be a useful linguistic device. Frequently, the phrase United States is used in the singular form, as in “The United States is ….” Whenever possible, how about using it in the plural, as in “The United States are . . . .”
No and No.
Right On Stephen.
Individuals have rights, and only individuals have rights. Period. The term “individual rights” is a redundancy made necessary by the chaos over the term “right” brought about by Leftists and abetted by conservatives.
The notion that any government has “rights” is a collectivist premise which is perfectly compatible with Leftist collectivis. This makes all those comments from conservatives about Leftists “redefining their terms” such a laugh; for once, they did no such thing. Nice try, conservatives, but not this time!
You hoisted their own petard on that one; the shift in emphasis away from individual right to “states’ rights” had its origins in various rationalizations intended to justify the South’s rebellion against the Union as being something other than what it was: a war over slavery, which is as plain a repudiation of individual rights as can be.
Yes, the Founders too made this error as the language of the Tenth shows us. But in their context, that’s all it is — an error. We who have the benefit of two hundred and thirty more years of history to observe the consequences of that error, do not have that excuse.
And State’s Rights were also derided after the Civil War, but not for reasons of race, but because it did hold the power of self-governance at a lower level. This is stated most clearly:
That, in part, from Chapter X of the autobiography of Theodore Roosevelt.
Yes words and emotional baggage do have meaning, but they are often separate meanings in which the emotional baggage does not address the heart of the actual meaning and, instead, attempts to distort it. The reason TR did not abide by State’s Rights was the conception that the ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ Nation would be centralized in power, and very few functions handed out to the periphery. The move to try and centralize the government was noted by many Anti-Federalists in 1787-89 because the investing of more power to a central government tends to remove the checks and balances between the States and the federal government. The States, plural, needed an arbiter and regularization method between them for such things as trade, thus the regulation part of the federal government isn’t top downwards, but an way to codify agreements between the States to allow equal application of the law so none are discriminated against.
In two places inside the Constitution’s main body are the States recognized to have not only the full equality of application of the law in Art IV, Sec 4, but also in Article I. In particular is a clause to negate the restrictions upon the States (singular or plural) in cases of invasion or in such Danger that will not admit of delay. Thus not only is equal application of the law to the States guaranteed but so is equal protection of all States not only from external actors, but for any time the federal government cannot or will not afford equal protection against invasion or Danger. Thus these sovereign entities determined by the people have the power to protect the people if the federal government cannot or will not do so.
To give up these meanings due to the emotional baggage of Jim Crow or antebellum activities, or indeed any other time in our history when those seeking to concentrate power seek to deride the ability of the people to be sovereign, is extremely dangerous and is giving in to having us forget these important concepts of sovereignty, equal application of the law and equal protection of the law. I will not throw out these vital concepts because some marginal portion of the polity is authoritarian and wishes to have these concepts dismissed from our minds via tying them with bad actions and actors of the past that have been addressed by later laws to ensure not only the full equality of application but equality of protection to all citizens. The problem was not in State’s Rights but in the non-recognition of elected officials of the equality of all citizens under the law.
I do not enjoy the amount of centralization we already have as it has produced an extremely brittle system unable to respond to the changes in society and economy that have happened over the last century, and as more power is asserted to be at the highest and least accountable place of government, that is at the National level, our ability to self-govern at the lowest levels is put at peril by those who do not reside locally but in distant locations and from unelected, bureaucratic positions. In pure self-protection from an overbearing federal system that now is no longer balanced between the National, States and the people, but seeks to invest more power into the National level, I support, wholeheartedly the concept of self-governance at the State level so that the National level can have its cards called by those who instantiated the National government: the States. The Constitution was for We the People, but it is a document signed off on by the States, not the people. The ones who hold the agreement, then, for the people are the States, not the federal governmment. And I steadfastly refuse to give up that conception no matter what emotional baggage is attempted to be attached to it. My life and liberty depend on this concept. And so does yours.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Roosevelt was a progressive, regardless whether he was a Republican or not. We keep trying to tell you, it’s not about R and D. It’s about conservative or progressive. The socialists are the ones who want one world government, under communist rule, but they are in both parties. Roosevelt himself was a Federalist, and you can’t invoke a Federalist’s argument as to why State’s Rights isn’t legal. It’s sort of like taking a dieticians opinion of a honeybun. Not exactly unbiased. Roosevelt would have been against State’s Rights if it had been codified into law, because it weakened the Federal Government. He considered this a bad thing, as do you, I’m sure. We consider it a good thing.
You quote from the Declaration of Independence. Although I love that document. It has no real authority over the United States. The United States Constitution, is the document that has all of the authority. The constitution sets up the federal government which is formed by the PEOPLE. The constitution states the powers for the federal government and gives all other powers to the STATES and the PEOPLE. The constitution was created in the late 1700′s. Jim Crowe and those laws came after the civil war in the late 1800′s. The states have always had rights, congress and the presidents have slowly eroded those rights over the last century. The courts have kept them in check somewhat but not all of these encrochments have been taken to court.
True story: During the Civil War there was a Confederate general named States Rights Gist. Given that rather unusual name by his parents for reasons we probably all can guess. By all accounts, a decent guy for his time and a very good general. But still a general for the Confederacy, fighting a war to keep slavery. States Rights Gist.
To me, that’s not a good association for the term “states’ rights.” And reason enough to get rid of it.
No, there are not just individual rights. There is also “the right of the majority,” which is the right to legislate those matters that are not matters of individual right, and in our system of federalism, “states rights” are the purest form of this “right of the majority.” There are also rights of the majority at the federal level, but they are circumscribed by the federal government’s system of limited enumerated powers (or what was supposed to be a system of limited enumerated powers, since deceased). At the state level, government power is generally open ended: whatever is not proscribed to the government (individual rights) is open to legislation.
Of course states can also limit government power, but this is under the control of the majority, not a matter of immutable natural right, as individual rights are. Violate individual rights and a state no longer has a republican form of government in the American sense (where the purpose of government is to establish and protect liberty under law).
Mr. Green may be right about the impolitic history of the “states rights” term, which rose to prominence over Jim Crow, but that was never a correct usage to begin with, as Jim Crow violated individual rights and hence was not properly within the purview of states rights. Personally, I think this country needs to get over its idiotic sensitivity to everything black. More than half the voters actually elected a racist-communist-Islmofascist on the grounds that, if there was nothing disqualifying, they were supposed to “hire” the black guy (whose disqualifications were all suppressed by our race-conscious media). Is it really not enough to note that Jim Crow was NOT properly a matter of states rights?
The US Constitution & the federal government that flows from it were creations of the thirteen states. In essence, it is their agent.
Now, the thirteen states were originally created by the king of England, but through the Revolution they got redefined to be governments of the people, and thus inherently they have only those powers that the people of those states grant them, out of the people’s rights.
Remember, the Left is constantly trying to create new “rights” such as the “right” to housing or “right” to a job and now a “right” to tourism, which are essentially privileges and not rights. It might be fine and dandy to deign to grant a power to a government to give out the privilege of housing, but to call it a right means that inherently you have a claim on everyone else to give you a home, meaning that they are in some small measure, enslaved to you.
I think the author has an excellent point, but not exactly for the reasons stated. The concept of “states’ rights” doesn’t offend libertarians because of Jim Crow–it offends because “rights” are things that individuals have, by virtue of being, as Jefferson put it, endowed by their creator. In the eyes of our Founders, governments don’t have rights or create rights, governments are bestowed “powers” by the people that create the governments. Thus, whatever “powers” are not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or the people. If you think your rights are bestowed by the government, you’re lost. Worse if you think governments have “rights.”
You are all basically right, but here is where you are wrong:
It’s not about state’s rights, it’s about your citizenship: The Founding Fathers were citizens of their states, NOT residents. Thru their citizenship they were represented BY their states to the federal government. There was no direct control, in either direction!
Today, most have contracted to become “persons subject to the jurisdiction” as citizens of the U.S. directly, making them “residents” of their states instead. What does this mean? It means you no longer have recourse to the original ten amendments to the Constitution.
Don’t believe me? Read the contract: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14toc_user.html
I agree. Let’s start by refusing-refusing- to cede the battle ground of semantics to the left. For years, libertarians and conservatives have essentially said, “Okay, I see your point and therefore move to defend my position using different words.” The result? Our next position is labeled racist, homophobic, etc. I for one have tired of this little game. Words means things, and allowing dishonest folk to distort the clear intent of the utterer on a daily basis has made us weaker.
Ehh, Jeff Goldstein has made- and still makes- this point much more eloquently that I can, so I’ll stop this line of argument. But as others have pointed out, the idea of states rights predates Jim Crow. The fact that some people are either (a) historically illiterate or (b) dishonest (lefties, take a bow) or (c) both, does not mean that I should enable their crap.
A better way to proceed? How about our political opponents debating our ideas honestly and openly, instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks and distortions? If the Left should choose to engage me in that manner, they and I will have some good back and forth. Until that day though, they can sod off.
And right on cue from Jeff:
The argument presented is unconvincing.
Set aside even the Bill of *Rights* for a moment and consider the organization set up within the US Constitution itself.
The *people* have always elected the members of the US House of Representatives – but until the 17th Amendment it was the state legislatures of the various states that selected/elected the US Senators.
Those same Senators, when conducting business in the US Senate, voted their state’s interests even as their counterparts in the US House of Representatives voted in the interests of the people of their respective states.
That smacks of exercising a right of the state, not necessarily just exercising a power.
After all, the right to vote is…ahem…a *right*.
Scott: Yes! But by 1913 the 17th catered to a different constituency, didn’t it? See my #67.
I don’t think there can be any question that the South had the better legal case in the lead-up to the Civil War. The fact of the matter is that all matters of government not explicitly granted the Federal Government were to devolve to the sundry States. There is zero question in my mind that Jefferson would have sided with the South.
If we are going to get nit-picky, we should say “States Rights” was the principle behind secession, not Jim Crow.
We need to remember, too, that in LeftSpeak racist means “rhetorical superior”, nothing more. Just as an average cop can find something to pull you over for within a few blocks, the average leftists can “spot” in any flash of ideological deviancy the poison of “racism.” You will get called a racist if you do ANYTHING but nod mindlessly.
I apologize if another commenter has already pointed this out (it’s what I get for skimming stuff in moment stolen from what I’m supposed to be doing behind my desk), but really the Xth Amendment doesn’t *say* that states have rights. It certainly implies that they do, or might, but it leaves unclarified what those rights may be, and ventures absolutely nothing about what is or ought to be the balance of authority as between any particular state and its citizens. The drafters of the Bill, just like the drafters of the basic document, were nothing if not extremely competent and careful draftsmen. So I don’t think that ambiguity was at all accidental. I think the better interpretation is that the people of each state are free, subject to the limitations of the Supremacy Clause, to decide for themselves what attributes of sovereignty they choose to permit their states, as legal entities or collectives, to exercise for them. F’rinstance, I don’t think a state may infringe the right of an individual to keep and bear arms (it says “shall not be infringed” without specifying by whom it is proposed to infringe it; compare the Establishment Clause which prohibits only Congress from passing any law in respect of an establishment of religion), but nowhere does it say that as between the people of State X and State X itself, the power to establish a militia may be exercised by the state as such and only by the state. However foolish it might be to try to do it that way, and whatever the invitation to Big Trouble would be entailed by doing it that way, I just don’t see any federal constitutional prohibition on a state’s constitution providing that individual citizens may form a militia and establish its governance, and having done so, have those forces be the sole or joint exercise of such military power as is not prohibited to that state by the U. S. Constitution. Of the proposed alternatives to the (admittedly unfortunate and encumbered) phrase “states’ rights,” I kind of like “federalism” the best. It has, in addition to its semantic advantages, the additional benefit of historical reference to a group of public men for whom the division of authority, both horizontal and vertical, was very much a front-and-center concept and who intentionally had set up the constitution’s framework precisely to preserve that division. “Constitutionalism” doesn’t really get it for me. The Soviet Union had a constitution, after all, while Britain has effectively none, yet who will argue that authority to bugger the citizen six ways to Sunday was better contained under the former than the latter?
Surrendering the language to those who use it dishonestly against the people, is just that: surrender.
So we cede the term ‘state’s rights’ and use something that is less offensive to our foes. Until they assert that this new phrasing is ‘code’ for the last. And we cede again, looking ever more guilty of the crimes our foes claim we hold in our thoughts–after all, we’re admitting that our terminology is whatever they say it is–AND something that needs to be apologised for and censored.
And we find a new term…
Eventually, we find ourselves mutely accepting the collars our masters place on our necks because we have agreed that they should be allowed to muzzle us forever.
You sure picked the subject for a LOT of feedback.
Let me understand you. This is a time when the feds are taking to issue a state that decides to excersise it’s right to follow the law of the land in dealing with immigration.
Also at issue is the federal regulatory response to a states right to protect it’s own seashore, private citizens, their businesses and a national seafood industry from a government that is unresponsive except to lay blame on big oil and it’s own complicit agencies.
And you are taking us back to a time when the several states excersised their right to segregate?
Why did you use an argument in the semantics, qualifying ‘states rights’ as ‘jim crow’, to lean us all back onto the race card?
Leave the 19th century where it landed and come forward a bit will ya, and quit apologizing for the history that still eats at you. you are starting to sound like Barry O’
I’m not leaning in your direction.
Self-defined Liberals are only about one-half of the self-defined Conservatives in poll after poll. But the libs have learned to game the system better. So unless Conservative America rises up and throws out this fascist liberal bunch…
…the only question at this point in time is: who will be the Augustus?
I have NEVER linked states rights with Jim Crow. To do so simply reflects an obsessive-compulsive liberal trait to be politically correct even when unnecessary. The premise of this entire article reeks of PC gone insane. Perhaps Mr. Green should take up hand wringing or rug fringe straightening instead, it’s much less offensive to people with half a brain and no particular bone to pick.
being a “state” is a right of association.
I should have stronger lobby with my State than my Fed, no? and so with District, County, City,.. down to Family. Sibling , Spouse , and Self.
On tbat note… I wonder if there is a correllation between state identity and the national whatever (debt, right infringement, etc. same thing)
And speaking of lobbies, where is the Lobby for the average citizen/voter?
The word “Rights” when applied to the Constitution is often misused. A basic dictionary definition of “Rights” is “Moral or Legal Entitlements”. In the context used by the founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution it is clear that they are attributing Moral Rights to individuals. The Founding fathers refer to the authority granted to government as “Powers”. Power is defined as political or social authority or control, authority being official permission or sanction. In the tradition of the Declaration of Independence, individuals have basic rights and to secure those rights they have instituted governments and delegated powers to those governments to secure their individual rights. The several states, using the powers delegated to them by the people, created the federal government, delegating certain limited powers to it. Governments do not have moral rights, they only have powers delegated to them by the people. These distinctions are being slowly undermined in favor of the left’s belief that there is a right to govern. And the left has been diligently strengthening the federal government at the expense of the state governments, with the ultimate enabler being the 17th Amendment, aided and abetted by the 16th Amendment. If the people are to regain control of their government, they will have to do it through their state governments. Stephen Green’s point I believe is that we need to restore State Powers with respect to the federal government, that is we need to re-establish the states power over the federal government in order to secure our individual rights.
Aw c’mon kids. It’s right there in the text of the Tenth Amendment. We should replace the usage of the phrase “state’s rights” with “reserved powers.”