The Demonization of States' Rights

[Adam Weinberg]

There is a persistence on the left that the building interest in States' Rights, interposition and nullification once again in mainstream politics is a thinly veiled return to the ideas of Jim Crow.

They insist that politicians and thinkers engaging in the notion that states should exercise greater control in the future of their affairs are speaking in code to an audience favorable to returning to a time when people of color were treated as second class citizens.

But it's the left that is speaking in code. They want people who cannot decide whether the 10th amendment is a good thing for them to think this is merely the province of old white folks longing for a time more reminiscent of Gone With the Wind.

When they say that States' Rights are a relic of the segregationist era, they are really saying "These people are just racists and you don't want to get mixed up with them and their ancient ideas, do you?"

It is no different than the standard rhetorical approach to silence arguments for limited government intervention in the economy. "You are simply selfish. You want America's economy/poor Americans to suffer."

It comes from the belief that if the Federal Government does not do it, it will not happen. And once the bureaucracy is well in place, the delusional idea that before the Federal Government did it, the services and resources it now provides were never provided.

10 years ago we lived in a country that had no federal Department of Homeland Security. We are poorer in general for its existence and continued expansion. Before some conservatives stir in their seats for thinking me unpatriotic for saying so, remember that Reagan said government programs once launched never voluntarily reduce themselves in size. It doesn't matter what you call a government department or what its purpose happens to be. Its natural instinct is to expand and regulate our affairs and in doing so deprive the general public of resources.

Some of you reading this were born before the departments of Education and Energy existed. Education, energy, and national security were all provided for in some fashion prior to the introduction of these institutions.

When we look at the federal management of education and energy, it is hard to say that the impact they have had has been one that yields general prosperity and the best policy making for the people who reside in the states.

But the left and even their helpful associates in the Republican Party thrive on the misconception that we need the Federal government's benevolent assistance on every issue, regardless of the sound advice of the Constitution. They need this idea to be as widely distributed as possible because it would absolutely kill the expansion of power in Washington and critical goals of the American left (and I admit, certainly some goals of those who call themselves conservatives).

The bottom line is this: the Tenth amendment is our birthright as Americans just as much as the First and the Second. It is an institution that can maintain our states as vibrant and self-sufficient places for Americans to live, work, and govern their own affairs most effectively.

Do we need any greater example in our times of the Federal government being too top heavy when our states must beg for essential aid and stimulus money for infrastructure and economic programs, and when they must meet endless federal standards for the operation of their institutions while being deprived of resources to accomplish the same?

Just like segregation and institutional racism, large centralization of economic resources is really one of the most outdated and discredited ideas on how to run a country.

Quite frankly, it does not matter whether you are rightist or leftist in this discussion. This will work as well for tax-happy California as tax-reluctant Nevada.

If you ask many of the constituents of the left, they understand the self-sufficient and sustainable idea of "buying local", and yet many will grow reluctant at the idea of "governing local".

You can't launch new initiatives for your interests, public or private, if all of your valuable resources developed by yourself and the people that you live around sit in the public coffers in Washington. This is absolutely a matter of us (as people living in the states) versus them (the institutions and political class that look to Washington as the solution to our problems).

There is an entire generation of Americans that understand this very basic idea who never lived in the time of racial segregation, and the farther we get from those dark days, the more our growing interest in the founding principles of this country is bringing us back to how a functioning and prosperous Republic really works.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

It's crazy how both you and I posted something regarding states rights at nearly the exact same time.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

This is our moment! We are the ones we've been waiting for!

The time is just ripe for this discussion. More than ever, it's becoming clear why big government doesn't favor the people, but the political class and already powerful institutions.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

This is our moment! We are the ones we've been waiting for!

The time is just ripe for this discussion. More than ever, it's becoming clear why big government doesn't favor the people, but the political class and already powerful institutions.

With me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for a reduced federal government and letting the states have more control in their own affairs.

For me, I need look no further than my own state as proof. Michigan is failing, unquestionably so. But our solutions to our problems must start and end here. Only we can do what is right for our own situations, not the federal government.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

Obviously, we're not talking about secession here, but I think a lot of the same themes factor into this discussion.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It is the South's fault that State's Rights and the 10th Amendment are easily parried by leftists. This is one of many reasons why I hate the South.

Prior to secession, state's rights were affirmed by New England when it opposed the War of 1812, refusing even to finance the war with its banks (because Southern politicians had retardedly cut off their own capital by axing the National Bank). They were also affirmed when John Adams retardedly signed the Alien & Sedition Acts...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It is the South's fault that State's Rights and the 10th Amendment are easily parried by leftists. This is one of many reasons why I hate the South.

Prior to secession, state's rights were affirmed by New England when it opposed the War of 1812, refusing even to finance the war with its banks (because Southern politicians had retardedly cut off their own capital by axing the National Bank). They were also affirmed when John Adams retardedly signed the Alien & Sedition Acts...

It can be argued that the South has remained consistently strong in their position on States Rights and the 10th Amendment.This was the cause for the Civil War, contrary to false accusations. You have a very warped perception of history, it's as if you have been taught by a communist.

 

[Minister of Truth]

It can be argued that the South has remained consistently strong in their position on States Rights and the 10th Amendment.This was the cause for the Civil War, contrary to false accusations. You have a very warped perception of history, it's as if you have been taught by a communist.

How come you morons supported FDR 100%, then? Basically you signed yourselves over to his protection without batting an eye. That's a ringing endorcement for your committment to state's rights if there ever was one.

Also, how can you morons have been fighting for State's Rights during the Civil War when you wholeheartedly supported the Fugitive Slave Laws (plus actual enforcement debates) aaaaannnndddd Dred Scot??? But, right, those particular instances were not in your self interest, which is ALL that the South ever has and ever will support. From Proportional Representation & the 3/5 Clause, to the Civil War items I just mentioned, to the New Deal, and so on, its a lot of greed and power hunger, but little to no principle.

BTW, your avatar is communist.

 

[wanderingbear]

I disagree. "States rights" is something the Liberals want. The Conservatives are trying to return to the ideas of Jim Crow

 

[apple0154]

When they say that States' Rights are a relic of the segregationist era, they are really saying "These people are just racists and you don't want to get mixed up with them and their ancient ideas, do you?"

It is no different than the standard rhetorical approach to silence arguments for limited government intervention in the economy. "You are simply selfish. You want America's economy/poor Americans to suffer."

It comes from the belief that if the Federal Government does not do it, it will not happen. And once the bureaucracy is well in place, the delusional idea that before the Federal Government did it, the services and resources it now provides were never provided.

There is nothing delusional about the idea that before the Federal Government did it, the services and resources it now provides were never provided. They weren’t. That’s why Social Security and other social programs came into being. How could a State, if subjected to something like being busted by the “dust bowl” of the 30’s, provide for its citizens?

The same thing is true with medical. Services to all was never provided. It’s been discussed for over 50 years! Can you think of just one State where everyone is insured? If the Federal Government doesn’t do something who is going to do it? Certainly not the States. They had plenty of time to do something.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. The Federal Government is not going to get involved if a State is supplying a certain service. It’s because the State(s) is not supplying a service that causes the Feds to get involved.

But the left and even their helpful associates in the Republican Party thrive on the misconception that we need the Federal government's benevolent assistance on every issue, regardless of the sound advice of the Constitution.

The Constitution was written 200 years ago. Unless the Framers were psychic they had no idea how the world would change. For example, Presidential elections in November and the transfer of power in January. Why? The time was necessary for the elected President to get to Washington. He was coming by horse!

Considering it took that long to organize something of such importance imagine the difficulty in communicating by letter regarding problems. The States needed to be self-sufficient or self-determining. There was no other option. They had to make their own decisions.

It’s a whole new ball game today. When it comes to things like medical it is possible for everyone to be covered. Dozens of countries have done it; large and small, rich and poor. One State may have difficulty swinging it but with the combined contributing power of all the States, through the Federal Government, it can be easily accomplished.

Whether it be SS or other programs or medical the reason the Federal Government gets involved is because those services were not, or are not, being provided.


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

There is a persistence on the left that the building interest in States' Rights, interposition and nullification once again in mainstream politics is a thinly veiled return to the ideas of Jim Crow.

They insist that politicians and thinkers engaging in the notion that states should exercise greater control in the future of their affairs are speaking in code to an audience favorable to returning to a time when people of color were treated as second class citizens.

But it's the left that is speaking in code. They want people who cannot decide whether the 10th amendment is a good thing for them to think this is merely the province of old white folks longing for a time more reminiscent of Gone With the Wind.

When they say that States' Rights are a relic of the segregationist era, they are really saying "These people are just racists and you don't want to get mixed up with them and their ancient ideas, do you?"

It is no different than the standard rhetorical approach to silence arguments for limited government intervention in the economy. "You are simply selfish. You want America's economy/poor Americans to suffer."

It comes from the belief that if the Federal Government does not do it, it will not happen. And once the bureaucracy is well in place, the delusional idea that before the Federal Government did it, the services and resources it now provides were never provided.

10 years ago we lived in a country that had no federal Department of Homeland Security. We are poorer in general for its existence and continued expansion. Before some conservatives stir in their seats for thinking me unpatriotic for saying so, remember that Reagan said government programs once launched never voluntarily reduce themselves in size. It doesn't matter what you call a government department or what its purpose happens to be. Its natural instinct is to expand and regulate our affairs and in doing so deprive the general public of resources.

Some of you reading this were born before the departments of Education and Energy existed. Education, energy, and national security were all provided for in some fashion prior to the introduction of these institutions.

When we look at the federal management of education and energy, it is hard to say that the impact they have had has been one that yields general prosperity and the best policy making for the people who reside in the states.

But the left and even their helpful associates in the Republican Party thrive on the misconception that we need the Federal government's benevolent assistance on every issue, regardless of the sound advice of the Constitution. They need this idea to be as widely distributed as possible because it would absolutely kill the expansion of power in Washington and critical goals of the American left (and I admit, certainly some goals of those who call themselves conservatives).

The bottom line is this: the Tenth amendment is our birthright as Americans just as much as the First and the Second. It is an institution that can maintain our states as vibrant and self-sufficient places for Americans to live, work, and govern their own affairs most effectively.

Do we need any greater example in our times of the Federal government being too top heavy when our states must beg for essential aid and stimulus money for infrastructure and economic programs, and when they must meet endless federal standards for the operation of their institutions while being deprived of resources to accomplish the same?

Just like segregation and institutional racism, large centralization of economic resources is really one of the most outdated and discredited ideas on how to run a country.

Quite frankly, it does not matter whether you are rightist or leftist in this discussion. This will work as well for tax-happy California as tax-reluctant Nevada.

If you ask many of the constituents of the left, they understand the self-sufficient and sustainable idea of "buying local", and yet many will grow reluctant at the idea of "governing local".

You can't launch new initiatives for your interests, public or private, if all of your valuable resources developed by yourself and the people that you live around sit in the public coffers in Washington. This is absolutely a matter of us (as people living in the states) versus them (the institutions and political class that look to Washington as the solution to our problems).

There is an entire generation of Americans that understand this very basic idea who never lived in the time of racial segregation, and the farther we get from those dark days, the more our growing interest in the founding principles of this country is bringing us back to how a functioning and prosperous Republic really works.

 

[asaratis]

Generalization is rampant in this thread...starting with the OP and expanding throughout. The South, The North, The Midwest, The Northeast....

How can any of you rationally claim to speak for any one of those eclectic groups?

If you truly hate the South or the North or the State of California or any defined region of the United States, you are a blithering idiot.

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

I disagree. "States rights" is something the Liberals want. The Conservatives are trying to return to the ideas of Jim Crow

You have just become the personification of what Adam was originally talking about.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It comes from the belief that if the Federal Government does not do it, it will not happen.

In a place with a highly integrated market and a great deal of labour market fluidity, a welfare state is impractical. No one is going to shed their American citizenship to avoid taxes that feed the poor, but it's very easy to simply make your home in another state. This creates a situation in which each state will shed its welfare state as fast as possible to get an artificial market advantage over the others - that will soon dissapear once other states are forced to eliminate theirs as well. In fact, this is what Libertarians are HOPING will happen. They know that a states rights welfare state means there will be no welfare state!


That's why welfare must be handled from the feds down. Otherwise we'll just be in a race to the bottom that won't benefit us economically at all and will just result in a massive decrease in American quality of life.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

With me, you're preaching to the choir. I'm all for a reduced federal government and letting the states have more control in their own affairs.

For me, I need look no further than my own state as proof. Michigan is failing, unquestionably so. But our solutions to our problems must start and end here. Only we can do what is right for our own situations, not the federal government.

Ah, the annoying appeal to in-group morality. In-group moralisms have absolutely no weight with me. I am a human first. Where the federal government can help, it should. There's no moral reason why states have any more claim over this than anyone else.

Some things its OK to let the states handle. But America must look out for its own when the situation calls for it. Caring for Americans is one of those areas.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It is the South's fault that State's Rights and the 10th Amendment are easily parried by leftists. This is one of many reasons why I hate the South.

Prior to secession, state's rights were affirmed by New England when it opposed the War of 1812, refusing even to finance the war with its banks (because Southern politicians had retardedly cut off their own capital by axing the National Bank). They were also affirmed when John Adams retardedly signed the Alien & Sedition Acts...

There's a good argument that the Confederacy effectively died of states rights.

 

[Adam Weinberg]

There is nothing delusional about the idea that before the Federal Government did it, the services and resources it now provides were never provided. They weren’t.

This is obnoxious. There was no education? No energy? No provision for people who were impoverished or unable to work any longer? They may not have been organized in the way you prefer, but don't condescend by suggesting that they did not exist as institutions.

Can you think of just one State where everyone is insured?

Virtually everyone is forced to buy insurance under the threat of penalties in Massachusetts. Now Washington and their happily-subsidized friends in the insurance industry wants to do the same against the will of the people in the states.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense. The Federal Government is not going to get involved if a State is supplying a certain service. It’s because the State(s) is not supplying a service that causes the Feds to get involved.

Of course it will. Every state has a provision for public education, and its own education bureaucracy, and yet the Federal department wants to monopolize the regulation and funding to the greatest extent it can.

Each state has its own agricultural industry and bureaucracy and yet the Federal government wishes to decide which crops and parts of the industries benefit from subsidies to grow and not grow crops.

The states and the people themselves should be making more of these decisions, and in doing so the results of the decision making process will reflect what is actually in the best interest of the public.

It's naive to assume they wouldn't want to exercise greater control once you give it to them. And it is not the Federal government's job beyond its constitutional responsibility to tell a state what services it should provide. Doing so is what creates all the unfunded mandates the states already cannot afford.

The Constitution was written 200 years ago. Unless the Framers were psychic they had no idea how the world would change.

Considering it took that long to organize something of such importance imagine the difficulty in communicating by letter regarding problems. The States needed to be self-sufficient or self-determining. There was no other option. They had to make their own decisions.

The founders were not psychic, but they were people of vision. They knew society would change but that the fundamentals of the law would not. The age of the Constitution is not a reason to subvert it. The Constitution has only proven to be more useful as it ages and the world becomes more complex.

As society becomes more complex, there are even more reasons to limit the role of big government in our affairs.

The founders were not being arbitrary in authoring the 10th amendment. There is a sound reason beyond the circumstances of their time and we are seeing it today. They would have much rather paid taxes to their state governments in which they had a reasonable chance of a representative voice than to pay taxes to the Crown and have no vote. And so too to the central government, where their access as citizens was limited (and overall, little has changed with the regular citizen's access to central government today).

Finally, they assigned limited powers to the central government. That wasn't a mistake. It was an intentional choice.

It’s a whole new ball game today. When it comes to things like medical it is possible for everyone to be covered. Dozens of countries have done it; large and small, rich and poor. One State may have difficulty swinging it but with the combined contributing power of all the States, through the Federal Government, it can be easily accomplished.

Whether it be SS or other programs or medical the reason the Federal Government gets involved is because those services were not, or are not, being provided.

Anything is possible. But possible is the people's business. The government's business should be what is legal.

Each state should decide for itself what kind of medical programs it wants and can afford. Forcing a one size fits all arrangement on the people is not constitutional and also impractical. If you want to fundamentally change the way our country works, at least have the decency to amend the Constitution like those other previous do-gooders, the Prohibitionists.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Generalization is rampant in this thread...starting with the OP and expanding throughout. The South, The North, The Midwest, The Northeast....

How can any of you rationally claim to speak for any one of those eclectic groups?

If you truly hate the South or the North or the State of California or any defined region of the United States, you are a blithering idiot.

Well I hate the South.


Oh, and Apple, the reason why the President took office on March 4 is because Washington took office on that day, and since he got to serve 4 year terms, exactly, his second term didn't expire until, March 4th.

 

[apple0154]

This is obnoxious. There was no education? No energy? No provision for people who were impoverished or unable to work any longer? They may not have been organized in the way you prefer, but don't condescend by suggesting that they did not exist as institutions.

I'm saying there was a better way. For example SS. The Feds had to do something during the depression. People were dying.

Virtually everyone is forced to buy insurance under the threat of penalties in Massachusetts. Now Washington and their happily-subsidized friends in the insurance industry wants to do the same against the will of the people in the states.

Because some people in some States won't be insured. What is going to happen to them?

Of course it will. Every state has a provision for public education, and its own education bureaucracy, and yet the Federal department wants to monopolize the regulation and funding to the greatest extent it can.

It wants uniformity.

Each state has its own agricultural industry and bureaucracy and yet the Federal government wishes to decide which crops and parts of the industries benefit from subsidies to grow and not grow crops.

Because the Feds have to think about what is best for the country as a whole.

The states and the people themselves should be making more of these decisions, and in doing so the results of the decision making process will reflect what is actually in the best interest of the public.

Not necessarily. They will decide what is in the best interest of that State. Don't we see enough of that already? Does the "bridge to nowhere" ring a bell?

It's naive to assume they wouldn't want to exercise greater control once you give it to them. And it is not the Federal government's job beyond its constitutional responsibility to tell a state what services it should provide. Doing so is what creates all the unfunded mandates the states already cannot afford.

It can't tell the States what to do but it can and should influence them. Again, there is a bigger picture than one State.

The founders were not psychic, but they were people of vision. They knew society would change but that the fundamentals of the law would not. The age of the Constitution is not a reason to subvert it. The Constitution has only proven to be more useful as it ages and the world becomes more complex.

As society becomes more complex, there are even more reasons to limit the role of big government in our affairs.

The more complex and intertwined the world becomes the more one has to look at the bigger picture. Resources are one area where the entire world has to get their sh!t together. Just consider the water problem.

The founders were not being arbitrary in authoring the 10th amendment. There is a sound reason beyond the circumstances of their time and we are seeing it today. They would have much rather paid taxes to their state governments in which they had a reasonable chance of a representative voice than to pay taxes to the Crown and have no vote. And so too to the central government, where their access as citizens was limited (and overall, little has changed with the regular citizen's access to central government today).

Finally, they assigned limited powers to the central government. That wasn't a mistake. It was an intentional choice.

And if one State wants to dam a river causing the neighboring State to have a water shortage that is good?

Each state should decide for itself what kind of medical programs it wants and can afford. Forcing a one size fits all arrangement on the people is not constitutional and also impractical. If you want to fundamentally change the way our country works, at least have the decency to amend the Constitution like those other previous do-gooders, the Prohibitionists.

Do you think the Framers of the Constitution considered medical care? Isn't decent, accessible medical care promoting the general welfare? What does "welfare" mean. If we say someone is responsible for a person's "welfare" wouldn't that include medical care? If so, then promoting the general welfare must include promoting medical care.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well I hate the South.

You shouldn't be so proud of your closed-minded bigotry. People might think you're the kind of person who often makes generalizations about entire groups of people, and form prejudiced opinions about groups of people, based on those generalizations or stereotypes. It's precisely that sort of mind that hates women, gay people, or blacks.

Most bigots would at least try to camouflage their bigotry... you should maybe try saying stuff like.... I have several Southern friends!

 

[Minister of Truth]

You shouldn't be so proud of your closed-minded bigotry. People might think you're the kind of person who often makes generalizations about entire groups of people, and form prejudiced opinions about groups of people, based on those generalizations or stereotypes. It's precisely that sort of mind that hates women, gay people, or blacks.

Most bigots would at least try to camouflage their bigotry... you should maybe try saying stuff like.... I have several Southern friends!

Every other region of this country either is now, or has been for some length of time in the past, great. New England was the greatest region of all from 1620 all the way until the postwar, and then it officially went to shit in the 90s. I don't hate it for being what it is today, because it was so great for so long. There is a lot to be said for that.

What separates some regions from the South is that they are has-beens, while the South is a never-was. At no point in its history has it ever possessed greatness or redeeming qualities. That is why I hate it.

And having friends, or at least knowing people who you respect, from the South is kind of unavoidable, I guess. The more they assimilate, though, the better.