Real Patriots Hate the Government
(Especially When a Socialist Fascist Kenyan Dictator has Overthrown Democracy)
 |
“States’ Rights” has been a buzzword in right-wing circles for a while now. The idea is that the individual states, within their borders, have the right to precedence over the federal government; that if a state doesn’t like a federal law, it can supersede it with a state law. Regardless of whether you agree with this idea–traditionally known as “nullification”–the right wing doesn’t practice it in good faith. To them, it’s a handy marketing tool, but certainly not a principle. When it comes to federal laws they don’t like, like legalized abortion or Obama’s health care plan, they trot it out for show.
However, when states start doing things they don’t like, the idea of states’ rights evaporates with astonishing stealth and speed. For example, under Bush, California instituted medicinal marijuana laws, but the Republican-led government overruled that and made a very overt point of enforcing the federal statutes in that regard. The same went for a right-to-die law in Oregon, which Bush attempted to override with federal drug laws. In short, the right wing doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “states’ rights,” they only care about their agenda, and “states’ rights” is an appealing election-year slogan that sounds good–but means only what they want it to mean, when they want it to mean it.
“Nullification” is beginning to see a revival, as is one of its historical champions, John C. Calhoun, who is not the most fantastic of icons to posit, considering that he also called slavery a “positive good,” and the issue of nullification was related to the South’s rebellion against the North on the basis of the states’ right to maintain the practice even if the federal government were to outlaw it.
Furthermore, they apparently were not aware that Calhoun later emigrated to the planet Beta III and started a idyllo-fascist society of Zombies under the alter-ego brand of “Landru.”
 |
Ok, all kidding aside, Calhoun still isn’t the best of role models here. But we are currently in a state where right-wingers are increasingly using terms like “nullification,” “secession,” and “Second Amendment solution” in regards to what are, in fact, very centrist policies of the Obama administration. This is more lynch-mob mentality than civic responsibility, more demagoguery than democracy. It is not about principle, it’s about politics.
I mean, seriously, health care? Who cares if it will save money in the long run–it’s a tax, and we have the constitutional right to pay double to insurance and pharmaceutical corporations in order to avoid paying any sort of fascist tax.
Let’s face it, this is not nullification of any unconstitutional tyranny, this is about right-wingers hating the fact that right-wingers don’t control the government any more, and so are throwing hysterical hissyfits right and left based on whatever flimsily-slapped-together rationalizations they can sell to an eagerly hateful mob.
The stupid thing is that the mandate idea is very conservative, it was proposed by the Republicans in 1993, it was favored by the Heritage Foundation, and of course it was part of Romney’s reforms in MA.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/27/republicans-hatched-idea-obamas-health-insurance-mandate/
The spiral of idiocy that is happening in the states would be shocking if it wasnt so pathetic. I cringe every time I catch news from the states. Oh well, I wont ever live there again but I do worry for my friends and family that do.
Luis, I’ve been reading your blog for years, it’s the only Japan-based blog I read regularly and I’ve recommended it to others many times. I can depend on you to make me feel sane when I wonder if I’m the only American in Japan getting worked up about the nonsense going on in the U.S.
I remember you writing that you started your blog because it was a waste to comment at length on different sites and it was good discipline to write every day. I’m now at the same point. Thank you for being an inspiration.
Theresa
Theresa: Thanks! Always glad to hear about ripple effects. A blog can be many things, including cathartic. Enjoy!
Basically their agenda is to make the rich richer and powerful more powerful.
They are willing to go to any lengths and they’ll throw any junk or rogue philosophy at the public that they can come up with. And since the rich and powerful own the means of communication, it gets publicized.
The minute they get control of the federal government, they’ll throw states rights out the window.
The big danger to them is if 75% of us ever get the sense that we are in a ‘matrix’ of their creation and act uniformly to destroy it.
That’s not much of a danger for them, though. As Mark Twain said in Huckleberry Finn “Don’t we have all the fools in town on our side? And isn’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
“Don’t we have all the fools in town on our side? And isn’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
Sadly 100 IQ is the median, not the floor.
Landru! too funny.
I have to ask – isn’t the left hypocritical as well… we will happily take both the right to die law and the medical marijuana law – even though they may violate federal law (not quite sure how the right to die law violates federal law). Maybe this is like playing to the ref in soccer – you see what you can get away with until you are called on it. Of course, as long as the right is doing it there is not much point in being the only side that doesn’t do it. I can hardly believe that I’m arguing for this sort of nonsense… but it does seem to follow logically… and to be in our self-interest. You are welcome to argue me down from this ledge (any of you).
So why do we have State’s governments anyway? And doesn’t the Constitution state that all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government devolve back to the States? Do you think Texas and Kansas and Connecticut all have identical desires and needs? Why shouldn’t they have the right to rule their own territory as they see fit? Why do they have to be puppets for Obama and Congress?
Under Obama, the Federal Government has been on a massive power grab and enlargement binge. People like Texans who don’t want an oversized, overly powerful bunch of people, thousands of miles away, telling them what to do and how to spend their money.
But, according to you, claiming the rights that they have under the Constitution and preferring not to have Nancy Pelosi write their laws for them makes these States a bunch of hypocrites. I guess you define hypocrisy as “any pushback against the Democratic agenda”.
Roger:
Thanks for noticing the Landru bit. It was either him or Doc Brown.
As for the meat of your comment: give me something to respond to. Ok, we take the medicinal marijuana and right-to-die laws. What do we not take that belongs at the state level? Immigration? That’s a federal issue. Where has Obama slapped down the states where the states should have precedence? What is the argument behind the precedence? Gay marriage has been mentioned as such an issue–but that’s being handled at the state level, I don’t see Obama dictating anything on that. The biggest noise is made over the health care bill, but that seems more like a ginned-up issue than anything else–how, for example, is Medicare different? Bring up some specifics, and then let’s get it discussed.
Afterthought: it slipped my mind that a side point is, the right wing is the one going on about states’ rights–not the left. The left is not trying to push the idea of states’ rights. I just note that that’s the irony: the right wing is touting states’ rights but does not follow up as much on it as the left does. As for what states’ rights means, that’s an interesting issue–states are not nearly as relevant today as they were 250 years ago, and the landscape has obviously changed–take the standing army, for example, which the founders detested. The right wing would never consider eliminating that, and yet the founders considered it the ultimate bane to states’ rights and freedoms.
I guess my point here is that states’ rights are not being brought up as a legitimate issue, but rather as a political tool.
Not a logical question. If states supersede the federal government, then why do we have the federal government? Works both ways. Fact is, each plays their part, each has their role.
Not to mention that, as it seems that you weren’t paying attention, when it comes down to it, the right wing is the one that’s ignoring the state’s rights, not Obama or the left. When the states do something within their purview, involving citizens’ rights, like right-to-die issues for example, Bush smacked them down while Obama has upheld them; it is only when states intrude at elements which rightfully belong at the federal level, like immigration (which cannot be dealt with state-by-state), that Obama and the Dems fought back.
I am quoting all of this because I wanted to respond but could not find a single statement of fact or evidence within to respond to. Try adding stuff like that. In the response above, I give specific examples of what belongs at the state level and what belongs at the federal level. You do the same: make a list or at least give cogent examples of state’s rights that Obama has usurped, which Bush did not, and which deserve such hyperbole.
Until you do, then your writing just sounds like the generalized conspiracy-theory blather echoing the latest Fox News wild-eyed nuttery. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are trying to kill grandma! They’re turning our guv’mint into a fascist communist prison camp!
What continues to amaze me is the blindness. Bush and the GOP ran up trillions in debt and shot spending through the roof, but nobody much minded on the right–until Obama took office, where they started screaming hysterically, ironically much of it at spending initiated by Bush. Bush made huge power grabs, claiming unprecedented executive privilege and even ludicrous claims about the power of the presidency, and nobody much minded on the right–until Obama took office, and suddenly every time he put on his socks it was some kind of illegal power grab. Bush and the GOP ransacked civil rights, violating or voiding much of the Bill of Rights, made warrantless wiretapping a regular practice, made it possible to strip a citizen of all rights and imprison them without charges, evidence, or legal assistance, and so much more, and nobody much minded on the right–until Obama took office, and now somehow everybody’s rights are being savaged because Obama passed a mild health care bill, much of which Republicans themselves supported some years back. Hey, and let’s not forget who is trying to amend the Constitution right and left to stop the states from deciding for themselves.
Tell me, when Bush massively increased Medicare and Defense spending without paying for it, how was he NOT telling the people of Texas how to spend their money? How was he not ballooning the debt? And if he was, why was there little or no blowback then and yet massive hysteria and secession talk now?
Sorry Geoff, but in this comment you just sound like another one of the Beck Zombies, becoming hysterical when Obama does stuff not even half as outrageous as Bush did regularly.
Luis,
Here’s what I’m seeing… As you point out, the right pushes federal power when it suits them – even though this violates their supposed view on states rights… so far so good. What I’m saying is that the left pushes states rights (maybe not in so many words – but they institute state laws that fly in the face of federal powers) even though they profess usually that states rights is a lie and that the federal government reigns supreme.
I can’t think of anything that we on the left don’t take at the state level that we should. …but if we were consistent with our view regarding federal powers then there would be things we would *not* push on the state level (such as the example of medical marijuana) because in pushing it in conflict with federal powers (in this case the Commerce Clause) we are in essence selectively and quietly arguing for state’s rights (the nullification kind that was supported by the Confederacy in the Civil War) – even though we usually are the one’s arguing against this kind of state’s rights. (And no, I haven’t seen Obama slap down the states on anything where the states should have precedence).
oh – and Landru much better than Doc Brown… first of all I think there is slightly more physical resemblance, secondly he’s got the serious creepiness that Calhoun also exudes.
Roger:
The medicinal marijuana case is an interesting one, and I would argue that in this case, it was about state rights–but not the way the courts ruled. Let’s face it, when California proposed and the voters passed Prop 215, the Commerce Clause was the last thing they were thinking of. And when the Bush administration reacted, they were not doing so because they really felt that homegrown marijuana used for medicinal purposes would seriously undercut their ability to control interstate commerce. Let’s be real here. The Commerce Clause was a legal grounding and justification–but it did not have anything to do with the actual case nor the government’s reaction to it.
Had California actually tried to overrule the federal government’s control over interstate commerce–say, they attempted to unilaterally apply state sales tax to out-of-state purchases–then I would agree that the state went too far. But this was not about commerce, it was about private, at-home medicinal treatment.
In this case, I would argue that the real issue is more important than the legal legerdemain used to win a court case.
As for Calhoun and Doc Brown, it really depends on the image:
Though, in this case, another resemblance springs to mind:
doesn’t the Constitution state that all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal Government devolve back to the States?
Kinda minor point, but the State has powers, not rights. The Founding Fathers had their philosophical s—t together.
we are in essence selectively and quietly arguing for state’s rights (the nullification kind that was supported by the Confederacy in the Civil War) – even though we usually are the one’s arguing against this kind of state’s rights.
It’s important to remember that the Lopez gun case and the Raich pot case were both decided with the liberal wing fighting for a wide reading of the Commerce Clause. I should probably read their dissent in Lopez again but IIRC I wasn’t too happy with it the first time I read it.
As for Raich, it was Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas (!) in the minority saying they could not find a Federal power to restrict the home production and consumption of pot.
Here’s her conclusion:
“We would do well to recall how James Madison, the father of the Constitution, described our system of joint sovereignty to the people of New York: “The powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite… . The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
“Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. . . . [T]he federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.”
I think O’Connor is saying that states should have the freedom to increase liberty, at any rate that is my philosophical position, that the Federal gov’t’s job is to backstop the Constitutional (and common-law) minimums of individual liberty against encroachment at the state level, and not at all attempt to restrict liberty.
Luis and Troy,
Good points all. Thanks.