dagblog - Comments for "A Brief History of States' Rights"

Sorry this is so long. I'll

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:33:04 +0000

Sorry this is so long. I'll try not to comment again.

Steve, please try harder. You're wasting precious electrons.

Seriously, there is no doubt that the Federal government is much more powerful relative to the states than many of the Founders had in mind, though I doubt that Alexander Hamilton would be disappointed. But my reckoning, this evolution took place over 100 years from 1865 (end of the Civil War) to 1965 (Voting Rights Act). The health care plan is irrelevant to the trend.

Of course, rapid devolution would be impossible under the current institutions. I imagine that states rights' proponents, insofar as they have a coherent plan, imagine a gradual turning of the tide, starting with gun control, eminent domain, and health care, that would lead to rebuilding state institutions.

The thing is, the flaws of the states can't all be blamed Federal expansion. As incompetent as the Federal government is, most state governments have easily out-incompetenced D.C. I sadly shake my head every time I write the word "California." (Oops, I did it again.)

But I wonder how many Tenthers really want more powerful states anyway. Leaving aside the nostalgic racists, the Tea Party mentality seems more akin to that of anarchists. I suspect that they don't want to rebalance government; they want to more or less eliminate it.

HeyM, I completely agree

Steve — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:27:36 +0000

In reply to A Brief History of States' Rights

HeyM, I completely agree with your summary of the recent history of the clamor for states' rights, and your thoughts on the motivations underlying the current revival. That aside, it's tough for me see how a dispassionate observer could conclude that the scope of the modern federal government's authority doesn't exceed what the Constitution's framers must have intended. My limited memory of the Republic's early days includes fuzzy memories of the Articles of Confederation, which provided for an even weaker central government, precisely because many of the individual colonies were wary of ceding much sovereignty to one another. That same limited memory vaguely recalls that the Articles fell apart largely because they did not provide an adequate framework for regulating taxation, the money supply or trade policy, among other things. Hence the explicit power ceded to the federal government over those items in the structure that replaced the confederation. Anyway, it's hard to see the purely logical path from "geez, we just need to keep everyone from printing money and imposing tariffs on one another," to the sweeping scope of federal intervention in our affairs today as simply the natural outcome of regulating interstate commerce. Oh well. However questionable in principle, perhaps this expansion of power has had a largely positive effect. I'd still argue that the potential for future benefits may be diminished. I was impressed by some of what I read in David Brooks' column today, describing the negative effects of the centralization of economic and social power over the past generation and the need to reverse that trend. Unfortunately, I imagine that it's highly unlikely that such a process could occur in the US, not so much because of the cultural barriers noted by Brooks, but because our local institutions are bankrupt. The central government is the only entity left with the power to effect radical change, because it is the only entity that can borrow all the money it wants in order to do so (supported by its ability to print the money it needs to settle the debt). And that's where this rambling comment comes back to our Tenthers, and why in a sense their quest (if it were principled as opposed prejudiced as we both suspect) when tied to the anti-tax Tea Partiers, is kind of funny. To argue that we should limit the federal government's role in our lives is to argue that we should transfer power to public entities that can't print money to pay their debts. And there is no way, even in the most draconian mind, to do that without raising taxes. To me, this is another argument in favor of such a devolution of authority - if the scope of entitlements the federal government could provide were more limited, it wouldn't necessarily mean the end of those entitlements (hello Massachusetts), it would just mean that we would actually have to pay for them. Sorry this is so long. I'll try not to comment again. Congrats on the book. -Steve

Thanks, Gary. I accept that

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:25:04 +0000

In reply to Good question Genghis. The

Thanks, Gary. I accept that you and Boldin are genuine in your support of states' rights, and I'm sure there are many others as well, but I submit that the sudden burst of enthusiasm has much to do with the FOX-driven paranoia about Obama the administration and that many of the supporters find the old Southern connotation of "states' rights" appealing. Take the self-proclaimed "States' Rights Republican" Ray McBerry, a Georgia gubernatorial candidate candidate and chairman of the Georgia Chapter of the League of the South--a neo-Confederate organization that definitely seems to have the old Southern states' rights in mind.

If the new converts help your cause, I can understand how you would be enthusiastic to embrace them, but I would be wary of them taking over your cause. Barry Goldwater may have been genuine in his support of states' rights, but his decision to exploit Southern racist sympathies deeply tarnished his cause.

You may also find that partisan states' rights supporters lose their enthusiasm if their favored party comes to power in Washington and loses power in their respective states.

Good question Genghis. The

Gary Wood — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:04:50 +0000

In reply to Thanks for your comment, Gary

Good question Genghis. The Tenth Amendment Center was launched by Michael Boldin in 2006, largely due to the abuses of the Bush Administration. Personally I have been teaching both U.S. Constitution classes and the fundamental importance of federalism for over 2 decades. I have been pushing both the 9th and 10th extra hard for over 5 years. Why did it take legislators in states so long to catch up? Politics is part of it, voting out incumbents who did not understand while replacing them with people who better understand takes time, media ignored efforts until a certain level of success was achieved and now suddenly it is news...why now, I really cannot say. I can only say I am glad to see it rising in awareness and our efforts will continue as they did before Obama and they will after Obama because this is not partisan, both major parties are abusers of our federalist republic. Both desire power over generational liberty, and both need serious changes or replacement if we are to revive the grand experiment so utterly abused for over a century now.

I know Lalo. Lalo is a troll

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:07:03 +0000

In reply to SOULLESS CHARLATAN!

I know Lalo. Lalo is a troll of mine. You sir, are no Lalo.

Thanks for your comment, Gary

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 05:05:23 +0000

In reply to States' Rights is truly

Thanks for your comment, Gary Wood. A serious question for you. Why now? Obama's federal government is perhaps more aggressive than Bush's, at least in some ways, but compared to FDR, Johnson, Clinton, and even Nixon, it doesn't really compare. Why, for example, have states passed states' rights gun bills. Unlike the 90s, there are no gun control bills in congress. Obama hasn't even pushed to extend Clinton's assault weapons ban. So why the current wave of 10th Amendment fervor in 2010?

I for one am glad we didn't

George W. Bush — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:30:35 +0000

In reply to States' Rights is truly

I for one am glad we didn't have any states rights back in 2000. That's how I got elected! Remember? The feds stomped on the Florida Supreme Court, which was trying to enforce state election laws in a state tally of votes in that state! Fools!

SOULLESS CHARLATAN!

quinn esq — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:00:03 +0000

In reply to A Brief History of States' Rights

SOULLESS CHARLATAN!

BLAGGARD!

States' Rights is truly

Gary Wood — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 22:35:22 +0000

In reply to A Brief History of States' Rights

States' Rights is truly marred in bad history. However, the history of federalism and the 10th Amendment is what today's efforts are truly focused on. Unfortunately even many involved don't understand the challenge with the name and gravitate to states' rights which diminishes their case.

You may want to read;

http://utah.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/our-target-is-federalism-and-not-states-rights/

Keep in mind, the efforts for firearms freedom acts (MT, TN, UT before SD, and WY by the way), health care checks before implementation, proper land claims, and more are not hostile to the federal government. Most of us involved in the efforts to restore federalism also are not anti-fed. We are simply anti-bad or unconstitutional government. Many feel the efforts can not stand legal scrutiny yet it is the misinterpretation of the supremacy and commerce clause (among others) that has allowed the federal beast to grow beyond its enumerated and competent powers.

You are right about the history of states' rights, it is a tarnished phrase and I for one am doing all I can to get people to quit using it in connection with today's 10th Amendment efforts.

Constitutionally, it's my

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:09:17 +0000

In reply to I think the skepticism is

Constitutionally, it's my understanding that these folks have no case, but I haven't really looked into it. In any case, I'm sure that the government could tie compliance to Medicare funding, and the recalcitrant states would scramble to accept.

The federal government need not force the states, however, and then it becomes a policy question. As policy, I don't think that states should be allowed to opt out because I do believe that access to basic health care for all citizens is a national imperative.

But neither was my point. It was simply that the history of states' rights demonstrates that the principle has often been abused by partisans who use the idea of "states rights" as a facade for something else entirely.