CNN declares-the-constitution-racist

[goldcatt]

Yes, that happened Dante. And still does with some politicians and strategists. Disgusting, isn't it?

But the idea of States' Rights is much older than the Southern Strategy, and much more comprehensive than that. The fact that it was and is used that way as a tactic by some is where the stigma Matthews was talking about comes from, but a true States Rights advocate is something completely different from your run of the mill racist or cynic.

When the term is used correctly it's part of a comprehensive Originalist constitutional interpretation method, not a racist foil.

 

[California Girl]

Taxes and trade were huge issues. And don't forget slavery at the time was more an economic issue than one of pure racism, as we view it today. The South literally could not sustain its agricultural economy without the labor provided by slaves, and they lacked the resources and infrastructure to industrialize. I'm not defending it by any means, the labor conditions in the industrial North were nothing to brag about either as far as human rights are concerned, but if you look at the issues objectively there was much more to the conflict than racism. At its heart it was far more about economics than hating black people.

Today's States Rights movement is still largely about economics and taxation, with some social issues thrown in for good measure. But I have yet to hear a legitimate States Rights advocate say they want a return to slavery or Jim Crow. The ones who use States Rights as a foil for a racist agenda mouth some of the platitudes, but if you really listen to them they're not espousing a true States Rights position.

I wish more people understood that.

I view it the same way I view those who insist that 'take our country back' means back in time. It does not. It means back to an ideal - that ideal is the US Constitution. No one wants to go back in time, America is a nation that moves forward. It is just that some of us want to keep the Constitution at its heart.

There is more than one legitimate way to interpret the Constitution, and more than one way to apply it. I personally don't agree with the narrow reading or States Rights as the answer.

My point is, just because I disagree with it doesn't make it racist, or evil, or anything else but a different point of view. Misinformation bugs me.

I am a supporter of States Rights, because I believe that individual states should be allowed the widest remit to govern themselves with minimal input from Federal Government. Local government means that individuals have maximum control over their government.

 

[goldcatt]

I wish more people understood that.

I view it the same way I view those who insist that 'take our country back' means back in time. It does not. It means back to an ideal - that ideal is the US Constitution. No one wants to go back in time, America is a nation that moves forward. It is just that some of us want to keep the Constitution at its heart.

There is more than one legitimate way to interpret the Constitution, and more than one way to apply it. I personally don't agree with the narrow reading or States Rights as the answer.

My point is, just because I disagree with it doesn't make it racist, or evil, or anything else but a different point of view. Misinformation bugs me.

I am a supporter of States Rights, because I believe that individual states should be allowed the widest remit to govern themselves with minimal input from Federal Government. Local government means that individuals have maximum control over their government.

In theory that's a fine idea. But it's been tried twice in our history. Once with the Articles of Confederation, which lasted less than a decade before it was so obvious it wasn't working the Constitutional Convention was called. From 1789 to the mid-19th Century a modified version of States Rights was still practiced under a more restrictive pre-14th Amendment constitutional view, and it culminated in divisions so deep we had a civil war. In our system, with our size and diversity, with the mobility of the population between States and in the modern era of globalization, IMO it would never work. And divided this nation falls.

There are certain areas where I do believe the Feds have overstepped their reasonable authority, unfunded mandates being one of the biggest problems. But there must be a central whole that is stronger than the parts in order to keep the parts functioning as a cohesive unit - what we call a nation.

 

[California Girl]

There is more than one legitimate way to interpret the Constitution, and more than one way to apply it. I personally don't agree with the narrow reading or States Rights as the answer.

My point is, just because I disagree with it doesn't make it racist, or evil, or anything else but a different point of view. Misinformation bugs me.

I am a supporter of States Rights, because I believe that individual states should be allowed the widest remit to govern themselves with minimal input from Federal Government. Local government means that individuals have maximum control over their government.

In theory that's a fine idea. But it's been tried twice in our history. Once with the Articles of Confederation, which lasted less than a decade before it was so obvious it wasn't working the Constitutional Convention was called. From 1789 to the mid-19th Century a modified version of States Rights was still practiced under a more restrictive pre-14th Amendment constitutional view, and it culminated in divisions so deep we had a civil war. In our system, with our size and diversity, with the mobility of the population between States and in the modern era of globalization, IMO it would never work. And divided this nation falls.

There are certain areas where I do believe the Feds have overstepped their reasonable authority, unfunded mandates being one of the biggest problems. But there must be a central whole that is stronger than the parts in order to keep the parts functioning as a cohesive unit - what we call a nation.

Yep, I agree... but we were a much younger nation then and we have matured - and we know how this whole 'being a country' thing works now. But seriously, I see where you're coming from... maybe it is the idealism of the under 30s (albeit only just - ) but I genuinely think that states need more control over their own affairs. Many issues should be decided at state level.... but, yea, I agree that we need a strong federal government to oversee the fundamentals.

 

[Toro]

Its true. It discriminates against Canadians having the exact same rights as Americans.

That's brutal.

 

[goldcatt]

I am a supporter of States Rights, because I believe that individual states should be allowed the widest remit to govern themselves with minimal input from Federal Government. Local government means that individuals have maximum control over their government.

In theory that's a fine idea. But it's been tried twice in our history. Once with the Articles of Confederation, which lasted less than a decade before it was so obvious it wasn't working the Constitutional Convention was called. From 1789 to the mid-19th Century a modified version of States Rights was still practiced under a more restrictive pre-14th Amendment constitutional view, and it culminated in divisions so deep we had a civil war. In our system, with our size and diversity, with the mobility of the population between States and in the modern era of globalization, IMO it would never work. And divided this nation falls.

There are certain areas where I do believe the Feds have overstepped their reasonable authority, unfunded mandates being one of the biggest problems. But there must be a central whole that is stronger than the parts in order to keep the parts functioning as a cohesive unit - what we call a nation.

Yep, I agree... but we were a much younger nation then and we have matured - and we know how this whole 'being a country' thing works now. But seriously, I see where you're coming from... maybe it is the idealism of the under 30s (albeit only just - ) but I genuinely think that states need more control over their own affairs. Many issues should be decided at state level.... but, yea, I agree that we need a strong federal government to oversee the fundamentals.

I would say we're more mature, but also larger, more diverse and more complex as a nation than we were 150 or 200 years ago. All of these factors contributing to the ease (or lack thereof) of governing.

If you think there should be a strong Federal government that is more than a functionary of the States and bound to their collective will, then you're a hybrid like most of us and not a true States Righter. So all that's left is arguing over the proper balance and degree of central vs. local control.

 

[California Girl]

In theory that's a fine idea. But it's been tried twice in our history. Once with the Articles of Confederation, which lasted less than a decade before it was so obvious it wasn't working the Constitutional Convention was called. From 1789 to the mid-19th Century a modified version of States Rights was still practiced under a more restrictive pre-14th Amendment constitutional view, and it culminated in divisions so deep we had a civil war. In our system, with our size and diversity, with the mobility of the population between States and in the modern era of globalization, IMO it would never work. And divided this nation falls.

There are certain areas where I do believe the Feds have overstepped their reasonable authority, unfunded mandates being one of the biggest problems. But there must be a central whole that is stronger than the parts in order to keep the parts functioning as a cohesive unit - what we call a nation.

Yep, I agree... but we were a much younger nation then and we have matured - and we know how this whole 'being a country' thing works now. But seriously, I see where you're coming from... maybe it is the idealism of the under 30s (albeit only just - ) but I genuinely think that states need more control over their own affairs. Many issues should be decided at state level.... but, yea, I agree that we need a strong federal government to oversee the fundamentals.

I would say we're more mature, but also larger, more diverse and more complex as a nation than we were 150 or 200 years ago. All of these factors contributing to the ease (or lack thereof) of governing.

If you think there should be a strong Federal government that is more than a functionary of the States and bound to their collective will, then you're a hybrid like most of us and not a true States Righter. So all that's left is arguing over the proper balance and degree of central vs. local control.

Great. Let's have a huge stand up, knock down fight to see who gets their way!

I'm certainly not for ALL the power to be at state level - but far more than exists now. Most day to day shit is for states to decide. I think each state should decide issues such as abortion for themselves. Let those who live there decide. In Ireland, abortion is illegal.... so Irish women wanting abortions come to the UK. Where it is, I might add, paid for by the health service. I can't tell you how offensive that is to me, as a Catholic. I support their right to have an abortion (although I find it morally reprehensible), but I should not be forced to pay for it.

 

[goldcatt]

Yep, I agree... but we were a much younger nation then and we have matured - and we know how this whole 'being a country' thing works now. But seriously, I see where you're coming from... maybe it is the idealism of the under 30s (albeit only just - ) but I genuinely think that states need more control over their own affairs. Many issues should be decided at state level.... but, yea, I agree that we need a strong federal government to oversee the fundamentals.

I would say we're more mature, but also larger, more diverse and more complex as a nation than we were 150 or 200 years ago. All of these factors contributing to the ease (or lack thereof) of governing.

If you think there should be a strong Federal government that is more than a functionary of the States and bound to their collective will, then you're a hybrid like most of us and not a true States Righter. So all that's left is arguing over the proper balance and degree of central vs. local control.

Great. Let's have a huge stand up, knock down fight to see who gets their way!

I'm certainly not for ALL the power to be at state level - but far more than exists now. Most day to day shit is for states to decide. I think each state should decide issues such as abortion for themselves. Let those who live there decide. In Ireland, abortion is illegal.... so Irish women wanting abortions come to the UK. Where it is, I might add, paid for by the health service. I can't tell you how offensive that is to me, as a Catholic. I support their right to have an abortion (although I find it morally reprehensible), but I should not be forced to pay for it.

About 80% of the laws we live our day to day lives under are already made at the State level, with the rest divided between local and Federal. With very few and limited exceptions all property law, family law, tort law, contract law, most transactional law in general, corporate law, and a slew of other areas of law is the province of the States. Most criminal law is State level. Landlord-tenant law, traffic laws, pretty much name a law that affects daily life and you have approximately a 4/5 chance it was made and is enforced at the State level.

The problem as some see it is that all of these laws are subject to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, so they see the laws as Federal. They are not. They are merely subject to and must pass the test of providing Due Process and Equal Protection the same as any Federal law would have to do. I have no problem with this, it's part of the concept of Federal citizenship and uniform standards to ensure the incidents of Federal citizenship are provided uniformly to residents of all States. Things like abortion would fit under this category. Agree with Roe, disagree with Roe, but the principle by which it applies to the States itself is necessary and fundamental.

Then there are those areas of law that are in the State books but are passed according to a Federal mandate, such as entitlements, NCLB or laws governing things like interstate child support enforcement. The Feds will pass a law saying the States must design a program or process that fits certain standards, and the States must deliver. What I have an issue with is when the Feds tell the States they must pass a law, but fail to provide funds to maintain the program or structure created by that law. In other words, unfunded mandates. These are the biggest problem, IMO.

Edit: What you're talking about in the UK is something that does not happen here. First, we do not have a public health service and Medicaid is barred from paying for elective abortion. Second, they do not have a layered Federal system like ours. It's a very different legal and governmental structure, with more central control than we have in the US. They do not have a single written constitution, or an equivalent of the 14th Amendment in the US. Comparing the US to the UK in more than the most general terms is sort of apples to oranges.

 

[William Joyce]

[[[Totally willing to drop the 'states' rights' ruse and just go with a full-throated WHITE POWER!]]]

I mean seriously. States' rights is a way of saying we don't want to go to school with blacks. Federal supremacy is a way of saying we'll force you to at gunpoint.

I say, aim guns in the other direction!

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Maybe the Democrats can test STDs on you without penicillin like the Guatemalans. Nice people those Democrats.

That thong pic is nasty by the way, make it stop.

 

[Dante]

When the term is used correctly it's part of a comprehensive Originalist constitutional interpretation method, not a racist foil.

Trouble is it is rarely used in that old context, and those arguments were fought centuries ago. They lost.

There were more than one original interpretations, and they were fought out in the Courts. The states rights people lost.

 

[Dante]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Which of course ignores the fact that Lincoln wanted to place protective tariffs to unheard of levels that would have greatly harmed the south economically.

Still muddying the waters and protecting the Insurrectionist cause against the United States of America?

 

[goldcatt]

When the term is used correctly it's part of a comprehensive Originalist constitutional interpretation method, not a racist foil.

Trouble is it is rarely used in that old context, and those arguments were fought centuries ago. They lost.

There were more than one original interpretations, and they were fought out in the Courts. The states rights people lost.

I agree the argument was already won - or last, depending on your point of view. It's simply unworkable. But the fact that it's a losing argument doesn't make it racist. My whole point was that for those who do still use and understand the term as it was meant to be used, and there is a movement out there who do just that, it's doing them a disservice to assume States Righters are all William Joyce.

 

[goldcatt]

Maybe the Democrats can test STDs on you without penicillin like the Guatemalans. Nice people those Democrats.

That thong pic is nasty by the way, make it stop.

Sorry, TS. No can do. A deal is a deal and I pay my debts. Just a few more days! Until then I'm scrolling past my own posts pretty fast too.

 

[Dante]

When the term is used correctly it's part of a comprehensive Originalist constitutional interpretation method, not a racist foil.

Trouble is it is rarely used in that old context, and those arguments were fought centuries ago. They lost.

There were more than one original interpretations, and they were fought out in the Courts. The states rights people lost.

I agree the argument was already won - or last, depending on your point of view. It's simply unworkable. But the fact that it's a losing argument doesn't make it racist. My whole point was that for those who do still use and understand the term as it was meant to be used, and there is a movement out there who do just that, it's doing them a disservice to assume States Righters are all William Joyce.

and here's the point: what it used to mean is what it used to mean. What it means now is what it means now.

In the 60s/70s it was revived to hide racism. The old argument lost. It was buried. It was ressurected and given new life as a term -- a term used to disguise.

and in the Civil War, the State of South Carolina made it perfectly clear that they declared war on the United States, because of their stated right to own slaves.

 

[Againsheila]

States rights always meant slavery then the right to discriminate based on race, religion, whatever.

Don't know how....the Emancipation Proclamation exempted all slaves in Northern territory (there were 4 slave holding states that remained with the north) and all slaves in southern territory already under northern control. Seems to me, the union had slaves longer than the south which would make slavery more in common with states remaining with the union than with states rights.

 

[dilloduck]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Here's where I get hung up. What if you believe racists have rights too. Does that make you a racist?

No it means you will be summarily dismissed from any intelligent debate and censured.
Rights are limited only to PC people.

 

[goldcatt]

Trouble is it is rarely used in that old context, and those arguments were fought centuries ago. They lost.

There were more than one original interpretations, and they were fought out in the Courts. The states rights people lost.

I agree the argument was already won - or last, depending on your point of view. It's simply unworkable. But the fact that it's a losing argument doesn't make it racist. My whole point was that for those who do still use and understand the term as it was meant to be used, and there is a movement out there who do just that, it's doing them a disservice to assume States Righters are all William Joyce.

and here's the point: what it used to mean is what it used to mean. What it means now is what it means now.

In the 60s/70s it was revived to hide racism. The old argument lost. It was buried. It was ressurected and given new life as a term -- a term used to disguise.

and in the Civil War, the State of South Carolina made it perfectly clear that they declared war on the United States, because of their stated right to own slaves.

It's more complicated than "the whole meaning changed", Dante. Yes, we have our example of the racist point of view on this thread. Then there is a camp who still holds to the old meaning, and finally those like CG who say they support States Rights but mean something that is more of a devolved Federalism than true States Rights. When you have these subtleties within the movement in all fairness the distinction needs to be made.

I'm not disagreeing that the people you describe exist, but I can understand the reason why those who belong to the other two camps of "States Rights" take umbrage at being painted with the broad brush.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The way it is most often used, the term States Rights if often used as a sotto voce way of supporting racism.

When some person starts telling you that the Civil War was fought over states rights, what they won't admit, but know perfectly well is true, is the ONLY STATE right that the rebellious states were interested in protecting was their right to allow slavery.

Which of course ignores the fact that Lincoln wanted to place protective tariffs to unheard of levels that would have greatly harmed the south economically.

Still muddying the waters and protecting the Insurrectionist cause against the United States of America?

If you consider facts muddying the waters then yes, I suppose I am.

 

[Dante]

I agree the argument was already won - or last, depending on your point of view. It's simply unworkable. But the fact that it's a losing argument doesn't make it racist. My whole point was that for those who do still use and understand the term as it was meant to be used, and there is a movement out there who do just that, it's doing them a disservice to assume States Righters are all William Joyce.

and here's the point: what it used to mean is what it used to mean. What it means now is what it means now.

In the 60s/70s it was revived to hide racism. The old argument lost. It was buried. It was ressurected and given new life as a term -- a term used to disguise.

and in the Civil War, the State of South Carolina made it perfectly clear that they declared war on the United States, because of their stated right to own slaves.

It's more complicated than "the whole meaning changed", Dante. Yes, we have our example of the racist point of view on this thread. Then there is a camp who still holds to the old meaning, and finally those like CG who say they support States Rights but mean something that is more of a devolved Federalism than true States Rights. When you have these subtleties within the movement in all fairness the distinction needs to be made.

I'm not disagreeing that the people you describe exist, but I can understand the reason why those who belong to the other two camps of "States Rights" take umbrage at being painted with the broad brush.

The states rights movement is filled with outright racists who have a public agenda.

People may have any views they want on states rights, but they cannot say they are part of a movement with so many racists and get away with being the sole arbiters of what that movement actually stands for and means.

The Tea Party (which some morons here claim isn't a party) has been congratulated on throwing the outright racists within their ranks, out on their asses. I see no one of any stature and credibility congratulating the states rights movement for doing the same.

People here claim to speak for many others -- they do not. We are all mostly blowhards on computer consoles.