Apparently "state's rights" is code for racism. With the passing of Jesse Helms a whole lot is being written about whether Helms was merely politically incorrect (The National Review) or just plain racist (The New Republic). Actually The New Republic covers, as usual, a variety of opinions.
I have no doubt that many white southerners were glad to have some constitutional issue to provide cover for refusing civil rights to blacks. I also have no doubt that some southerners were horrified to find racism hitching its wagon to a sound constitutional principle.
Or is it? There appears to be a view that state's rights will always and forever be a code word and not a principle.
In a Claremont Review of Books essay by William Voegeli on race and American conservatism, he says:
"The constitutional principles at the heart of this project were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic, and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern. "
Well, I happen to like states rights. The guy that taught me consitutional law at BU seemed to make a good case for states as innovators, trying out systems and approaches that might end up working for the nation as a whole. I also think that the federal constitution provides a floor beneath which a state cannot go; this is why we passed theVoting Rights Act, among others.
So.
How much states rights are y'all in favor of? Medicinal marijuana, abortion restrictions, gay marriage, school vouchers, speed limits, drinking age? The list can get pretty long. Are you all in or just for your pet projects?
posted by quash @ 9:47 AM
4 Comments
