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:
I'm for states rights for the things my state believes in that the rest of the country is too stupid to agree with. I'm for federal protection of rights that I believe in that my state is too stupid to agree with.
Isn't that kinda the basis of most politics?
I think I'm pretty opposite of you. Sure, there are thousands of laws which vary from state to state that most people, including me, don't care about at all. And I'm not advocating doing away with states or any of the various political subdivisions thereof.
But I find a lot of truth in the "code word" concept. It's not always racial, but the times when "states rights" becomes such a hot issue is when some individual's rights that are important enough for some states to protect are being abridged by some other state.
So, where do you draw the line? Speed limits? No, definitely not. And I really don't know where the line is. I'm just a big believer in individual liberties, as in not being infringed upon by federal OR state governments.
I would think that you, Mr. Libertarian, would be also. Or are you just for "states rights" in states that want to expand civil liberties?
Well, like I said, the fed is merely the floor beneath which a state cannot go. Assume too much power and we'll send in the National Guard to escort kids to school.
I think state's rights only get pulled out for weird issues, but that's the point: rather than adopt a conformist fed system leave room for some peculiar, um, not institutions, but at least some parochialism.
If Montana wants 75 mph highways to keep its towns from being a six pack apart, let 'em. If Maryland wants to ban all abortions, and Virginia wants to allow up to second trimester, then Planned Parenthood will just have to set up on the other side of the border.
Perhaps we can make a new code word defined by states rights: "look closely". If a certain law can only cover its ass with states rights, then the feds should should give it close scrutiny.
If it passes constitutional muster but adds some unenumerated rights, cool. Welcome back Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Well . . . . . . I don't know if we're saying different things or the same thing. We agree that states should be allowed certain elements of autonomy regarding their laws, and we agree that there should be some level of federal protection of individual rights. The rest is just a matter of degree.
Isn't that kinda the basis of most politics?
Whether or not you and I are far apart in the degree of our acceptance of states rights, I really have no idea. I do find it interesting that we can espouse different positions "in name" yet in practice may actually have similar ideas. As I said, I really don't know.
But, back to the code word thing. Right or wrong, words get defined in our society by their usage. I could call myself a conservative because I'm in favor of conserving the Earth and it's resources, but I think there are a majority in our society that would get the wrong impression of my overall view.
I certainly won't tell you not to call yourself a "states rights" guy, but I think you should be prepared to have people misunderstand your intent. Then again, maybe you're completely comfortable with its connotations.
That's why I usually don't call myself anything, unless I'm posting on an obscure blog that's apparently only read by people with lots of extra time. Or perhaps those way ahead of their time?
I think by actually using the term I can stimulate a (very small)discussion that helps clarify the term and maybe get people thinking about Amendments 9 and 10 again.
If you are a trucker, with a commercial drivers license, and you get a ticket while driving your Camaro, your state probably has an option available to let you keep it off your record. BUT.
The state cannot offer you that remedy. If it does the state will lose its share of the federal highway funds. Why does the federal govt get to tell states how to enforce their traffic laws?
The only exception I can see is if the offense occurred on a federally numbered highway, or maybe a tollway that was partially paid for out fo fed grant. But if it's a city street then the fed should STFU. There's no federal floor of rights that a state is getting under in this circumstance.
Or dozens like it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home