Saturday, October 13, 2007
Saturday, December 02, 2006
In Stateline article entitled "States Hope for a Better Deal in New Congress" we find the following:
State lawmakers of both parties will be looking for relief from some federal policies imposed on states under the GOP’s watch, including expensive new rules for driver’s licenses and education mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, a growing number of state policies targeting illegal immigration and global warming will put pressure on new Democratic leaders in Congress to answer states’ calls for greater federal involvement.
This much I mostly agree with - although the sad truth is most states do not actually seek to remove the Federal Government from areas that belong to the states, rather they seek Federal dollars to carry out various Federal mandates.
Here is the most asinine statement anyone could possibly make on the issue of states' rights -
While the Republican Party traditionally was known as a supporter of states’ rights, it hasn't lived up to that reputation since taking control of Congress and the White House.
Has the ideology of the Party of Lincoln really changed so much as to actually make a supporter of states' rights? Name one piece of legislation in the last 40 years, sponsored or supported by the GOP, that actually supports and defends states' rights. The silence is overwhelming...
State leaders hope the turnover in Washington, D.C., will stanch what they describe as an unprecedented expansion of federal power over states during the term of President Bush, a former Texas governor.
"You know, it's the Republican Party that always talks about states' rights and the federal government having less to say about it. But on so many important issues it hasn't been that way," said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D).
Ok, tell us something we don't already know - but don't expect us to actually believe the Democratic Party is for states' rights either. The party of the New Deal and the Great Society, the party that covets the power of the 14th Amendment more than the air we breath, the party of social programs and socialism - no I think they are no fans of states' rights.
Americans that love their homes and their states, the traditional repository of government loyalty and citizenship, must do away with the notion that either party is actually for states' rights. We must either usurp the leadership of one or both of these parties or (better yet) focus on electing right-minded states' rights supporters to our governors' mansions and state houses (regardless of party). Once we have states that actually stand up for their rights, the wishes and whims of the Federal Government can be made moot.
States' Rights Do Have a Price
From Homeland Stupidity - it seems States' Rights can be had, for a price:
So the only objection left now is paying for the federal government’s intrusion into states’ rights. How much are our states’ rights going for these days? There is no real consensus, but studies range from claiming that the increased federal funding more than pays for its requirements to Rep. Rubén Hinojosa’s (D-Texas) claim that there will be a $39 billion shortfall.
So the states will sell their rights for $39 billion. But will anything change?
From a letter submitted to the Hillsboro Free Press
In this election season, I would like to think we have figured out how to fund schools for the year. But No Child Left Behind, which has been proven a nuisance and an impossible goal to reach, is still threatening to take away school funding.
It is stupid that Kansas has let the national government play keep away with money that is to be used for education.
Kansas has done its share of work figuring out how to spend state money on schools and found a neutral number. Now it is time that we stepped up and reminded the national government about the 10th Amendment, which reserves power for the states to control education.
Don't get me wrong. It is great that the national government is giving the schools some funding, but it is wrong to attach strings such as NCLB.
It is about time for states to stand up for states rights and take control of education.
States' Rights in Australia
It seems it took Australian centralist only 80 years to destroy the concept of States' Rights - that would parallel US History.
The constitution was drafted to establish strong states to work with a weaker central government. This held true for the first two decades of our Federation as the High Court favoured state power and protected state responsibility over areas such as industrial relations.
For the states, the WorkChoices case was lost as far back as 1920. In that year the High Court in the engineers case swept aside the earlier decisions and discarded any idea of a balance between federal and state power. The idea of "federal balance", like "states rights", became a constitutional heresy. Today, they are nothing more than political slogans. Read More...
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Social Conservatism, Libertarianism and State's Rights
The constitution is written. Its words have meanings, most of which are quite plain. The constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government, and like any other contract the only honest way to interpret its words is by determining what they meant when they were ratified. Read More
The above is from a discussion of Social Conservatism and Libertarianism - the author seems to get it.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Woods on Lincoln Unmasked
The reader of Lincoln Unmasked is in for a great many mischievous pleasures. Consider: Harry Jaffa, the dean of what DiLorenzo calls the "Lincoln cultists," has more than once compared the Southern cause to that of Nazi Germany. DiLorenzo embarrasses Jaffa in this book by pointing out passages in Hitler’s Mein Kampf in which the German leader expressed both his support for Lincoln’s war and his unwavering opposition to the cause of states’ rights and political decentralization (which, as a dictator seeking absolute power, he naturally sought to overturn in Germany). Hitler even adopted Lincoln’s fanciful retelling of American history in which the states were creatures of the Union rather than vice versa.
In Germany, Hitler promised that the Nazis "would totally eliminate states’ rights altogether: Since for us the state as such is only a form, but the essential is its content, the nation, the people, it is clear that everything else must be subordinated to its sovereign interests. In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power." Thus the "mischief of individual federated states…must cease and will some day cease…. National Socialism as a matter of principle must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries." Which side was the Nazi one again, Professor Jaffa? Read the rest of Dr. Thomas Woods' article
One of the real difficulties advocates of states' rights fight constantly is the straw man argument surrounding the validity of the philosophy of states' rights and the connection to the Southern states passion for the ideal. Once the topic surfaces a discussion invariably ensues concerning the great morality of "Honest" Abe and the evils of slavery. The slavery issue aside the misperceptions of Lincoln and his intentions, motivations and true philosophy of government are seldom discussed completely. After all the man has a mythos surrounding him, to attack or disparage that mythos is to attack America itself, or so the thought process goes.
To be certain Mr. Lincoln was a key actor in the second scene of American history, he followed faithfully in the footsteps of the Federalist (misnomer there as they were neo-empirist at the worst and nationalist at the best but certainly not federalist). He made reality many of the things that the writers of the federalist papers, those that worked so hard to sell the idea of a beneficial and benign union to the states and the people in the 1780's. Prior to a cataclysmic event as momentous as states actually exercising their rights and sovereignty in 1861 no nationalist could dream of expanding the scope and breadth of the federal union to mean what it meant after 1867.
Mr. Lincoln is, as stated above the key actor in this play in the second scene, but he is not alone. Those of us that advocate states' rights are mistaken to pin all of our arguments against the encroachment of the Federal Government into areas it was never intended to go solely on Lincoln. He did not state the march toward a
national international leviathan. However, it is important from time to time to focus on the man, his false myth and his nefarious acts. It is also interesting to see who admired his philosophy. As Hitler full well realized, a dictatorship cannot thrive without a strong central government - meaning states cannot be allowed any rights at all.
Friday, October 06, 2006
The purpose of this blog is fairly straight forward and can be found on the right-hand sidebar. In 2004 a project website called the SouthernNationalist sought to articulate many of the issues surrounding the history of the struggle to retain states' rights within our republic. Such a project was too exclusive, for if we are to truly believe in the principle of states' rights then we should also believe that it is not merely a southern ideology.
Local autonomy, and the right of our individual states to govern in ways that reflect the sentiment of the local people is the truest form of practical representative democracy. Our republic was founded on this principle, somewhere along the way we lost our path.
Any blogger, regardless of political persuasion is encouraged to join us. After all the beauty of states' rights is that we can agree to disagree among our various states and still retain unity on important matters to true national interest. If you are interested in joining link to the alliance page and drop us an email to let us know you are out there and with us. (And don't be afraid of the domain name, you don't have to be advocate the legality or practicality of secession to support states' rights).
In the future we will host a very occasional Carnival of States' Rightist, with topic centering on contemporary problems and how these problems might better be solved through state rather than federal involvement.
Also, if you are just stopping by, please read and sign the Declaration of States' Rights
del.icio.us tags: states'+rights, blog+allaince
BuzzNet tags: states'+rights, blog+allaince
IceRocket tags: states'+rights, blog+allaince