09 February 2010

States' Rights - Round 2


"On February 1, Virginia's Senate passed a bill to outlaw the individual mandate, which seems destined to be signed by their new GOP governor. "Lawmakers in 35 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates," reports the Associated Press. The states seem to be spoiling for a showdown with the feds over the issue of state sovereignty."

Uh-oh.

24 comments:

Chaps said...

This is a great idea. I urged my Senator to vote for it. If we still operated government under the Constitution, this would be the end of the story. Unfortunately, the 9th and 10th amendments were effectively repealed on April 9, 1865.

Msimons said...

Who ray for States Rights! Some where in Heaven John C. is looking down and smiling!

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

The founders were quite brilliant with the numerous checks and balances they put into our constitution. The 10th amendment was simply one of them. The closer government is to the citizens, the more control "the people" have over it. Statists want more and more power concentrated in DC so that they can stand that principle on its head.

Corey said...

How does the Supremacy Clause fit into all of this?

Rebel Raider said...

Its becoming more and more clear that the only real way to check the federal leviathan, is through state interposition. The tea-party movement will probably end up being ineffectual, due to its likely co-option by the Republicans. This however will most likely not result in any real policy changes in Washington, but rather, will result in the disarming of the movement. Where I think the article gets it wrong is its focus on Woodrow Wilson in consolidating the government. It was Lincoln who got the ball rolling on that score.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Corey - part of the checks and balances to which I referred.

RR - Lincoln followed Hamilton's lead, IMHO.

Rebel Raider said...

"Lincoln followed Hamilton's lead, IMHO."

Agreed. Didn't mean to give Hamilton short shrift. Of course, at that time the ratifying convention simply tabled most of his designs. Aaron Burr handled the rest. The WBTS offered Lincoln the perfect storm, that he ultimately used to get Hamilton's vision implemented.

Corey said...

I see. But here is what I mean. In the post you gave a link to the American Thinker article which dealt with the gun law to challenge federal law out in Montana. Those gun rights advocates see it as a test to state's rights and the 10th Amendment. Fine. But the supremacy clause states that Federal Law is Supreme over state law when there is a conflict.

If Montana does not subject guns made in Montana and sold in Montana and only used in Montana to Federal Gun Laws this would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution...regardless of Montana Law or Illinois Laws etc.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Corey:

The supremacy clause is not to be taken alone to the exclusion of the rest of the Constitution - specifically -

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Also, see article 9.

Unless the powers are delegated to the "United" States remain with "the people."

Since the Constitution recognizes the inherent right to bear arms, that power/right remains with the people.

Let's be careful to remember the context in which the Constitution and, more specifically, the Bill of Rights, were written. These were written to constrain the government - specifically the federal government - not the citizens of the United States. One must ALWAYS keep that principle and idea in mind.

Let me ask you something:

Where do our rights come from - the government or God?

Corey Meyer said...

Well, let me see...God?

Inalienable rights or God given rights...life, liberty and Property or Happiness...and those rights are to be protected by the government.

Did I pass?

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Well, almost. . . life, liberty, and the *pursuit* of happiness. (Of course, there are more.) Protected, not granted. So my inalienable right to possess a firearm (self-defense) comes from God.

Thus, the Feds cannot infringe.

Corey Meyer said...

Well, according to the Const., that right is also connected to being a member of the militia.

BTW, what are the other inalienable rights you mention...just curious.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Corey:

That's the statist's view. So the 2nd amendment was written by the founders to protect the government from the government? Right.

"Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people." ~ Patrick Henry

In general, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness . . . freedom of speech, thought, property rights, self-defense, freedom of worship, fruits of one's labor - to name a few.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Corey:

I've only banned one person from posting here since this blog was established in 2005. However, if you continue the sarcastic, personal insults in your posts, you will become the 2nd.

Rebel Raider said...

"Well, according to the Const., that right is also connected to being a member of the militia."

It does not follow that if two things are interrelated, that they must necessarily be interdependent.

Perhaps you missed the Supreme Court case of a few years ago that affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms. Quite apart from any supposed collective right of a militia.

Corey said...

Richard, I was not being sarcastic, it was an honest comment about your comment concerning the fruits of one's labor.

The SCV's are in the business of honoring confederate soldiers...those soldiers were fighting for a nation whose purpose was to protect their institution of slavery.

"Will the South give up the institution of slavery, and consent that her citizens be stripped of their property, her civilization destroyed, the whole land laid waste by fire and sword? It is impossible; she can not, she will not."

Source: Letter of S.F. Hale, Commissioner of Alabama to the State of Kentucky, to Gov. Magoffin of Kentucky; http://civilwarcauses.org/hale.htm

So, I was only commenting on the irony of your comment about one of the inalienable rights being the Fruits of one's labor, when the south obviously denied that to the slaves.

Take this how you want...ban me if you must, but then the free exchange of ideas stops and you will seem very closed minded.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

. . .those soldiers were fighting for a nation whose purpose was to protect their institution of slavery."

In part, yes, but that is a very simplistic and shallow view of the issues involved in the WBTS and why soldiers fought. None of my ancestors owned slaves. They were fighting because their homeland was invaded.

We could take turns pulling quotes all night - its a waste of time.

"the inalienable rights being the Fruits of one's labor, when the south obviously denied that to the slaves."

I thought, according to other academic bloggers, that lumping "the South" together in one generalization was bad history. Do you just do so when it suits your argument?

As I said, not all Southerners owned slaves and the reasons they fought in the WBTS were as varied as they are in any war. I should know, I have 3 ancestors who served in the CSA - how many do you have?

Lawrence Underwood said...

Corey,
Might I suggest you read Dwyer's The War Between the States, America's Uncivil War? It presents a very thorough and balanced view of all of the primary causes of the war. It is easy to read, yet very well researched.

Corey said...

Mr. Underwood, there has been quite the discusson of this book and how poorly it tells the story of War of the Rebellion. It tows the "lost cause" mythology too much for my taste.

And, if you really think this book is a good starter...try "Battle Cry of Freedom" on for size.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

I've not read the book Corey, have you?

Lawrence Underwood said...

Corey, I hope that you have read the book before making your critically analytical statement. I find it interesting that such a 'Lost Cause' apology, as you seem to define the work, would be held in low esteem by many 'Southern Partisans'. It is in fact one of the few popularly written works on the market that attempts to cover the vast amount of input that led to the conflict. In doing so, it points out good and bad tenets embraced by both North and South. It also points to areas that are often not seriously discussed.

I know all to well how quickly the red herring of either 'Lost Cause' or 'Slavery Defendant' comes out when one attempts to be thorough and balanced in the historical research behind the conflict.

Corey said...

No, not cover to cover, but I could not stand it any longer.

Chaps said...

Corey said...
"No, not cover to cover, but I could not stand it any longer."

I felt the same way about Battle Cry of Freedom.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Touché.