Sebastian On State’s Rights
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 3 months ago
Stop making strife within the party. I agree with Ace that this bickering between the coalition partners isn’t accomplishing anything … The term “States (sic) Rights” needs to be banished from the Republican vocabulary.
Well, there you go. A loser’s strategy if I ever saw one. The last milquetoast candidate did all of that and lost. But so what? He wouldn’t have changed anything anyway.
Don’t bicker, says Sebastian. Banish the term state’s rights. Perhaps he thinks we can vote our way out of the mess we’re in. And the best way to do that is to elect politicians who will slow the train as it heads over the cliff, rather than turning or stopping the train altogether.
None of this matters anyway, since the GOP has already banished the term state’s rights from its vocabulary. They are all statists, which is why they lost the last election. If you want to lose the patriot vote, saying out loud that you’re banishing the term state’s rights is the surest way to ignominious defeat since no one will show up at the polls. But at least it would be honest.
And we learn again how differently Sebastian and I think about things, how different our world views are.
If one if ever tempted to entertain Sebastian’s political advice, it’s important to remember that he’s a liberal who hates people like us with a burning passion, who just happens to be pro-gun.
I can assure you that I do not hate you. I don’t have the time or energy to hate people I don’t know.
You’re a liberal, why should we believe anything you say?
I’d take the term classical liberal. Or moderate libertarian.
The quote above is not from a classic liberal or libertarian. Did you really make it? Are you a Prag? Or a Fudd even?
Taken out of context, but yes, those are my words. If you’re using the word “prag,” then yes, I’d probably live up to your definition of the term. Fudd, no. I don’t hunt.
OK, Snowflake. How about a link to the whole piece so we can make up our own minds whether the quote is out of context or not? Perhaps by viewing the context I might find myself agreeing with you.
I thought Mr. Smith linked to it above, did he not?
Well then a prag you are. Funny though, seeing where that strategy has gotten us. I am no compromise, you cannot negotiate with communists. We give, they take and they keep coming back for more. It will never end until they get a total and complete ban on all privately owned firearms. Which is their ultimate goal, whether they admit it or not.
You’re splitting hairs. I was a regular on your site until you made your feelings about me and people like me brutally clear, so if not hate, utter disgust and loathing, want crushed in the current cultural war, whatever. The vector, magnitude and direction, is clear, however it’s labeled.
Whatever. I don’t hate you. I might disagree with you on some topics, I’m sure. But I don’t hate you.
Just the other day I was trying to remember why I stopped visiting there.
Why don’t we just banish the Tenth Amendment, while we’re at it?
NOO WAY…Jose….er..Josh
Some amount of bickering is inevitable, and not bickering doesn’t mean we don’t have disagreements. Disagreement is healthy. What I was speaking of are the attempts of the GOP establishment to be rid of their base, and their base’s preference for burning it all down.
And yes, I do still think we can vote our way out of this. Call me naive for that, and maybe I am. But I also think partitioning the country is going to end badly, even if it can be accomplished without firing a shot.
We should slow the train if we can do so, because that buys time, and time is a chance to try to get the train turned around.
Finally, states do not have rights. People have rights. I don’t believe in states rights, I believe in federalism, as the constitution established.
That’s funny I seem to remember this 10th…what was it? Amendment! That’s right 10th Amendment. IT said something like the powers not expressly given to the federal government were the domain of the states. But who needs that garbage right? It’s just the rantings of a bunch of old white racist losers..
It says powers, not rights. And the 14th Amendment, which provides for federal protection of civil rights is just as much part of The Constitution as the 10th Amendment is. That’s the context my comment was in… states have powers, and those powers don’t extend to the ability to “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Those are federal limits on state police power.
What I was saying is, when black voters hear “states rights” they don’t think about constitutional federalism. They think about that term being a rallying cry by those who wished to continue imposing Jim Crow. Like or not, it’s a loaded term, and probably not all that useful rhetorically when trying to sell the ideas embodied in federalism to a broad audience.
OK, Snowflake, assuming I agree with you on the term “states rights”, how would you refer to the powers that are NOT explicitly granted to the Federal government. Do you even believe that the Federal government IS limited?
They are reserved to the states or the people, as the 10th Amendment says. But that’s not to say that’s cut and dry. Randy Barnett wrote a whole book on the topic, much of which I agree with. Currently our courts have set up islands of liberty in a sea of powers, Barnett argues it ought to be islands of power in a sea of liberty. One of the big takeaways is that we should demand judges have a reasonable theory of the states’ police powers.
It’s only a loaded term if you allow it to be co-opted. Everyone is in an arms race to own words and phrases, redefine their meaning, and use them to bludgeon and silence those who disagree. That’s happening on all sides, to be sure. But the rights and powers of states are clearly protected by the Tenth Amendment, and those words have actual meaning, regardless of rhetoric.
Denouncing rhetoric is quite different than denouncing Constitutional protections. You did not make that clear in your article.
Thanks for replying and engaging in the tet-a-tet. But I have to say that your comments have aided in my understanding and confirmed by speculation as to your world view. Your thing on “states” versus “people” having rights is a “difference without a distinction.” I’m unpersuaded that you’ve make any important point that needs to be addressed, except that all of my readers know (just like your readers do) that states and smaller government entities can infringe on rights just like the behemoth governments can. The difference is that the town council member who wants to prohibit you from carrying weapons in the park or raise your taxes to pay for public transportation live right down the road and you can “visit” them any time. I did indeed link your piece, and I hope I sent readers to your site. I don’t make a practice of linking only those articles with which I agree. That would make my prose droll, boring and unengaging. As to the substance of your argument, I also find it unpersuasive. No one – not white or black – fears the return of Jim Crow laws today (get to the back of the bus, use these bathrooms over here, not those over there, etc.). That’s ludicrous in the superlative. You’re constructing phantoms – fabricating fairy tales. Unfortunately, the collectivists have succeeded, and the black community today conflates God-given rights (notice that I avoided the term “civil rights”) with the right to be cared for and given things. You are looking at the four or fifth generation entitlement mentality today, with fatherless homes, gangs ruling the inner city, and women who think they’re are going to get free gasoline because Obama was elected, needing that gasoline to care for their five or six children the government supports. You’ve living in a world 60 -70 years ago with Rosa Parks. The world has passed you by while you have remained in stasis. The only Jim Crow law on the books today relates to guns (e.g., in my own state of N.C. where you have to get CLEO approval to purchase a handgun so those “horrible” Negros don’t get them, a law BTW that is still on the books today and for which the N.C. legislature and governor fought just this past session). And guess what? The blacks seem to want this Jim Crow law. Go figure. Today we live in a world where my daughter goes to college (like she did several years back), and rooms with two black girls who stay high all of the time, get their grades handed to them (because no professor wants a charge of racism), both of whom drive Cadillac Escalades, and get their “education” paid for entirely by your and my tax money. My daughter drove a beaten up Volvo 240 that I perpetually worked on to keep on the road, took out student loans, and used loans I took out to finish her Nursing education. Today she is a ER… Read more »
The 14th Amendment did NOT modify the Bill of Rights in any way. The 10th Amendment is canonical, the 14th is not. As you know, or should know, the 14th Amendment was not lawfully ratified.
The treasonous war waged by the US government against the lawfully seceded southern states is another example of why Republicans are not good for the south and southern men and women.
Sebastian, the reason you are the subject of so much vitriol, is that you do not understand your own position. The citizens of this country are already at war, with their own govt., albeit low intensity warfare. You, are assuming the mantle of Custer. You have already been warned that there are massive amounts of enemies nearby, outnumbering you 8 to 1, you do not have your Gatling guns with you, you have split your outnumbered command in the face of superior numbers, and yet you go charging in, just like you expect victory to result (voting our way out of this) That time passed over fifty years ago. The communists in our govt., all three branches, in the bureaucracy, the courts, the state and local govts., are not going to allow us to win, using the usual mechanisms of a republic. To discuss political parties as part of a solution is much like the French discussing the fact they had better tanks than the Germans, as they sail for exile to England. All the major players in party control are co opted by their ideology, communism. The only victory any one will get at this point, by working within the “system”, is the knowledge that their time spent behind the barbed wire will be relatively short, as starvation and dysentery will do their work faster than expected. Ever hear that speech that went something like, “men cry Peace! Peace! When the war has already begun! Swine like Obongo and Schumer delight in people like you, because they know what a useful idiot you are to them. You are clinging to a past that is irrelevant, as the future gobbles you up.
Sean,
Very good analysis with your comments. Well written.
Counting on the party of Lincoln to do anything Constitutional (original intent-wise) is a fool’s errand.
Withdraw your consent, do not vote in US government elections. Let the US government wither.
Did Sebastain advice Romney?