Comments on: What they mean when they say “states’ rights”

by: Kelly

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 14:12:02 +0000

Dana,
I don’t see any reference to states rights in that article. The senator is stating that states and the public should have more input into the federal decisions that affect them. His bill would require that the federal government consider the local impact of their actions. It does not say anything about the states constructing an electrical corridor; nor that the federal government should not construct it.

by: Mister Nice Guy, Boggart of Fried Potatoes and Sausage

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 04:26:24 +0000

That nifty typeset lettering is appropriately reminiscent of EC Comics: http://www.tebeosfera.com/Documento/Articulo/Warren/pics/4.%20TalesCrypt_36_3.jpg

Tales from the Crypt meets Tales From the South.

And speaking of old-fashioned evil, thanks to Dana for fulfilling everyone’s expectations by blatantly misrepresenting what everyone’s been saying. You’ve done your duty, now go back under the bridge, dear.

by: Dana

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 13:48:43 +0000

While this thread is moribund, I saw this story in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, where Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) is incensed that the federal government is stomping on states’ rights:

Casey: U.S. sapping state power
He plans a bill to increase public input on the federal push for new transmission lines.
By Amy Worden

HARRISBURG - With anger mounting over federal plans for a vast East Coast electricity transmission corridor that would cross much of Pennsylvania, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. said yesterday that he would introduce legislation seeking greater state and public input in federal decisions on power-line construction.

The Pennsylvania Democrat said the federal government had ignored the state’s concerns when it designated 52 of 67 counties as part of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast corridor last year.

“This process is not fair to lots of states,” Casey said in an interview after a public forum he held in the Capitol.

The transmission corridors are intended to relieve congestion and prevent blackouts like the one that hit the Northeast in 2003.

Casey’s bill would require the Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to consider alternatives to power-line construction, take into account how decisions would affect state conservation and pollution-reduction efforts, and provide a clear and open process for public comment.

And here I thought that anyone who was complaining about the federal government imposing its will on the states was doing so for racist reasons!

by: mythago

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:27:03 +0000

Other examples would be the coersion by the federal government which forced the states to raise the legal drinking age to 21 (via threat of cutting off funds)

Gosh, I would think Libertarians would be super in favor of that one. After all, the states have a choice to refuse that money and do as they please.

by: paul

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:26:29 +0000

Can we just refer people to the good articles on racist and other code words, the same way we refer them to the Feminism 101 site? One of the strongest weapons the right has is its continuity of funding and madrassa-like “think tanks”, so that the same lies get pushed generation after generation. But it seems progressives have to relearn the same skepticism every time…

by: JackGoff, Droll Jester of Tomatoey Goodness

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 19:06:58 +0000

people make arguments for states’ rights when they want to deny the individual rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.

Bingo.

BTW,Ayn Rand made the same arguement against state’s rights as you; odd company, indeed.

Uh, she made the argument against both “the state”, not “states” as in the sense it is used in terms of “states’ rights”. She wanted no control by the state because that brought about some utopia where John Galts benevolently ran well-oiled machines of industry and paid their workers, who were busy worker bees. That’s a fine description of the Gilded Age, except the John Galts were not benevolent (more like malevolent), and the workers were more like slaves who died from disease and overwork. Ayn Rand was a putz who didn’t learn from history.

by: blondie

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 17:47:54 +0000

In my experience, people make arguments for states’ rights when they want to deny the individual rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.

by: Mighty Ponygirl

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:16:00 +0000

Ayn Rand made the same arguement against state’s rights as you

I’m sorry, I must have missed that part–maybe I vomitted on it after her libertarian “hero” raped a woman in order to gain ownership of her.

by: Barry

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:40:57 +0000

BTW,Ayn Rand made the same arguement against state’s rights as you; odd company, indeed.

by: Barry

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 15:38:36 +0000

You slur libertarians by insinuating that our desire for limited government is racism….why don’t you talk to actual libertarians? I believe that the Federal Govt. has the duty to step in when the rights of citizens are being violated at the state level (as in the Wallace example you begin the post with), but I also believe that the distinction between the state and federal levels of government are part of the seperation-of-powers that protect our liberties; the same seperation-of-powers that the Bush Admin. has worked so hard to destroy.