States’ Rights, Individual Liberties and Other American Falsehoods
By Dr. Henry Flores, NewsTaco
I think it is about time to drive spikes into the cracks of some of these American fabrications. Apologists and supporters of States’ Rights and Individual Liberties or Individualism claim that these are cornerstones of the American ideal. Well I think these concepts are at the heart of a great deal of what is wrong with America today and it’s high time that we start exposing this mystification. [tweet_dis]States’ rights specifically were designed to protect social privilege in many of the southern states since the inception of the republic.[/tweet_dis] Before I get into the meat of my argument I do need to say that this may take more than one column to discuss.
Meaning of States Rights
[pullquote]States’ rights is the basic argument many states are using to pass severe voter identification laws, abolish women’s health clinics, dismantle public school systems, prevent workers from organizing, protect polluters, refusing to marry same sex couples and implementing the Affordable Care Act.[/pullquote]Some will say that states’ rights are a protection guaranteed by and enshrined in the Constitution of the United States but they fail to discuss what the political consequences of this concept are. To supporters of states’ rights it means that the states have sovereign power over the United States of America and states can follow any legal path they wish until the “feds” rein them in. Of course, reining in a state that has violated a federal law or has passed a law that is patently in violation of some other aspect of the constitution is extremely difficult if not impossible and very cost-prohibitive for the average citizen.
States’ rights is the basic argument many states are using to pass severe voter identification laws, abolish women’s health clinics, dismantle public school systems, prevent workers from organizing, protect polluters, refusing to marry same sex couples and implementing the Affordable Care Act. States’ rights were originally included in the constitution to limit the power of the national government and are an artifact of the ill-fated Articles of Confederation. However, the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses of the constitution have over-ridden the tenth amendment at almost every juncture. The Supreme Court, with only a few exceptions, has always ruled that Congress can make all necessary and proper laws to govern the nation over any objections from the states. I argue that states’ rights has been used historically to protect local governments in their attempts at passing Jim Crow laws in the south and other discriminatory laws around the nation against African Americans, Latinos, women, and LGBT persons.
States’ Rights as a Threat to National Unity
[pullquote][tweet_dis]The supporters of states’ rights are attempting to refight the Civil War and wish to undermine our nation. In short, I feel that supporters of states’ rights are bordering on treason.[/tweet_dis][/pullquote]Since 2009 thirty seven states have attempted to pass what are called State Sovereignty Resolutions or laws; at least thirteen states have been successful in this endeavor. The laws are designed to allow states to not implement federal laws that the states deem unconstitutional. Essentially, these states are saying that they have more power than the national government and if they don’t want to follow the “laws of the land” they don’t have to. Some argue this as the basis to fight against federal gun control laws, the Affordable Care Act and impose the spirit of the Defense of Marriage Act. The thirteen states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming. Texas wants to join this auspicious group and may do so in the forthcoming legislative session. What do all of these states have in common? You got it, their state legislatures are all dominated by the Republican Party. Hmm, this movement has been going on since 2009. Hmmmm, wasn’t that President Obama’s first year in office? There may be some correlation here but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
What Did Andrew Jackson Have Against the Tenth Amendment?
You are probably thinking that I’ve gone off on another of my tangents (I have so many!). But President Jackson, for all his racist, ethnic cleansing foibles did have one thing to say that was proverbial during his administration. He pointed out that if the states were allowed to be sovereign over the national government then the nation would eventually cease to exist. The nation almost came apart because states’ rights became one point of contention leading to the Civil War just a few years later. In my perception, the supporters of states’ rights are attempting to refight the Civil War and wish to undermine our nation. In short, I feel that supporters of states’ rights are bordering on treason.
Henry Flores, PhD, is the Distinguished University Research Professor, Institute of Public Administration and Public Service; Director, Masters in Public Administration (MPA); Professor of International Relations and Political Science at St. Mary’s University. He is the author of Latinos and the Voting Rights Act: The Search for Racial Purpose.
Latinos and the Voting Rights Act: The Search for Racial Purpose.
