States’ Rights on the Rise

According to The New York Times, whether it’s correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights — or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing — are on a roll.

Several states, most of them red, have been adopting resolutions emphasizing their own rights or denouncing federal authority. South Dakota and Wyoming have declared federal gun laws invalid if the gun is made and used within the state; the Oklahoma House has passed a resolution saying they should be able to vote on opting out of federal health-care reform; Utah’s legislature has said the federal government cannot enact health-care reform without its permission, and also said the state has the power to seize federal land under eminent domain; and Alabama, Tennessee, and Washington are all considering measures to assert local police’s power over federal authorities. Much of this legislation has been championed and pushed by Tea Parties, but it’s unlikely much of it will last. “Article 6 says that federal law is supreme and that if there’s a conflict, federal law prevails,” says one constitutional-law professor. “It’s pretty difficult to imagine a way in which a state could prevail on many of these.”


Filed under hate groups, Playing Politics, Political Reform, Radical Rightwing groups, Republicans, Tea Party Movement

16 responses to “States’ Rights on the Rise

  1. fnord

    Wouldn’t it be fun! Of course it means those of us who blog here regularly will need to move, but look at what we gain!

    (below reprinted without permission because I don’t know who to ask) 😉

    Oh, I think we can just divide up the country between red states and blues states. Since the red states love the policies of the Republicans, it stands to reason they would want to keep the states where voters keep electing and re-electing them.

    Of course, things have changed since the 2004 elections, but I’m glad to go back to that dividing line. It means this:

    Dear Red States…

    We’ve decided we’re leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we’re taking the other Blue States with us.

    In case you aren’t aware, that includes Hawaii, Oregon,Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois and all the Northeast. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, and especially to the people of the new country of New California.

    To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states. We get stem cell research and the best beaches.

    We get the Statue of Liberty. You get Dollywood.
    We get Intel and Microsoft. You get WorldCom.
    We get Harvard. You get Ole’ Miss.
    We get 85 percent of America’s venture capital and entrepreneurs. You get Alabama.
    We get two-thirds of the tax revenue, you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

    Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than the Christian Coalition’s, we get a bunch of happy families. You get a bunch of single moms.

    Please be aware that Nuevo California will be pro-choice and anti-war, and we’re going to want all our citizens back from Iraq at once. If you need people to fight, ask your evangelicals. They have kids they’re apparently willing to send to their deaths for no purpose, and they don’t care if you don’t show pictures of their children’s caskets coming home. We do wish you success in Iraq, and hope that the WMDs turn up, but we’re not willing to spend our resources in Bush’s Quagmire.

    With the Blue States in hand, we will have firm control of 80 percent of the country’s fresh water, more than 90 percent of the pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation’s fresh fruit, 95 percent of America’s quality wines (you can serve French wines at state dinners) 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, all the Ivy and Seven Sister schools, plus Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cal Tech and MIT.

    With the Red States, on the other hand, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans (and their projected health care costs), 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, nearly 100 percent of the tornadoes, 90 percent of the hurricanes, 99 percent of all Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, Clemson and the University of Georgia.

    We get Hollywood and Yosemite, thank you.

    Additionally, 38 percent of those in the Red states believe Jonah was actually swallowed by a whale, 62 percent believe life is sacred unless we’re discussing the death penalty or gun laws, 44 percent say that evolution is only a theory, 53 percent that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and 61 percent of you crazy bastards believe you are people with higher morals then we lefties.

    By the way, we’re taking the good pot, too. You can have that dirt weed they grow in Mexico.

    Peace out,
    Blue States”

  2. fnord

    A bunch of those sore losers who are so angry are going to hasten their deaths if they don’t calm down. Have you ever heard even one of them be able to tell you a single detail of what they’re angry about? I haven’t. I hear broad generalizations and when you ask for a single example they can’t give even one.

  3. PrairiePond

    The rise of the state’s rights movement is not good news for gay people. But then these days…what IS good news for us? Nada.

  4. fnord

    We can count on one fact — as soon as Republicans regain majorities, and the presidency, they will go back to anything that happens in Washington DC is great!

    Since these states’ rights initiatives / resolutions are no more than angry expressions and media garnering plays for attention, they only fool the easily fooled, who it turns out are quite a few in number!

  5. fnord

    I hear all the time now how Republicans criticized bush the lesser and his Republican majority Congress for the out-of-control spending. It’s like they think(?) our memories are as bad as theirs. But, they’re not! We easily remember the lock-stepping, the agreement and justifications for all things bush.

  6. fnord

    Let’s see, Republicans replaced what they called a president who was morally degenerate with one who was merely incompetent in every way. It’s obvious the only thing they care about is the little ‘R’ which assures them not of fiscal responsibility, just tax cuts for the most wealthy. Not that many of them fall into that most wealthy category, just that many of them are too stupid to realize how badly they are used to ensure corporations own them.

    • Sorry to disagree, but I would define anyone who would encourage the use of torture as morally degenerate. If the Christian Coalition doesn’t define torturers are morally degenerate, they must be okay with the treatment Jesus received ad the hands of the government He was wrongly imprisoned and executed by. Right?

      George Bush=morally degenerate.

    • fnord

      In regards to bush the lesser, I’ll go with both incompetent and morally degenerate! He was a perfect pillar of conservative unwisdom in every conceivable way, and America is paying the heavy price for his years of ‘service.’

  7. Zippy

    Prairiepond is correct. Granted, the Tenth Amendment means something (as does the Ninth, which these types never seem to have heard), but the simple fact is that the initial (well-found) suspicion of a strong federal government led to, among other things, the continuation of human slavery in the “land of the free,” leading to such wonderful outcomes as the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court and the Missouri compromise.

    After slavery was made permanently illegal in the US, and the Fourteenth Amendment gave the idea of human rights applying at the local level some teeth, you know of course what the argument became, for the segregations/racists?

    I hardly regard this as a coincidence.

    • They do kick and scream like recalcitrant children when they don’t get their way, don’t they?

      You know what the real problem is?

      The Democratic Party has turned into the “cool” parents that don’t want to piss off the kids and therefore refuses to make the bratty children pay the consequences of their actions or learn the lessons that they need to learn in order to develop in an emotional healthy way. What the recalcitrant children need now is a good old fashioned ass-whoopin. Ironic, isn’t it?

  8. WSClark

    Last night, I made a similar suggestion on WEBlog as your first post to several cons, Fnord.

    Didn’t go over real well. One, on of the usual morons said that the blue states would have to take the national debt. I responded, that the debt would be apportioned based on the President who’s administration generated the debt.

    By my rough calculation, that would give the Blues about $3 trillion and the Reds about $9 trillion.

    Sounds fair?

    • fnord

      Sounds more than fair! Aren’t they the party of personal responsibility? We wouldn’t want to take away what is theirs, and they surely wouldn’t want a hand out from us!

      • indypendent

        But they don’t consider those government checks made out to THEIR names as ‘handouts’.

        By God, they deserve them!

  9. tosmarttobegop

    I want Florida!

    • indypendent

      You do know they can ‘t count ballots- don’t you?


    • fnord

      Well, the way I see it, you’ll just need to wait for the old coots to die off and then see what the prevailing atmosphere is like.