State's Rights have been maligned by Democrats and the Left as of late. Congressman Rand Paul made press time while discussing state's ability to nullify federal laws that are stifling to individual states.
Yet be careful, Democrats, what arguments you take up. As far back as the Constitution Convention, the Democratic-Republicans fought for a Bill of Rights on the premise of State's Rights. Andrew Jackson's vice president John C. Calhoun looked to remove South Carolina from a burdensome federal tariff. Democrats continued to staunchly support rights of the individual states throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in regard to slavery, Jim Crow and disenfranchisement.
For whatever reasons the battle over State's Rights was fought, the concept of a republic stands strong under differences between the states, unfettered in most respects from a centralized federal government. At times our rights and mechanisms of the separate levels of government work in favor of ideals we disagree with. Harken back a few decades to Skokie, Illinois. A group used the First Amendment as protection to hold a parade most found deplorable; the ACLU saw fit to protect their right to march in court.
In short, Democrats arguing State's Rights has been used as a tool of the racist is correct (yet they have primarily been Democrats using the defense), but their admonition is tantamount to claiming freedom of speech is a tool of the National Socialist Party. Because both have been held up as justifications to anger us, is that any reason to remove whole mechanisms?
No comments:
Post a Comment