Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual).”     Ayn Rand

June 21, 2010

Point: “State’s Rights” A Misnomer

by TomStrong

This is a post in our continuing “Point/Counterpoint” series, where TLP contributors and/or guest posters debate a topic. In this installment, Michael Powell argues against the existence of “states’ rights”. Tomorrow, Brad Warbiany will defend states’ rights, and his post can now be found here.

During the twentieth century, there were several confrontations between federal authorities and those proclaiming “state’s rights.” The most notable were those of Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus, in 1967, who called on his state’s National Guard to block several African American youths from attending high school and Alabama Governor George Wallace, who literally stood in the way of troops sent by the Kennedy Administration to escort students Vivian Malone and James Hood (both instances being unforgivable offenses in the Deep South) in 1963. The state was blatantly violating not only individual rights of its citizens but also the legal authority of the U.S. Supreme Court and the executive branch.

The “right” for the state to discriminate against the individual in defiance of federal law (and human decency, which is another matter and not a concept that is very popular in Alabama or other deep southern states) was precisely what George Wallace cited explicitly in his speech at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963:

The unwelcomed, unwanted, unwarranted and force-induced intrusion upon the campus of the University of Alabama today of the might of the Central Government offers frightful example of the oppression of the rights, privileges and sovereignty of this State by officers of the Federal Government. This intrusion results solely from force, or threat of force, undignified by any reasonable application of the principle of law, reason and justice. It is important that the people of this State and nation understand that this action is in violation of rights reserved to the State by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alabama. While some few may applaud these acts, millions of Americans will gaze in sorrow upon the situation existing at this great institution of learning.

Personally, I would not cry crocodile tears if the South had been let go during the Civil War. My ancestors fought in the Confederate Army but my personal life has been filled with people of color. The South has not simply been racist; it has been the closest region in the Western World to pre-industrial feudalism. Its ugly history of public executions, terrorism, exclusion from employment and education of massive portions of the population (including not just people of color but poor whites, women and those who stood against the Southern Christian traditionalist grain), intellectual rejection, ethno-nationalism, proud ignorance and aggressive religiosity is more reflective of the worst regimes in the Middle East than the enlightened industrial democracies of Western Europe, North America and Asia. Just as is the case with the Middle East, the rich natural resources of the South have been the primary reason for keeping the impoverished backwater area in the sphere of the United States.

If it hadn’t been for slavery, racism and the South, the “state’s rights” argument may have more standing validity. Unfortunately, for those who bring back its spectre it brings to mind Jim Crow laws, lynchings, segregation and war. Just as the swastika, which actually has a relevance to Buddhist philosophy, has been defiled by the actions of German National Socialism, “state’s rights” has been defiled by the actions of Southern political actors.

For issues in which “state’s rights” would be a logical defense, especially regarding marijuana, where states like California seek to protect the individual rights of drug users in defiance of prohibitionist federal intervention, I have to beg the question: Why is it an issue of state governance and not simply the right of the individual to do as he wishes?

This isn’t simply a historical, theoretical argument either. States are still today violating individual rights, with the federal government acting as an intervening force of justice. Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, which effectively legislated racial profiling and declared war on undocumented workers who are critical to the American economy, is being set upon by the Obama administration’s Justice Department.

I have worked in Latin American foreign policy, so I would like to add that, while I stand in firm opposition to SB 1070, I understand completely why it was implemented. We are in really bad economic shape, as I surely don’t have to inform anyone here. That is exacerbated by the perception by people that don’t understand economics that Hispanic immigrants are “stealing” their jobs and the horrendous mob violence that has been implemented on the border by drug cartels. I reject Kantian ethics that proclaim motivations to paramount to results, however, and a mob of fearful people hardly ever makes the right decision. In American history, “state’s rights” has been a flag that has often been waved by populist demagogues while “individual rights” has been waved by judges and executives with a better grasp of the law. “State’s rights” is a misnomer which is usually used to defend defiance of settled law. It doesn’t deserve or necessitate revival in our political discourse.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2010/06/21/states-rights-a-misnomer/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

5 Comments

  1. “If it hadn’t been for slavery, racism and the South, the “state’s rights” argument may have more standing validity.”

    ^Logic……..void.
    ——————————————-
    “This isn’t simply a historical, theoretical argument either. States are still today violating individual rights, with the federal government acting as an intervening force of justice. Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, which effectively legislated racial profiling and declared war on undocumented workers who are critical to the American economy, is being set upon by the Obama administration’s Justice Department”

    ^This “point” is chock full of fail.
    ———————————————-
    “In American history, “state’s rights” has been a flag that has often been waved by populist demagogues while “individual rights” has been waved by judges and executives with a better grasp of the law.”

    ^The old “state’s rights…populist demagogue” comparison is a little worn after four or five decades (or more) of use.
    ———————————————–
    “‘State’s rights’ is a misnomer which is usually used to defend defiance of settled law.”

    ^There is nothing prima facie wrong with “defiance of settled law.”

    Comment by Procopius — June 21, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
  2. I agree with you that “State’s Rights” is a misnomer. States don’t have rights, individuals do. Better would be to say, “The interest of the State in protecting the rights of it’s citizens”.

    Based on this piece alone, I fail to see how you reached that conclusion. You bring up the War of Northern Aggression and seem to defend the idea of the State forcing citizens to associate and enter into contracts against their will, and then decry the injustice of the state prohibiting the citizens from ingesting certain things.

    Racism seems to be the common theme, but that will never be cured through the use of force or the threat thereof, that only causes it to go into hiding and fester. Education and exposure to the harsh light of reason are the only cure, if there truly be one.

    Comment by John222 — June 21, 2010 @ 6:41 pm
  3. No one can cure culture, and that is the biggest contributor to prejudice.

    Nevertheless, I would hardly call liberating people from enforced servitude “forcing citizens to associate and enter into contracts against their will.” I think the forcing to associate happened on the part of the slaveholders themselves.

    Comment by Michael O. Powell — June 21, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
  4. [...] Michael O. Powell: No one can cure culture, and that is the biggest contributor to prejudice. Nevertheless, I would… [...]

    Pingback by The Liberty Papers »Blog Archive » CounterPoint: Yes, Virginia, States Really Do Have Rights — June 22, 2010 @ 3:32 am
  5. When the Union decided that the States did not have the right to secede, the freedom to associate was infringed. However moral the cause, the method used was an illegal violation of natural rights.

    According to census data of the time (1860), less than 400,000 people owned nearly 4 million slaves out of a total population of roughly 30 million. Educating people that their “property” was actually a living, breathing, thinking individual would have taken longer, but would have resulted in far less loss of life and a much smoother integration void of the resentment that is still harbored today.

    Not all Southerners were racist, nor did most of them own slaves. The ones that did own slaves purchased them legally and largely in slave markets of the North.

    Comment by John222 — June 22, 2010 @ 6:42 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML