•3:32 PM
One of the common themes I often hear when discussing our oversized and bloated federal government is "State's Rights." That theme almost kept us from becoming the United States and almost broke our Union during the Civil War. It was the battle cry of the South in the "War Against Northern Aggression" or the "War for State's Rights." It is the battle cry of many even today - especially among the very conservative. I do not fault them for that belief. However, they should think twice about ever promoting such a thing. I plainly state that there never has been and never will be such a preposterous thing as "State's Rights" and you and I should stand against any such claim.
There are only Human Rights - your rights and my rights. The State of Connecticut has no rights. The state of Utah has no rights. The United States have no rights. Only the People have rights and we should never promote any non-person being somehow given rights.
These rights are unalienable and cannot be conferred or denied. The chief of these rights is the right to Life - all others mean nothing without that. A person may forfeit those rights by their actions and oppressive government may deny them but the people have them and governments and laws are instituted for the one sole purpose of protecting and preserving those rights. That is the role of government in a nutshell: to preserve your rights.
There is nothing sacred about a democracy that denies rights. I would rather live under a virtuous king that preserves his people's rights than a Republic that denies them. The form is not the important piece - whether it is a democracy, republic, monarchy, or theocracy. The important thing is whether the citizen's rights are preserved and protected. We should work more and more to not shore up states rights at both the federal and state level but to shore up human rights. When a state's interest supersedes a human right we should work for its eventual annulment and for the right of man to triumph.
2 comments:
I absolutely agree with you on this point. When our federal government steamrolls over the rights and the voice of the people, however, how should the people best organize to take them to task? It appears that checks and balances in the federal gov't can and will fail. The federal government is there for the states, not states for the federal government. The state may not have "rights" as such, but it should have authority, delegated to it by its people to be the last resort when the federal gov't is unruly.
I know the right to vote and elect our leaders is that check and balance, but once they are in power, and they begin to do very destructive things to our country and against the people, should the people not be able to have immediate recourse? That is where the people should have immediate power through their states. Just my two cents.
Ethan,
I do agree that there is a balance of powers by design in our federal system. One of my favorite parts of the constitution is where states can, of themselves, ammend the constitution without the federal government. This illustrates the point that you brought up.
I do have to share one opinion though and you will have to let me know what you think of it. I do not believe that the Federal Government is there for the States or, like you, that the states are there for the Federal Government. I believe that both are there for the people and only for the People.
The Federal Government exists to provide a more perfect Union and to better secure the rights of its citizens. The Federal Government has always done a better job of this than the states with the exception of abortion. Abortion however is an interesting case because it was generally outlawed in most states not because it was viewed as protecting life but for other reasons. The right to life argument is fairly recent as it relates to abortion. Nevertheless, the Federal, and not the State governments has done a much better job, albeit still imperfect, of protecting yours and my rights. It is amazing to me when I ponder on it.
The Constitution was designed specifically to keep any kind of "immmidiate" recource from happening. The kind of immidiate recourse they had been used to at that time was rebellion, mobocracy and rival forms of civilian government. The price we pay for a Republic is mediocrity. Speed is the tool of a monarchy or other totalitarian form of government. Our system of checks, balances, and compromise almost always will lead us away from the ideal. However, that less acceptable form of the ideal is the price we pay for self rule that limits rashness and protects rights of the majority and minority. It is an interesting place for us to be in and difficult when we see compromises being made that may ultimilately lead to the ruin of our great land.