Neo-Confederates?

The scribes at West Virginia Blue, with their usual grasp of history and facts, have dubbed those supporting the Intrastate Coal and Use Act "Neo-Confederates." This must come from the fact that they are citing the Tenth Amendment and its defense of states' rights.

The Confederates did cite states' rights in defense of their cause, as did the legislators in the last session. That must mean that abolitionists in the North between 1850 and the Civil War were Confederates beofre the fact. In 1850, Congress passed a Fugitive Slave Act that expanded the law enforcement powers of United states Marshals and infringed upon property rights. Abolitionists cited states' rights in opposition. This makes them pre Confederates, according to the Democratic blog.

Other pre-Confederates, according to the logic of West Virginia Blue, include Democratic Party founders Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. They were the first to articulate states' rights doctrine. In 1798, they penned the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions that claimed state courts could find federal laws unconstitutional. The law that created such powerful objections was the Sedition Act. This law made it a crime to satirize or make any untrue statements about the government, its policies, or its officials. In other words, today it would allow the arrest of newspaper editors, the cast and crew of Saturday Night Live, and a lot of bloggers. Who defines what the truth is about the government? The government would! Jefferson and Madison knew no other recourse against such an abominable law rather than to resort to states' rights doctrine. And Madison, being the architect of the Constitution, would know what could and could not be done.

Since we are on the subject of associating ideas with regimes, I wonder if anyone at West Virginia Blue has ever done the following:

Driven on the interstate

Ridden in a jet plane

Used satellite television

Approved of Obama using cruise missiles in Libya

Owned, drove, or simply admired a Volkswagen

If so, this makes them neo-Nazis. The National Socialists came up with the idea of the authobahn, which Eisenhower adapted into the interstate highway system. The German Air Force invented the jet engine. Germans in World War II created the ballistic and cruise missiles; of course ballistic missiles were the basis for the rockets that brought the advance of space flight and satellite deployment. And we all know that Volkswagens were "Hitler's car."

The states' rights principles articulated by Republicans and Democrats in the past session are meant to put checks on an overreaching federal government. A bipartisan group of men and women want to make economic conditions better for everyone, regardless of race. They see the federal government standing in the way at every turn. and just like the co-founders of the Democratic Party, Messrs. Jefferson and Madison, they see states' rights as a shield of liberty when the federal government goes too far.

How Much Do You Support States' Rights?

It's easy to stand by a principle when you agree with it whole heartedly. States' rights is an issue that conservatives tend to like. We want a balanced system between the state and federal authorities to prevent tyranny. We especially like the laws passed in some states that say firearms manufactured and sold entirely in one state are not subject to federal gun laws. That's great.

But what about something more controversial? Would you oppose federal action against California's Proposition 19?

California voters will decide whether or not to almost fully decriminalize marijuana this November. It does go a little too far in that it prevents employers from disciplining employees suspected of being high and it also does not outlaw smoking by passengers in a car despite the risk of contact highs. This is farther than simply putting pot on par with alcohol which is what most legalization groups want. It will probably also kill the proposal, rendering this point moot. Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to act anyway regardless of state voters' choices.

Regardless of some of the objectionable parts, this is an issue for the voters of the sovereign State of California. This is not a federal issue. It is a test of our states' rights principles. Would those conservatives who disagree with drug legalization stand by the right of California to act in this manner without federal interference?

Personally I do not oppose putting marijuana almost on par with alcohol, except I'd go further and bar it from public spaces due to the nature of pot smoke. I do think that employers have a right to not have high, or drunk for that matter, employees. But those of you who are against legalization, would you support California or Attorney General Holder?

Federal intervention in state affairs has generally produced damaging results. Every time we make an exception and excuse federal meddling, we undermine the states; rights cause. Any detriment caused by California being able to make its own pot policy would be more than equalled by the benefits of the federal government respecting state voters and legislatures across the board.

States Need to Plan For Sovereignty

Obama's federal government plans to steamroll over any obstacle, including Congress, the state governments, and the people, to implement its global warming policies. He has baldly stated that if Congress does not act, he will simply have the Environmental Protection Agency implement regulatory law.

Here's the rub on federal regulatory law and executive orders for that matter. They flatly violate the Constitution. The very first words of the Constitution, after the preamble, state that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ." Not the president, not the Environmental Protection Agency, but Congress alone. This means that federal regulations and executive orders not passed by Congress technically and Constitutionally are not laws at all.

Then why do states fall in line with them? Because they are addicted to federal funding for schools, highways, social services, and who knows what else. Cross the government and Congress might take away your federal funding. So far, Congress has only directly threatened to take away funding if states defy that branch. It remains to be seen what might happen if states assert their Tenth Amendment rights solely against executive branch encroachment upon their rights.

States need to ask at this point, what is the worst that could happen if their legislatures voted and decided that the new EPA regulations did not apply to mining or manufacturing operations within their state boundaries. Would federal police or troops enforce the laws? Likely not, because California has quietly voided marijuana laws in their state in certain circumstances for many years. Advocates for federal agencies will argue that the Marshall Court's McCullough v. Maryland protects their actions against state action. However this case applied to a federal agency independently doing its job, not a federal agency compelling action on the part of others.

The cost of meeting federal mandates and obeying regulatory law probably costs states more in the long run than they receive from the federal government. Texas is opting out of federal funding of education because of that very circumstance. States that void regulatory law and executive orders to create a freer environment for business will reap more tax revenues because they suddenly get a competitive advantage over other states for business.

Does this mean we advocate the repeal or ignoring of all environmental law? Certainly not. However, if it is worthwhile, the people will demand it of the states and of the Congress. We do not need a dictatorial executive branch running off to create its own law without reference to the Constitution or the people.

States looking to reclaim their constitutional rights should start now and craft a "Plan For State Sovereignty." This means that they need to look at every dollar they get from the federal government and find ways to do without it. Compare the money they get to the total cost of what the feds expect, and find creative ways to make up the difference if there is any. In this way we can restore balance to the system and check the monstrous power of the federal government over the lives of people and the rights of the states.