Progressives make fun of the 10th amendment at their own peril 

Odd that we've heard nothing from the sovereignty movement about this important victory for states' rights delivered by the Obama administration.

Of course, it's not odd, because the "sovereignty movement" is by and large the same reactionary response to social movements that have promised and delivered freedom and equality.

It would seem that rather than making fun of the 10th amendment, the progressives in the Obama administration have taken it far more serious than the southern reactionaries ever have and delivered an important victory for democracy.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte…

Is there a salient point buried in here? The author applies labels as though they are rigid, precise, well-defined and interchangeable across centuries and the wide ideological swaths cut by the two major political parties...as if there's some sort of single drummer that each of two sides is supposed to march to. Then, even though these labels have always been, at best, blunt instruments and conversational shortcuts, he proceeds to point out how they old definitions don't apply and, lo and behold, partisan politics is rife with hypocrisy and cherry-picking issues. Sort of a long-winded way of saying that politics makes strange bedfellows...but maybe there's something more weighty that didn't hit me before I drowned in the sea of adjectives.

In reply to Mr. Delgado’s comment of no democratic tradition of States Rights and that States Rights has never been divorced from efforts to maintain white supremacy, I do not think that this is the true history of States Rights, i.e., only a political device for racial dominance. But, let us suppose for a moment that he is correct. Does that mean that, just because States Rights in the past was used only for the purpose of supremacy, all States Rights efforts in the present or future would be likewise? I hardly think so, in as much as we have a wide variety of overlapping associations in this country besides just racial associations: religious, financial, occupational, political, philosophical, sports, hobbies, body types, fashion, etc., to name just a few. Sure, there will be some who put more emphasis on race. I know, I have met some of them from many different races, who do just that, but so what. Again, you do not force others to like each other; it only creates or increases animosity where none or little existed before. Forgive the worn cliché, but birds of a feather flock together and better to have different flocks of birds flocking together freely than to force a mishmash of antagonistic groups to get along, which brings us to Mr. Delgado’s confusion about my use of the term “balkanization.”

According to my Webster’s New World Dictionary, balkanization is the “breaking up into small, mutually hostile political units.” Mr. Delgado is right in that the Soviet Union resisted Balkanization, whereas here in the U.S.A. our leadership promotes and creates hostilities via their policies on immigration, forced associations, and other forced policies that encompass every area of our lives, hence, our leadership is promoting the balkanization of our country, and that cannot mean a united country, which is why we are witnessing the continued devolution of a once truly great Republic and the destruction of individual liberty. Unlike the Soviet example, the hostilities that continue to develop today either were nonexistent or manageable when there was not so much power invested in the Federal government. Moreover, the Soviet Union did not have a 10th Amendment to allow for different views and political answers, they just tried to fit everyone into one box to everyone’s detriment, and the rest is history. States Rights, on the other hand, does not advocate the destruction of a Federal government and the disuniting of the nation, but does advocate for those rights that are properly in the domain of each individual state. A secessionist would, however, welcome the severance from the Federal government, and that, too, is being discussed and advocated in various quarters throughout the land. But, even they, are not necessarily hostile to their neighboring states, as in the Balkans. Those who like real change would welcome some of these changes (I for one); however, others would not, as there is no guarantee that they would end up with a free lunch, as many of them hope for in the present and emerging socialist structure.

I'm not unsympathetic to states' rights in a purely abstracted sense. Theoretically, the smaller the sovereign entity the better the chance for democracy. In the US, however, there is no democratic tradition of states' rights. States rights have never been divorced from efforts to maintain white supremacy.

I'm confused as to the previous poster's critique of "balkanization" and suspect he does not know what it means. The Soviet Union resisted Balkanization. A true advocate of states' rights should champion Balkanization, or local and state sovereingty and independence.

Notwithstanding the comment by Theo and others of an obvious Democrap or unbridled, deuces-are-wild libertarian bias, States Rights is not only not outmoded, but it is essential for the protection of individual liberty and maximizing the potential opportunities for choices to achieve same. In this regard, Ayn Rand’s comment about the bigger the government, the bigger the chopper to chop off your head comes readily to mind. Therefore, as an added protection for the individual, States Rights serves as a safety valve to shield from the big chopper of a monolithic government, which has the legal monopoly of physical force (prison and/or confiscation of the fruits of ones labor). Theo would have us believe that the only reason States Rights came about was because of time and distance; however, it transcends both, as it applies just as much today as it did back during the colonial days, if not more so. Theo, however, was very correct in that we are “no longer a loosely associated band of territories and colonies,” but rather we are a devolving nation under the control by those who have little or no regard for the welfare of this nation and its citizens, and who pit one group against another, destroy our borders and sovereignty, allow 30 million illegal aliens to invade our country and make them permanent residents for the sake of more votes to keep them in office and for cheap, slave labor. Although both Democraps and Repugnantcans within the Democrat and Republican parties respectively, share blame in this, it is primarily Democraps who embrace the insanity of flooding this nation with more uneducated peasants and continuing the mindless spending this nation into poverty in the name of stimulating the economy to get us out of debt.

Even the confused potheads, whose comments seem to pit individual rights against States Rights, should appreciate the value of States Rights. Unfortunately, freedom for most of them is either smoking a pipe or a weed and the heck with everything else, especially the actual intent of the Founding Fathers, who I cannot imagine had getting drunk or high as an inalienable right. Right thinking, and I don’t mean politically right, just sound reason and logic, favors sobriety in achieving an ordered society of free individuals and brings into question those who would make the legalization of drugs a cause celebre in the name of liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or was it drunkenness?). As for the medicinal use of marijuana, which is open to debate as to its value, is that really cause for rejecting States Rights because quasi socialist, neo-conartist George Bush denied a state to allow it? Apparently for some it does, but then again, smoke does cloud doesn’t it, which is why many of them probably voted for the real socialist, Barack Hussein Obama, which is tantamount to going to a restaurant, getting indigestion, then going out and consuming a bottle of poison as a cure. Who ever said rationality and taking responsibility for one’s actions was a requisite for voting? Oh, but it’s change isn’t it? Chump change, but change, nevertheless.

As indicated by Annarlutz's comment, the Founding Fathers were aware of the problems that political parties could pose, as they vie for ascendancy to power. And, Annarlutz also has it right regarding today’s Orwellian ideas of special privileges and most favored minority-group-of-the-day policies. No supremacist or separatist of whatever race could do more damage than what has and continues to be done in the name of equality, civil rights, and the misguided notion that you can force people to get along and like each other, let alone unite a nation. Here, the history of the Soviet Union, with its balkanization, is a reminder of what happens when force is used to artificially forge a union. Unless you have the mindset of a Rodney King ---- a repeat felon who just wants everyone to get along by tossing all principles, morals, law and order, reason, and logic aside --- in a truly free country, we should have and promote freedom of association, not forced association. Except for the obvious association with criminal elements, the government has no business forcing anyone to associate with anyone else in the private sector, as this is the inherent right of the individual, irrespective of association or topic. Again, States Rights would serve to counter the heavy hand of a Federal government that tends toward infringing upon individual rights in the misguided notion of creating harmony among disparate groups through force or threat of force (imprisonment and/or confiscation of wealth). Law abiding individual citizens, uncoerced by government and left to their own devices, will pursue happiness based on their own abilities, inclinations, and ambitions for the ultimate greater good of an ordered and free society. Harmony and respect are but a few fruits of allowing individuals to be free. The Founding Fathers from the past wisely knew this. To our detriment, we forget it and continue to pursue the collectivist and socialist policies that have always failed throughout the history of mankind.