Culture Wars Spark Flip-Flop On States' Rights

Forward ^ | 1/9/03 | ORI NIR

[Robson]

NO when you blend the LEFT Wing globalists with the federal government you get fascism.

I'm not sure that's right. The extreme end of the left is communism -- where the entire society is saddled with the responsiblity of supporting all its members, the weak and the strong alike. "Work according to ability, recieve according to need." In communism, you're always working for the good of the entire society. (And the downside, of course, is that you never see the benefits of your individual contribution.)

Fascism is the extreme end of the right -- where those who can't support themselves are ignored and the strongest & most capable prosper in accordance with their strength and capability. In fascism, you're always working for the good of yourself alone. (The downside being that if, for whatever reason, you can't compete, then you're screwed.)

I'd say, and I think most Americans feel this way, that neither of these extremes is desirable. In fact, most democracies in the world live in this centrist gray area.

[hedgetrimmer]

Statist: practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Statism has nothing to do with the power struggle between states rights and the federal goverment, the term you are actually searching for is federalism.

I also do not accept that many conservatives are "right wing" although being right is much better than being left.

Right Wing:
the rightist division of a group or party
Right
RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT
CORRECT
SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE
STRAIGHT
GENUINE, REAL


Left wing:
the leftist division of a group (as a political party)
Left
BEQUEATH
DEPART
DESERT,
ABANDON

[hedgetrimmer]

The extreme end of the left is communism

Well Bingo! Except you are wrong. In communism you work for the good of the elite. The entire society never thrives under communism only the power elites.

The left wing globalists that have infiltrated our judiciary and our high government offices, don't work for the good of the people. They work to establish the globalist agenda set out by the socialists and communists who form the United Nations and other international socialist groups. The beneficiaries here are the global elites who get to see the socialist policies that have failed every sovereign nation, impelemented yet again at a global level, with themselves as the masters.

What do you think is happening when our own supreme court justices make treasonous remarks like " we need to look at international law for our decisions"?

[Robson]

Right Wing: the rightist division of a group or party

RIGHTEOUS, UPRIGHT CORRECT SUITABLE, APPROPRIATE STRAIGHT GENUINE, REAL

Left wing: the leftist division of a group (as a political party)

BEQUEATH DEPART DESERT, ABANDON

hedgetrimmer, I'm not sure where the conversation can go if you can only be bothered to define one side as "right" and the other side as "wrong".

[hedgetrimmer]

Not my definition. Miriam Webster.

Its a joke, son.

[Robson]

Not my definition. Miriam Webster.

8)

[Flying Circus]

The problem, as I see it, is not the Feds overrunning states rights, but states like Massachusetts being used to over rule the rights of all the other states to define marriage. If Mass. has a law recognizing homosexual marriage, then every other state that the couple goes to will be forced to recognize it too, undermining every other state's right to define marriage. In this situation it is right for the Federal Gov. to step in and resolve the differences.

[Salgak]

No, Left Wing + Statist = State Socialists. Examples are the Communists and the Nazis

Right Wing + Statist = Facists A more historical example would be the Spanish Inquisition.

[Robson]

Well Bingo! Except you are wrong. In communism you work for the good of the elite. The entire society never thrives under communism only the power elites.

That's right, and that's why communism failed -- humans will always be corrupted by greed and power. So what you're describing is the ugly real-world implementation of communism, which is unavoidable. Just like any attempted implementation of fascism quickly degenerates into anarchy and then oligarchy.

[gcruse]

conservatives are increasingly attempting to curtail states' rights

That's a fact, Jack.   Ashcroft doesn't know the difference
between Commandments and Amendments.

[gcruse]

That's because, while they LOOK like Conservatives, they THINK like Statists.
 When you blend the Right Wing with Statism, you get a predictable and all-too-familiar result: Fascism.

That's why we need to junk the left/right dichotomy for liberty/authoritariansim.  That way, oppression shows up even when 'our' side is doing it.

[jwalsh07]

It is kind of funny, isn't it? I've noticed for a while that many conservatives don't mind trampling on several of the first 10 Amendments when it comes to their pet causes. Are these conservatives just the flip side of the liberal coin?

No, social conservatives, like me, are constitutionalists and we take the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to heart.

So when judicial oligarchy rears its ugly head, which it does ever so more often these days, we oppose it on Constitutional grounds.

Judicial tyranny is the problem, not social conservatives.

[antiRepublicrat]

No, social conservatives, like me, are constitutionalists and we take the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government to heart. So when judicial oligarchy rears its ugly head, which it does ever so more often these days, we oppose it on Constitutional grounds.

The type I'm talking about begins with being a social conservative (not necessarily including all though). When one of that type encounters liberal causes that trample on states' rights (Roe v. Wade) or individual rights (gun control), he is a strict constitutionalist calling for the rights of the states and people to be supported over federal tyranny. That their victories occur in the judicial is not an issue; we're talking about federal power (whether it be legislative, executive or judicial) versus state and individual rights.

However, when the subject is a pet cause of social conservatives such as national drug laws, censorship laws or man/woman marriage laws, he suddenly becomes a constitutional liberal who doesn't care that they are egregious examples of the federal government seizing power to step on the rights of the states and/or people.

[antiRepublicrat]

Statism has nothing to do with the power struggle between states rights and the federal goverment, the term you are actually searching for is federalism.

I stand (sit) corrected.

[jwalsh07]

That their victories occur in the judicial is not an issue; we're talking about federal power (whether it be legislative, executive or judicial) versus state and individual rights.

Of course it's an issue. The usurptation of powers granted to the people and their legislators by the judiciary is the source of much of the animus and angst of the people on both sides of the political spectrum.

When a court in Massachusetts decides, by a one vote majority, decides to make new law in direct contravention of the Mass constitution that will effect every other state in the union, then those judges have made that issue a national issue.

Amending the constitution is, by definition constitutional and it has the added feature of incorporating a republican form of government. I would prefer that amendment to simply state that marriage is not the purview of the courts but of the people and the states.

However, the Massachusetts constitution has a provision stating exactly that and it didn't stop their star chamber from making new law. So, while I don't think amending the Constitution declaring marriage is the union of one man and one woman is the best way to go, I understand those that think it is the only way to go.

The only branch of government that is weilding a tyrannical stick is the judiciary and they need reining in. Now.

[j_tull]

Cries in defense of "states' rights" were historically associated with efforts to maintain segregation, and echoed by Republican presidential candidates from Barry Goldwater in 1964 to Bush in 2000

Funny, I don't remember the President supporting segregation in 2000.

[antiRepublicrat]

The only branch of government that is weilding a tyrannical stick is the judiciary and they need reining in. Now.

The War on Drugs, gun laws and other abuses of the Commerce Clause were passed by the legislative branch and signed by the executive branch. Add to that the massive abuse by departments of the executive branch. The judicial is only one of our problems, but you consider it the only problem because it is the one most often used by the social liberals. You don't seem to consider the legislative and executive abuses a problem when you agree with their goals.

If you want the states and the people to have rights free of the federal government, it must be all rights, not just those you like. Otherwise it is inconsistent and hypocritical.