I'm a state's right'er' who believes Lincoln was criminally wrong. But I don't believe this Schiavo matter was a state's right issue. The Gov and Leg of the state sided with the Feds and likely Gov Bush invited their intervention. This is a separation of powers issue and a necessary Constitutional confrontation between the judiciary and the other branches, one that Jefferson predicted would eventually be necessary because of the acceptance by the Federal judiciary of the Marshallian philosophy.
Actually, I would agree with you that this isn't a state rights conflict. I do happen to admire Lincoln, whom imo is ou greatest President, however I find it somewhat illogical that some conservatives are acting as though this is new ground violated considering Lincoln's early role in the Party. As though this is a new issue.
If ever a case were to be made about state rights it would be Lincoln's role in denying secession. My point is that even if we were to concede it a state rights issue, can it really be argued this is even comparable to Lincoln's actions? I don't so. So then if the Party can survive a civil war over State rights, why couldn't it survive this?
I do agree, though, that this is clearly about restoring the separate but equal three branches apart from the issue of the sanctity of Life. If some conservatives could separate themselves from the issue a moment they would recognize the greatest violator of state rights IS our Judiciary, and the moment is ripe to begin an assault against them. If they are state right absolutist it's time they stopped ranting and joined us.
Good points.