Bingo!
Miller also correctly observed that the "progressive era" federal regulatory agencies "were profoundly unconstitutional and un-American" and are "the elder bedmates of the coercive, expansionist politics of modern-day liberalism." Exactly. This, however, is exactly the position that neo-conservatives like Alan Keyes hold.
--------------------------------------
I agree with the author about Keyes & the neo-cons.
But his underlined irrationalities about Lincoln and the 'destruction of the 10th', mystify me.
The 14th was ratifyed in 1868 to make it clear that state governments must not ignore individual rights in writing law.
-- It did not remove any 10th amendment powers from states, as the author alleges in his 'hegemony' hype. --
Amusingly, the author admits in the previous undeline that Musto observed that this federalism did not occur till very 'late' in the 1800's, which is correct.
-- Thus, -- Lincoln & the 14th had little/nothing to do with the death of states 'rights'.
The loss of these state powers had everything to do with the rise of national political parties that embraced socialist principles at both state and federal levels.
The tenth is full functional, -- but states political regimes refuse to use it to fight the feds. -- Nothing is wrong with the constitution [that can't be easily fixed]. Everything is wrong about our political process.
Every President and Congress since Washington has made use of the "implied powers" of the federal government under the Constitution. That very much includes "strict constructionists" like Jefferson and Madison. That is part of the logic of the Constitution, and is the reason why the Constitution endured and the Articles of Confederation failed.
There may be constitutional questions about the drug war, but with the growth of interstate commerce after the Civil War, it was inevitable that the federal government would use its constitutional powers to regulate interstate trade. Whether this includes aspects of the drug war is another question, but for good or ill it does provide a constitutional mandate for much of what the government does today.
The idea that the Civil War was fought between Federalists and Anti-Federalists or centralizers and state's rightists or statists and libertarians is superficially appealing. It would come as a surprise to those Wisconsans who asserted state authority against the fugitive slave acts, though, and to those Southerners who used federal coercion to get their way on this issue. It would also trouble those who witnessed the conflicts between the state governments and the Confederate government or the willingness of both to use repressive measures to preserve their power.
Similarly, the speed with which Southerners got on the progressive bandwagon in the twentieth century to use federal taxes for their own benefit makes one skeptical of the whole idea of a fixed libertarian vs. statist, South vs. North polarity in American political history. As do the claims of "state's rightists" for absolute state sovereignty and their willingness to bring all the power of the state down on those who are in their power. State's rights is another form of statism and it can be ferocious to those in its grasp.
The idea of a federal union in which we all have certain basic rights and freedom of movement from state to state was more a Lincolnian than an anti-Lincolnian idea. The alternative would have meant more power for state government, no guarantees of basic rights, and less mobility across state lines.
"Neo-con." Whoopie! Count me in among that lot. I, rdb3, am a "neo-con." Yes, I was once a Democrat. Then I grew up.
So, for the Rockwellian types and their supporters, I ask again, "So, what?"
Want me and others who matured into the political Right to vanish? Is that it?
My being a "neo-con"servative not good enough for ya? Hmmm?
So what?
What's accomplished by pieces like this? What's accomplished by incessantly criticizing "neo-cons," hmmm? What's accomplished by beating up on those who "saw the light?"
So what?
We have Leftists who are in full control of our school boards nationwide, yet Rockwellian types and their supporters attack "neo-cons."
We have Leftists who are in complete control of 99.9% of our colleges and universities, yet Rockwellian types and their supporters attack "neo-cons."
We have Leftists who are in complete control of our lexicon and are an absolute perversion to our American culture, yet Rockwellian types and their supporters attack "neo-cons." Notice that I didn't say "Southern" culture, or "Midwestern" culture, or even "Northeast/East Coast" culture. I said AMERICAN culture. The Left is running a full-court press on it, yet some find it more profitable to attack those like me than those who are filling your children's minds with their nonsense be it on TV, the movies, or in the classroom.
How does the attack on so-called "neo-cons" bring others into the fold? For Rockwellian types, if you are a former Democrat, you need not apply.
What will it take for paleoconservatives to realize that, since the Constitution is NOT being taught to our children (and hasn't been taught in quite a while), that just saying the word "Constitution" is not magic? When will paleoconservatives realize that the Constitution must be brought down to the personal level? By this I mean, how are you going to go about demonstrating to the people how the Constitution applies to them personally? What will it take for you to realize that words on a piece of paper are dead without people giving it the correct meaning so that it might live in the hearts and minds of the people?
I won't hold my breath for an answer.
In the meantime, I'll just suffer through the slings and arrows of the paleocons. Shame on those like me for ever had been a Democrat, even though we see the light.
It's the socialist-libertarian way!