Category Archives: States’ Rights

The International Criminal Court: Good For Thee, But Not For Me

Bush, Crime, Criminal Injustice, Europe, Federalism, Justice, Law, States' Rights

George W. Bush is likely nervous about traveling to Europe lest the International Criminal Court (ICC) put him in the dock to answer for Iraq and other war crimes.

In the spirit of American national sovereignty, Republicans have rejected ICC jurisdiction. As James Orr of the London Telegraph notes, Republicans do not believe the ICC should be supported by America.

Lo and behold, Mr. Romney promised, Monday, to “make sure that Ahmadinejad is indicted under the Genocide Convention. His words amount to genocide incitation. I would indict him for it.”

Is this some new neoconservative trope? And what of the wacky A-Jad’s right of free speech? I was under the impression that so-called conservatives were all for the right to offend, as they should.

Although Bush would likely reject the possibility of the ICC’s jurisdiction over himself, he did not hesitate to call on the World Court to subvert Texas justice.

“W,” who would wrestle a crocodile for a criminal alien, ordered Texas to halt the execution of murderer and rapist José Medellín. Texas said NO, and ended Medellin’s miserable life. (Celebrated in “José Medellín’s Dead; Cue The Mariachi Band.”)

Bush used the ICC to rationalize treason against Texans. Romney hasn’t gone that far. But he seems to be indicating that he’ll join forces with global government when it suits him.

UPDATED: Seething Against All Things Southern (Right Of Secession)

History, Literature, Propaganda, States' Rights

From the New York Times comes a pleasant surprise. It outright condemns Chuck Thompson’s “screed” against Southerners, titled “Better Off Without ’Em,” finding Thompson guilty of proffering an “ignoramus theory.” About this man’s “Dixie bashing,” JANET MASLIN writes:

The historian Michael Lind, who has himself taken a dim view of the South, refused to cooperate with Mr. Thompson’s “Better Off Without ’Em,” telling him: “I disapprove of your project, which seems terribly snobbish, to judge by your nasty title. The last thing we need at this moment is one group of Americans suggesting others belong in a different country. … Even as a joke, it is not funny.”

Thompson’s picture of all things Southern is one to which nearly all historians, as well as liberals and establishment conservatives, have subscribed.

Thomas Jefferson considered “The natural aristocracy … as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?”

If the South has deteriorated it is, to a large degree, because the South’s natural aristocracy was destroyed in the War Between the States and during Reconstruction. The elimination of this landed gentry was the work of Lincoln and the war he launched (provoking Fort Sumter).

The South still bears those scars.

UPDATE (Aug. 22): Facebook thread: Have you ever read William Faulkner? Hell: From the South comes some of finest literature. As to John Zube’s dismissal: Only about 15% of Southerner owned slaves. The fight JZ seems to dismiss was for states’ rights, not slavery. Judging the past by applying today’s egalitarian ideology, moreover, is worse than idiotic. As was written here, “The missionaries in Africa, for example, regarded slaves as children to be de-tribalized and missionized. They were taught skills and trades; mission stations acted as havens for refugees fleeing tribal depredations in South Africa. As you tour the homes of the founders mentioned above, you’re wont to hear about this or the other wonderful cabinet maker or marvelously gifted horseman, or farmhand, etc. Who do you think taught the slaves these skills and trades? The monarchs of Buganda or Ethiopia? As I say, the Founders were advanced for their time in EVERY respect. Not perfect, but a great deal more perfect than most of us.”

UPDATED: What Would John Randolph Of Roanoke Have Said?

Barack Obama, Conservatism, Federalism, Founding Fathers, History, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, States' Rights, The State

Obama’s remarks at Roanoke, Virginia, July 13, 2012, were more than a faux pas.

With these remarks, Obama has outed himself as a most odious collectivist, who believes that government predation is a condition for production:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

That snot Obama uttered these words in a place carrying the name Roanoke. I’m probably in a minority, but the place name makes me think of John Randolph of Roanoke, the great Southern agrarian, radical proponent of the states’ rights doctrine. John Randolph would have driven the parasite Obama off the commonwealth with force, if need be:

“Randolph was especially critical of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Constitution. He predicted that the great extension of the power of centralized government would someday occur through these legal avenues. Time has proven him correct.” John Randolph of Roanoke [was] an eccentric genius, unwilling to admit the slightest compromise with the new order. Randolph feared the results of excessive centralization and the impersonality of a government too far removed from the varieties of local experience. Discussing the House of Representatives, he asked: ‘But, Sir, how shall a man from Mackinaw or the Yellow Stone River respond to the sentiments of the people who live in New Hampshire? It is as great a mockery — a greater mockery, than it was to talk to those colonies about their virtual representation in the British parliament. I have no hesitation in saying that the liberties of the colonies were safer in the custody of the British parliament than they will be in any portion of this country, if all the powers of the states as well as those of the general government are devolved upon this House.'”
“Russell Kirk makes Randolph’s attitude completely clear when he writes, ‘For Randolph, the real people of a country were its substantial citizenry, its men of some property, its farmers and merchants and men of skill and learning; upon their shoulders rested a country’s duties, and in their hands should repose its government.’ It is John Randolph who developed much of the political framework later brought to fruition by John Calhoun. The primary emphasis in that framework as it developed rested upon the doctrine of states’ rights, a position not without validity. Indeed, an earlier biographer of John Randolph, the almost equally eccentric and irascible Henry Adams, has suggested that the doctrine of states’ rights was in itself a sound and true doctrine: ‘As a starting point of American history and constitutional law, there is no other which will bear a moment’s examination.’
Randolph was especially critical of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause of the Constitution. He predicted that the great extension of the power of centralized government would someday occur through these legal avenues. Time has proven him correct.” (“American Federalism: History,” by George Charles Roche III)

UPDATE (July 18): The Law by Frédéric Bastiat:

When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.

Kris Crossing The SCOTUS’ S.B. 1070 Decision

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Law, States' Rights, The Courts

The fact that both sides in the immigration-enforcement debate are claiming victory in SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES attest to just how whishy-washy the split decision today out of the SCOTUS was.

The most informative by far is “Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Arizona statute, as well as similar laws in other states.”

PBS’s GWEN IFILL asked Kobach whether “this stop-and-check provision that was upheld was at the heart of the law.”

KRIS KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State: “Yes, I think so. It is certainly part of the law that has the greatest scope, so when Arizona claims victory, I think that’s correct. It’s a qualified victory for the states, the part that has the greatest reach.

Put it this way. That provision will kick in, in thousands of law enforcement stops every day throughout the state of Arizona. So it has a great reach. The other provisions are less significant, for example, the part criminalizing the illegal seeking of work.

That’s only going to be relevant if a county launches an investigation of a particular employer, and then they discover certain unauthorized aliens who have broken that law. So, it’s much narrower. The big one was the one that was upheld today. And I think that’s going to give a green light to other states who — some states have already copied that provision of Arizona law.

And there are additional states that probably will try to do so in January in 2013, when the legislative sessions begin again.”

ABOUT the alleged racial profiling in the law, Kobach said this:

… the law in four different sections expressly prohibits application of the law differently to a person whether based on his skin color, his national origin or his ethnicity. The law forbids racial profiling.
The Department of Justice knew that that argument would get nowhere in a facial challenge. And if in the future you had a bad apple police officer who was trying to racially profile, he would be breaking SB-1070, he would be breaking the law. And so his actions wouldn’t in any way indict the law. The bottom line is…

GWEN IFILL: …What is it — how do you walk the line that the court laid out today, which is a law that can — that complements federal law, but doesn’t supersede it, as the court said so much of the Arizona statute did?

KRIS KOBACH: “Well, we now have some clear guidance from the court. We know that the arrest provisions of Section 2-B, the main provision we have been talking about here, those are perfectly fine. We have got a number of other states that have already implemented them and are in circuit courts right now.

There are a bunch of states waiting in the wings to do the same thing. Those can move ahead. If a state wanted to do the criminalization of seeking employment, the Supreme Court has said no.

And one other thing that is really important about this opinion, the court clarified what I have been arguing all along and I think most people who follow this specific area of preemption law know. And that is there have always been windows of opportunity where states can act as long as those actions are consistent with federal law.

And the court reiterated that today. They said, in our federal system, the courts can take certain steps to discourage illegal immigration and communicate and assist with the federal government, assist the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. And the court reiterated that today. So, I think you’re going to see states continuing to take reasonable steps to try to rebuild the rule of law. …

…This law simply is about enforcing the rule of law and allowing state and local governments to provide a reasonable amount of help when they’re in the course of their normal duties. There is no disrespect for a person’s humanity by simply saying we have certain laws in this country and we simply want to inquire as to whether you’re here legally.

As far as diminishing states’ rights, there is one aspect that I would certainly concede in the majority opinion that says — what the court did is they looked at Congress acting in 1986 when Congress criminalized the employment of an unauthorized aliens, when you have a large number of unauthorized aliens or you have a pattern and practice.

And the court said, well, we’re going to read into what Congress did. We’re going to look at what Congress didn’t do. And we’re going to read into Congress’ decision not to criminalize the employment — the actions by the employee. And we’re going to say that inaction by Congress preempts the states as well.

I think that was a troubling part of the opinion because, you know, when you have inaction by Congress, 99 percent of the time they’re not passing something, and you start drawing conclusions from congressional inaction, then you potentially can displace the states in a way that the framers never intended. …

…certainly Congress can and should take certain actions.

I think Congress should, for example, follow Arizona’s 2007 law that was upheld by the Supreme Court last year requiring E-Verify for all employers in the state. We should have that nationally.

But on the other hand, I would say there are a lot of things we could do to improve our enforcement of the laws. People always say, the system is broken, the system is broken. Well, not exactly.

Some aspects are, but there are plenty parts of the system that work just fine, but we lack an executive branch right now that wants to enforce the law.”