When presented historically with the true intentions of those legislators of old who sought to eliminate what they deemed as the "heresy of state rights" (1) from our political landscape, many people today still insist that the original idea of state rights exists. Even when presented with court decisions and law, in full force and effect, numerous and quite obvious (2), which they themselves rally against, remaining still outside the bounds of those enumerated powers granted to the federal government -- even still, many will insist that we *have* state rights. After all, there are still many differences which remain between the current states. And some localities still place "In God We Trust" on government buildings. But are we viewing state rights as a plural notion to be cherry picked? Or is state rights a singular item which is universally accepted and long ago reserved? Perhaps the question we should be asking is this -- In these "exceptions", are we today exercising a right which is recognized globally by a federal union? Or rather, are we simply doing something that has not yet become nationally "important" enough for government to specifically enforce in that situation, that which has long been accepted as the philosophy of indefinite national supremacy?
Many people today still insist that the original idea of state rights exists...But are we viewing state rights as a plural notion to be cherry picked?"
Before 2015, the City of King, NC, was still displaying a Christian flag at their local park. They were still displaying a silhouette symbol of a soldier, kneeling at a cross-marked grave. Then they were sued by a single U.S. Citizen. The city rallied. They protested. In the end, the flag and statue were removed (3). I would propose to you that they weren't removed because the accepted rights of states and localities were trampled. They were removed because a man tested the long accepted laws and legal precedent which have, for many years now, incorporated federal restrictions against the states -- a standard which does not support the original idea of state rights; a standard which did not change with Hewett v King. Again, this incorporation is a nationally accepted standard. If the case had gone to trial, that which has been accepted as law for decades, as a standard, would have supported the argument of that single U.S. Citizen over the city of King. And no, King was not in error in "backing down". For if they hadn't, a new precedent very specific to religious representations at parks everywhere would have been set, resulting in future easy wins for those individuals offended in similar situations. Contrary to the idea of state rights which they appear to desire, the City of King is populated with nationally loyal U.S. Citizens. They are part of the same nationally protected collective as the man who sued them. And so, they must remain within the national moral judgements and protections as long as they are, of their own admission, supporting, receiving benefits from, and are part of that collective or body politic.
"...if there is a single breach of a prior right of a state, which falls outside of the specifically enumerated powers, that is now the new standard. If there are five breaches, the latest four of those are not breaches at all, but merely exercises in what is already the new standard."
When we speak of state rights, we must examine the elimination of such as a singular, universal item, based upon a single breach, not upon a complete eradication. Our legal system is largely based upon precedent. Cases and publicly accepted practices are presumed conclusions. In other words, if something has been accepted as law before, it is presumed that such a conclusion is the case today. Based upon this functionality, if there is a single breach of a prior right of a state, which falls outside of the specifically enumerated powers, that is now the new standard. If there are five breaches, the latest four of those are not breaches at all, but merely exercises in what is already the new standard. This is only further confirmation to us that our states can, in fact and application, be limited by federal law, in complete opposition to that very limited federal government which existed at our foundation. That national standard is not a standard of state rights as defined originally. By allowing the federal government, just once, to effectively alter what once was a state decision (ie. a specific state or peoples’ right), to now call it a national right or not, we have allowed a new standard of acceptance, a new method of determination of protected rights, into our system of law.
The only true remedy, then, is to focus our attention on the original standard which was set, and to simply nullify all which falls outside. The actions which began on March 2, 1867 is that original standard which established today's presumed conclusion. We read the arguments of the time. We identify, clearly, the violations which were perpetrated against our Constitution. And then, we see the effects today, extending back to that time. Only one violation is the needed acceptance of future standards. The evidence we see is more than enough for a counter-revolution to restore what we had. The effects on us and our children, by this time in 2016, are more than enough to realize that we need to do more. Are we exercising what we believe to be rights? Are we the people operating by the law? Are we resisting encroachment? Or are we merely requesting through the occupying legislature that laws be changed, as they continue with their foundation of standards to illustrate their unlimited power? One state rights violation is enough to create a universal standard which shows clearly that the original idea of state rights as a whole has been breeched. It's time to re-establish the states.
(1) “As the vicious theory of State-rights had been constantly at enmity with the true spirit of Nationality, the Organic Law of the Republic should be so amended that no standing-room for the heresy [of State-rights] would be left.” — James Gillespie Blaine, Twenty Years In Congress: from Lincoln to Garfield, Vol 2 (Henry Bill Publishing Company, 1884), 30
(2) Video: “8th NC PATCON John Ainsworth Presentation” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWa2yJEvK20), minute 14:30 thru 16:30; also see footnote 3 below, p. 3-4. Citing Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973): Anti-abortion laws unconstitutional; Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980): Display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963): School prayer struck down as unconstitutional; Bostic v. Schaefer, No. 14-1167 U.S. Court of Appeals (2013); Also: General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, 3:14-cv-00213-MOC-DLH: Same-sex marriage laws struck down in Fourth Circuit (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV)
(3) “REMOVED: A short study on the decisions behind the Hewett v. City of King lawsuit”, booklet by John Ainsworth and Cliff Muncy. http://www.americasremedy.com/king