States' Rights 

By Harry T. Cook 

3/15/13

Harry T. Cook

The powers not delegated in the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-- Amendment X to the Constitution of the United States of America

The text above is the theme song of the federalist movement because it opens the way to enact laws in the several states, which serve to undermine decisions taken by Congress or handed down by the Supreme Court over the years.

Recently the State of Arkansas, in direct contradiction of the terms of Roe v. Wade, made it more difficult than ever for a woman to exercise her reproductive rights with respect to the termination of a pregnancy after 12 weeks.

So proudly did the distinguished members of the Arkansas Legislature hail their giant step backward that one thought they might suffer an attack of the vapors. A number of them said they hoped their cramped and unjust law would lead the nation to the overturning of Roe v. Wade to make America safe for legal misogyny.

A friend of mine is dead set against reproductive rights -- unless it means the right to hope that every instance of intercourse between a potent male and a fecund female will be an opportunity for conception. Another friend is rabid for reproductive rights and firmly believes that no legislature or religious authority should tamper with them. Both women have lived their entire lives in Michigan.

It may well be that eventually one of them will be disappointed. Republicans in the Michigan Legislature seem obsessed with the idea of restricting reproductive rights to the point of doing away with them. That is true in other states as well. But polls consistently show that most Americans favor choice in the matter, i.e. leaving the decision to the individual woman, having considered the advice of her physician. That would seem to be the American way, given our history of personal liberties.

The press to outlaw abortion in the strictest terms has been strong for the past 40 years since Roe v. Wade was decided. The zeal waxes and wanes, but never goes away. The matter is not likely to be settled by a civil war as was the issue of slavery, with many unhappy campers left in the Confederate states wasted by Gen. Sherman's scorched-earth policy.

What if Abraham Lincoln had accepted the secessionists' desire to become their own nation? Would half a million lives been spared? Would the horrors of Gettysburg and Shenandoah been avoided? Probably, but it would have left the South with that other intolerable horror: indentured servitude.

Had Lincoln negotiated manumission and free passage for those slaves who wished to leave the South and offered a one-time compensation deal to plantation owners for the loss of their cheap labor, the Civil War might have been averted along with its cost in human lives and national treasure.

What if the American body politic were to decide to go the federalist route all the way? What if, say, Arkansas were to be designated as the state in which abortion was totally and completely outlawed with federal subsidies for those families who, prizing choice, wished to move to another state where no anti-reproductive rights laws were on the books?

What if Kansas were to be designated as the Know-Nothing State in which the teaching of evolutionary biology was completely banned and children were taught Genesis instead of Darwin. Darwinians now in residence would be helped to leave and Genesisians from elsewhere helped to relocate in the wasteland west of Dodge City to the Colorado border. Check out the map.

What if Texas were to become the No-Tax state? People who hate taxation of any kind could move there, and Texans -- if any there be -- who actually agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. that taxes are the price of civilization could move to New York, where state government never met a tax it didn't like.

If America were to have individual states whose citizens welcomed taxes and regulation as Holmes' celebrated price, and, by contrast, states in which civilization would be foregone for the absolute right to keep and bear arms openly in churches, in schools, in maternity wards, in tattoo parlors, brothels, saloons and outhouses, more people would be free to pursue happiness in their own ways.

Of late, many hosannas have been raised to the existence of right-to-work states, as if every American doesn't have the right to work. The problem is that all Americans don't have the right to a job. That said, there could be right-to-work states, and anti-union people could flock to them with the only guarantee that they would be paid less. Union people could enjoy the benefits of their associations in states where unions remain welcome.

And might there be states that would welcome same-sex couples as married people, and states that didn't? If you fear gay-ness may be contagious, you could always move to Mississippi.

Of course, all this would make politics a lot less interesting. We would miss the theatrical harrumphs that emanate from the Foghorn Leghorns of the United States Senate, but not so much the niggling of the amoebae that constitute the Republican House majority.

Someone will point out that all this would become a matter of choice. A lot of people making laws these days favor depriving certain people of certain choices. In which case this bright idea of mine is going nowhere. Never mind. 

re essay of 3/8/13 Of Self-Serving Doctrines             

Blair Brock, New York City, NY:

In my years teaching literature at the college level I stressed the concept of synthesis, i.e. cultivating the skill of seeing connections among otherwise disparate ideas. Your essay today ("Of Self-Serving Doctrines") was a perfect example of that. Also I liked it -- liked it very much.

Don Worrell, Troy, MI:

To the Republicans "smaller government" is merely a code word for dispensing with any federal programs that benefit the poor/middle class or taxes that would dare to place any disproportionate burden on the rich.  "Smaller government," of course, does not apply to extravagant and wasteful military allocations.

Alyce Keare, Lincoln, NE:

I think you nailed it in your essay this morning. Now how about another one explaining to your readers how it is that people latch on to the kind of doctrines you wrote about. What makes people do that in the face of contradictory facts? What's the dynamic there?

David N. Stewart, Huntington Woods, MI:

The federal government has grown out of control during the administrations of Presidents Bush and Obama, especially Obama. The sequestration is a drop in the bucket. We need a lot more of the same. Pres. Obama is mendaciously administering his sequestration in the most harmful way. There are many ways to cut government spending that would benefit the country, although it would put some bureaucrats out of a job. Devolve programs back to the states. Eliminate the depts. of Education and Energy (the legacy of President Carter who campaigned that he would not add new departments). Go back to a department of Health, Education and Welfare.  Put all welfare programs under one place, the HEW. Eliminate FEMA -- belongs to the states.  Downsize or eliminate the EPA, DEA, Agriculture, National Institute of Standards and Technology, NEA, NEH, NSF. It's to Obama's credit that he's backing out of the expensive wars. Spend money on parks, highways, and State Department programs that build friendship with other nations, like the cultural preservation program in Laos.* Your racist accusations against Republicans disgust me. Mr. Obama is not black. He is mixed race raised by white grandparents. Allen West of Florida is black, and the liberals made vile racist remarks against him, as they do against many black conservatives. The Democrats in Congress are also recalcitrant about trying to work with Republicans, who want to manage a budget and put Social Security and Medicare on firm footing.

* The writer's sister is the U.S. Ambassador to Laos.

Peter Pascaris, West Bloomfield, MI:

Once again you offer an intelligent view of America's politics. Though I'm sure you'd dislike the suggestion that your scholarly approach be boiled down to quick sound bites, one phrase of your essay bears repeating at the start of any negotiation between Democrats and Republicans: " . . . government needs to be whatever size it needs to be to do the work of the People."

Tracey Morgan, Southfield, MI:

A brilliant definition of the problem with "smaller government." Smaller than what? Mondale should have forced Reagan to identify what that would be in 1984. What would it be now to Grover Norquist? As well as to McConnell-Boehner, et al. And would the Norquistians embrace in his vision for America? What kind of government would no-new-taxes leave us? You have, I believe, identified the pressure point. I graduated from Hillsdale in 1956, when it was still a liberal arts college. I publicly repudiated my alma mater a couple years later when it rejected federal aid with federal requirements and lunged hard right. That's worked well for it financially. From the pages of its monthly magazine comes the impression that Christianity is at least as important as knowledge. It's a nest of buzzing right-wing wasps. I've not been able to discern, though, an actual repudiation of evolution. Just implications.

Fred Fenton, Concord, CA:

In your essay on "Self Serving Doctrines" you state that "Ecclesiastical authority mandates the teaching of theological doctrine as truth to keep control of its flock." In the Episcopal Church, I believe it is out of fear of the flock. Bishops and priests who were taught higher criticism in seminary teach and preach the Bible as the Word of God out of fear of rejection by the pews if they do otherwise. Ironically, it is theology based on a literal reading of texts that is responsible for the growth of NONES among young adults and the resulting "graying" of our congregations. Our theological schools must go beyond teaching biblical criticism and accept the additional challenge of becoming R & D centers for the development and testing of brave, new approaches to Christian community. What is needed are congregations that provide mutual support for questioning inherited doctrines and finding ways to practice the Judeo-Christian ethic of neighbor love in an increasingly complex and interrelated world.

Bethany Marshall, Madison, WI:

The best line in your essay is "government needs to be whatever size it needs to be to do the work of the People." Yes! If you own three cars and need to garage them, you build a three-car garage. If you have only one vehicle, a one-car garage will do.