Your essay about states' rights really ought to be a text for every collegiate political science class. What you wrote and wrote exceptionally well was a polemic. I think it is time for polemics from our side. Write on, sir. You inspire us to action.

Thanks for another thought-provoking essay. It occurs to me that the so-called constitutional scholars who are so versed in the 10th Amendment, might reflect on the breadth of federal authority expressed or implied in other parts of the Constitution and on the Supremacy Clause (Article VI). "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the Supreme Law of the Land . . .any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It is at the very heart of the role and purpose of the federal government to provide for the wellbeing of its citizens, so there is no vacuum to be filled by the States.  On a broader level, like many of the other "principles" invoked by the right to justify stripping vulnerable citizens of protection, the "principle" itself, if evenly applied, might not be an entirely bad thing,for example, allowing States to enact medical marijuana laws that do not leave patients at risk of federal prosecution, or allowing States to exempt themselves from federal legislation restricting access to abortion, or a whole host of other areas where the federal law is more restrictive than State law from the perspective of the left.  It is all a matter of whose ox is being gored (i.e. who thinks that their State's politics would yield more desirable legislation than at the federal level).

Is it possible many standing under the Republican banner are neither patriots nor Christians? Would real patriots disenfranchise fellow citizens by gerrymandering congressional districts, restricting voting through delays and misdirection at the poles, distorting facts day in and day out and threatening to put the country in an untenable financial position? Would Christians fail to love their neighbors, not care for the sick and poor, not be hospitable to strangers in our land, not help women and men who wish an ordered family life, not help all citizens while manically promoting the wellbeing of the very wealthy completely disregarding Jesus' comments on the rich and not find validity in Jesus' admonition to love your enemies? My answer to the first question is YES.

I read your moving essay "Syria: Red Lines, Sarin, and Zyklon B." I'm glad you wrote it; I'm glad I read it. It took me a while to recover from its power. ... Thank you for remaining engaged and reaching out to people such as I.

I enjoyed your September 13 essay on states' rights. Too many conservatives are too ignorant (and possibly too illiterate) to read the preamble to the U.S. Constitution and its clear and definitive words about the federal government being encouraged (if not required) to consider the "general welfare" of the people. It is clear that covers Social Security, food stamps, and health insurance. Unfortunately it is also construed to cover farm subsidies and the like.

Your essay about misuse of the Tenth Amendment regarding States Rights raises for me this question: Is it our form of government that is to blame or the politicians we elect? Do we need a constitutional convention to make fundamental changes in how we govern ourselves, or some new approach to disciplining our warlike natures and educating ourselves on the forgotten lessons of the history we keep repeating? I was troubled by the sheer hypocrisy of American leaders self-righteously deploring the Syrian use of Sarin when the U.S. has committed heinous crimes against humanity by pattern bombing of cities and the horrendous use of napalm, literally incinerating men, women, and children. We like to call ourselves "The Great Democracy." What does that mean in the light of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan? Bashar al-Assad has killed a hundred thousand and more of his own people. We have killed millions of civilians in illegal and immoral wars. The only atom bombs used to date were dropped by "The Great Democracy." In California, the minimum wage has just been raised to help the poorest members of our society. Republicans have called it a "job killer." It is not states' rights but rather the moral divide between parties and people, which threatens to prevent us from achieving the dream of a true democracy with "liberty and justice for all."

I cannot remember being so disgusted with a political party as I am with the Republicans.

The Tenth Amendment ends with the words "to the States respectively, or to the people." Similar theme in the Ninth Amendment: "others retained by the people." This is why it is unconstitutional for the government to prohibit the use of drugs, or specify what kind of light bulbs can be manufactured.

I think what rankles me most about these self-righteous right-wing ideologues is how fast they have their hands out for their share of federal largesse while still wanting to deny it to the "unworthy," which are evidently everyone but them and their friends. I suppose they are simply entitled by birth ... or something. In fact, I believe Nancy Pelosi's daughter (can't remember her name) did a documentary in which she interviewed several people who said exactly that. Yeppers, they actually stood there in their barnyards with their thumbs stuck in the bibs of their overalls and said "Why Missy, Ah deserve it!" Amazing. I think I've just lived too long and seen too much.

It is said that no problem can be solved on the level on which it was created. So where or what is this different conundrum-solving level? Or is this a senseless thought? Some fight or resistance here and now seems needed simply not to lose conquered ground. Long term, my crystal ball is fractured and unclear. One problem I see is that the rich and therefore the right, see themselves as a part of a "different" humanity, a sort of chosen people even though not one in ten has earned his or her status by honest labor. No wonder they are scared of the rest of us.

Extreme conservatives realize that the best way to exert power is to establish extreme politicians as governors. Then laws can be changed, even ones made by the Supreme Court, e.g. a woman's right to choose. Of course, state representatives and senators with similar ideologies must be elected to pass laws that prohibit unions, restrict voting rights, support the NRA. Citizens must be involved in grass roots efforts to elect moderate leaders in each state as well as in Congress. We must profit from what happened in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Our country cannot have any more tea party groups ruin our democracy.  

It's time for an expanded understanding of Liberation Theology that includes freeing the millions who have been beggared by the captains of industry and titans of finance. A country that pays no heed to the fundamental teachings of Jesus concerning distributive justice cannot be termed "a Christian nation" without mocking that phrase.

And it is to psychiatry and psychology that I turn to seek the reasons for the Party of NO! supporters. There have always been those human beings whose perspective on life and politics has been "me and mine against the world". In recent years in the U.S. the fearfulness of these people and their consequent irrational defensive actions have increased. Why? What is driving their desperate assault on the common good, common sense, and compassion?