Saturday, March 7, 2009

Viagra for the Confederacy

Because the two bestest times of all time were the Civil War and the Great Depression, a couple of Confederate/Republican golden oldies are sweeping the nation. Well, not exactly the nation, but the Republican back benches in those citadels of enlightenment, Montana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina.

Some dipshit two-bit Oklahoman would be happy to condemn his fellow citizens to become Okies.

From Montana to South Carolina, lawmakers in mostly red states have pushed ahead with measures calling for state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, saying the federal government has overstepped its bounds with the stimulus package. The states are calling for the right to ignore laws they deem unconstitutional.
This is what gets them excited. I hope there's not little blue pill for it, although they are trying to deal with their political impotence.

Look, we settled this in 1865 after killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans and people whose children would once again be loyal Americans. Some of the latter were my relatives.

You states rights idiots don't have the power to unilaterally declare a federal law unconstitutional, as if you can even spell it. It doesn't matter what bullshit law you pass in Oklahoma or South Carolina (perversely proud home of Fort Sumter) or Montana or at your local militia meeting.

Of course, I guess we thought we had this settled even before the Civil War, when in the 1780s we ditched the Articles of Confederation in favor of the stronger government in the Constitution.

Why is CNN covering this fake and bullshit-filled trend? You don't think Lauren Kornreich called up Republicans in every state legislator, do you? The Republican press machine must have issued a release, which she dutifully typed up.

7 comments:

mroberts said...

Maybe you should read the 10th Amendment. What powers are not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government are left to the states. The federal government does not have the right to dictate to states how to spend their budgets.

lovable liberal said...

Read it. Maybe you should review your history. And lay off the Kool-Aid.

mroberts said...

Read it. Maybe you should review your history. And lay off the Kool-Aid.

That's your response? LOL. Want to show me where I'm wrong? The truth is that I HAVE read it, and I DO understand the history behind it. I just doubt that you do.

MerqOp said...

//The truth is that I HAVE read it, and I DO understand the history behind it.//

Andrew Jackson had a bill that gave him permission to steamroll South Carolina when they tried this in 1828. General Sherman *did* steamroll South Carolina as a consequence of them trying again in 1861. Let it go.

Karl said...

For someone who admonishes a blogger for not reading an Amendment to the Constitution or understanding the history of that Amendment. I have to raise a simple observation: someone who publicly uses a non-existent word (bestest) in a blog, is someone who might not be qualified to comment.

The Civil War did not settle the right of secession, because it is implied within the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

lovable liberal said...

Karl, hmm, as the one who used bestest, let me explain a few things: (1) It is a word in the sense of descriptive rather than prescriptive lexicography, just a nonstandard word that's deprecated as improper usage. (2) I used it to satirize the middle school level of psychological arousal that wingnuts get for certain long-discredited ideas. (3) We live in a democracy; everyone is qualified to comment, no matter how stupidly. (4) The Declaration of Independence is not legally foundational, though it is a document that jurisprudence treats with some respect. (5) The Civil did settle the right to secede under the Constitution - well, except with Ron Paul, who thinks the abolitionists should have bought out the slaveholders rights. (6) Form is one heuristic for judging an argument, but it's not definitive.

lovable liberal said...

mroberts, I was unclear. I used read as past declarative, not present imperative, as in I've read the amendment. I thought what I said would be clear enough from context, but obviously I was wrong to expect that.