Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: hosepipe



We all want less government here. I'm not a liberatarian but I want less government.

Goldwater opposed Civil Rights, because he felt it was a state's rights issue. Not, because he was racist. Some people here opposed Terri Shiavo on the basic of State's rights.

The purpose of State's rights is to give the individual more freedom and say in government.


22 posted on 04/09/2005 11:09:51 AM PDT by LauraleeBraswell ( CONSERVATIVE FIRST-Republican second)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]


To: LauraleeBraswell
The purpose of State's rights is to give the individual more freedom and say in government.

There is absolutely no such thing as "States Rights" in the US Constitution. This concept is a word fabrication, like "Collective rights", that essentially mean nothing. Only individual human beings have the legal and moral standing of "Rights". The federal government and the states have "Powers, but "rights" are never mentioned in the text or context of the Constitution, nor are the terms used interchangeably. The Founding Fathers were specific as to what are rights and what are powers. Rights belong to the people only, the powers of government emanate from the people.

Furthermore, "Rights" are not a zero-sum game. That is, my "Right to Life" does not compel someone else to die, my right to Liberty does not compel another to slavery and my "Right to pursue Happiness" does not cause anothers sorrow. "Powers", however, are a zero-sum game. Powers granted the federal government are lost to the states. Powers residing with the state are not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.

This may all seem like so much semantics to you, but the word games played by the Left and the dogmatic right, depend upon the public being ignorant regarding these very real distinctions.

Goldwater did not oppose Civil Rights because he thought it was a "States Rights" (?) issue, but because the legislation proposed did not take into consideration the amount of social change that such legislation ignored. The fact that we still have racial problems today, 45 years later, is profound evidence of the ignorance of those times.

29 posted on 04/09/2005 1:49:08 PM PDT by elbucko (A Feral Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: LauraleeBraswell
[ Goldwater opposed Civil Rights, because he felt it was a state's rights issue. ]

Civil rights IS a state rights issue..
UNLESS we are a democracy and NOT a republic anymore..
The United States has ZERO citizens....
ONLY states have citizens... You are the citizen of a state..
The federal government is a mental construct..
Only states are real places with real citizens..

Suggestion: find out the difference between a democracy and a republic..
The U.S. Constitution has three important words completely missing from its text anywhere within it..
1) democracy...
2) democratic..
3) democrat..

Maybe you THINK the founders were more ignorant than you...
They were not.. those words are missing, ON PURPOSE.
Not flameing you, just posting this for lurkers..
Whom might think they are U.S. citizens and are NOT...
Democracy is a social disease.. and democrats are carriers..

38 posted on 04/09/2005 4:12:36 PM PDT by hosepipe (This Propaganda has been edited to include not a small amount of Hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson