{"id":22072,"date":"2011-08-10T16:00:53","date_gmt":"2011-08-10T22:00:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=22072"},"modified":"2014-11-05T14:42:28","modified_gmt":"2014-11-05T21:42:28","slug":"bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-states-rights-for-me-but-not-for-thee-edition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/08\/10\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-states-rights-for-me-but-not-for-thee-edition.html","title":{"rendered":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (States Rights for Me, But Not for Thee Edition)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Oh, Bryan. \u00a0You’re so zany when you try to justify your conflicting impulses. \u00a0Some people, for example, believe that the separate states have the right to do largely what they please, except for some very narrowly defined powers reserved to the federal government. Other people believe that the federal government has the right to dictate to state governments on a wide variety of fundamental issues.<\/p>\n

But you, Bryan, you sly dog — you think you’ve figured out a way to have it both <\/em>ways<\/a>. \u00a0Dependent, of course, on whether it’s something you favor or disfavor. And you’ve done so just in time (by sheer coincidence) to continue to support your new Best Friend Forever, Rick Perry, the next Governor-wanting-to-be-President to come out of Texas.<\/p>\n

Gov. Rick Perry has been castigated by some conservatives and 10th Amendment aficionados for his public support of federal amendments to protect the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.<\/p>\n

They accuse him of abandoning his commitment to federalism, states\u2019 rights, and the 10th Amendment and committing unpardonable Tea Party heresy in the process.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

A little backstory here. \u00a0The legislature of the state of New York recently joined the bandwagon in recognizing the rights of same-sex couples to marry. \u00a0Something, of course, that makes your very skin crawl, Bryan, I understand that.<\/p>\n

Your BFF Rick got himself in a little hot water, because when asked how he felt about New York doing so, this staunch supporter of states rights, occasional suggester of secession on the matter, and proud scion of the Lone Star Republic of Texas, said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

“That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It was a bold, gusty move for someone angling for evangelical support for his planned Presidential run. But it is, at least, consistent with a states rights activist. \u00a0Marriage has long been considered something states are responsible for defining (thus, for example, consanguinity laws varying from state to state). \u00a0That doesn’t mean that a case cannot be made for federal intervention as a civil right, but conservative states righters have long argued that, under the 10th Amendment, the Feds shouldn’t be able to impose gay marriage on them if they don’t want it.<\/p>\n

One of the arguments made for the federal Defense of Marriage Act<\/a> (DOMA), in fact, was both that it prevented the federal government from recognizing gay marriage, but it declared that states weren’t obliged to recognize gay marriages from other states. \u00a0That latter is a shocking breach of the “full faith and credit<\/a>” clause of the Constitution, but so far it has held up.<\/p>\n

Bottom line, though, it’s clear that states are free to recognize, or not recognize, same-sex marriages. And a states rights advocate should applaud that principle.<\/p>\n

But Perry immediately came under fire from folks like Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily<\/a> who, despite always pushing for states being protected from the Evil Federal Government and its Communist Gang of Liberal Secular Commies, felt that this was taking things a wee bit too far. All things are allowed to the states, to paraphrase Orwell, but some things are more allowed than others. \u00a0Heck, Farah would probably argue that making the suggestion isn’t even protected speech under the 1st Amendment, if pressed.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Oh, there you are, Perry!<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Within a day or two, Perry desperately tried to explain himself<\/a>, noting desperately that he’d only been talking about the 10th Amendment<\/em>, not gay marriage, as being “fine” with him.<\/p>\n

\u201cI probably needed to add a few words after that \u2018it\u2019s fine with me,\u2019 and that it\u2019s fine with me that a state is using their sovereign rights to decide an issue. Obviously gay marriage is not fine with me. My stance hasn\u2019t changed.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

And, as a sign of consistency, he found himself in similar hot water over the topic of abortion and state rights<\/a>, even going so far as to say<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u201cYou either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don\u2019t. You can\u2019t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn\u2019t suit you say, \u2018We\u2019d rather not have states decide that.\u2019\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Exactly. \u00a0Rightly or wrongly, you can’t be a part-time states rights advocate, just when it suits.<\/p>\n

Which is why, of course, he then backpedaled on both issues, coming forth in favor of Federal Constitutional Amendments on both abortion and gay marriage. \u00a0Yes, the Evil Federal Government would have a law — a constitutional diktat,<\/em> enforced by Evil Federal Courts and the Evil Federal Justice Department\u00a0— that would stop Sovereign States from allowing either gay marriage or abortion, whether they wanted to or not<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But, Bryan, isn’t that abandoning states rights?<\/p>\n

But to consider amending the federal Constitution as an abandonment of the 10th Amendment and states\u2019 rights absurd.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Oh. \u00a0Well, you’re the expert on the absurd, Bryan. \u00a0Explain it to me.<\/p>\n

You can\u2019t get any more \u201cstates\u2019 rights\u201d than amending the Constitution, for one simple reason: only the states can amend the Constitution in the first place.<\/p>\n

Unless proponents can get voters in 38 states to agree with them, our supreme legal document remains unchanged.<\/p>\n

When the Constitution is amended, this is the exact opposite of the federal government imposing something on the states, but is rather a manifestation of the states expressing their political will. If anything, it\u2019s the states imposing something on the federal government. Everybody ought to get pumped up about doing something like that.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Aha! \u00a0So if three-quarters of the states decide to impose something on the remaining quarter, that’s the ultimate example of supreme states rights! \u00a0Of course! \u00a0It’s so clear!<\/p>\n

Of course, the constitutional amendment process it a bit tricker than that. \u00a0The only way it’s ever been done is along one path the Constitution lays out, starting with \u00a0a bill passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. \u00a0Now, some might call that an act of the Evil Federal Government (you know, the same Congress that voted for Obamacare and the Civil Rights Act and other unholy evils that oppress the states), but I guess when Congress is doing that, it’s acting as representatives of the states, rather than as Evil Federal Government Stooges.<\/p>\n

After that, of course, the proposed amendment needs ratification by three-quarters of the states. \u00a0So that’s some great State Power there, Bryan, except for the folks in the other quarter of the states who get to be imposed upon by the Tyranny of the Majority.<\/p>\n

(The other way to amend the constitution is through a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures, passing proposed amendments to then be passed by three-quarters of the legislatures. \u00a0That’s never actually been done.)<\/p>\n

We must never forget that the Constitution, indeed the federal government itself, is the creation of the states,not the other way round. The creator – the states – have the right to amend the document they created as they see fit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yes, that’s true. \u00a0Though, as noted, the process has only ever been initiated <\/em>at the federal level.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a challenging process, and there is a very high threshhold to reach, as it should be, which is why the Constitution has only been amended 27 times in 224 years. It can\u2019t happen without the direct authorization of three-fourth of the states.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Yup. And (in every case to date) the federal legislature.<\/p>\n

So not to fret, constitutionalists. The 10th Amendment and the Constitution would be safe in the hands of a President Perry. He hasn\u2019t changed his commitment to federalism in the slightest.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Except that a sovereign state would have its sovereign rights taken away by the federal government, authorized by three-quarters of the other states.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Unless you outnumber me three-to-one, then it's me treading on you, right, Bryan?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But you’re also changing the terms of the discussion, Bryan. \u00a0Federalism <\/em>is all about the balance of power between the state governments and the national (federal) government. \u00a0Federalists were those who wanted a strong central government that had power over the states; anti<\/em>-federalists were those who wanted states to have supreme power over their own affairs — not just against the central government, but against each other<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In other words, yeah, South Carolina wasn’t eager to have the Federal Government tell it what to do. \u00a0It also wasn’t eager to have Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire tell it what to do, either.<\/p>\n

The 10th Amendment is about the protection of the states ‘rights, not about how states can band together to take those rights away. \u00a0It’s certainly possible to argue for the national government to decide upon a new imposition on those rights, with the concurrence of the three-quarter supermajority of the states — but while that is federalism<\/em> and constitutional<\/em>, it’s still also an imposition on “states rights” — <\/em>a term that you conveniently drop from your final paragraph, Bryan, because it’s hard to baldly make the case that states rights mean a big gang of states have the right to impose their will upon the rights of a few of the states.<\/p>\n

Don’t get me wrong, Bryan — I’m a federalist, and an expansive one at that. \u00a0I believe the states have local governmental uses, but I strongly suspect I think there are far more things that the Feds are allowed to do, even under the 10th Amendment, than most “states rights” types would agree with, yourself included.<\/p>\n

But that does make me wonder, Bryan. \u00a0What would you (and your BFF Rick) think if a constitutional amendment were proposed to require <\/em>recognition of gay marriage, rather than forbid it? \u00a0Would you still consider that, if passed, an expression of and paean to states rights?<\/p>\n

Of course not. You’d be denouncing it as a commie plot hatched by anti-Christians to impose national values on the states. \u00a0Because, Bryan, I strongly suspect you have a very selective <\/em>love of “states rights.” \u00a0When we’re talking about a state doing something you agree <\/em>with, then you’re all for it. But if a state does something you disagree <\/em>with — well, “there oughta be a law [or a constitutional amendment]” to stop them.<\/p>\n

Which is fine, I guess, but then trying to justify it, not as being guided by some inner sense of Right and Wrong, but arguing that a ganging up of some states on others is an expression of “states rights” is so incoherent as to be silly. Or to make you seem a dolt.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Oh, Bryan. \u00a0You’re so zany when you try to justify your conflicting impulses. \u00a0Some people, for example, believe that the separate states have the right to do largely what they please, except for some very narrowly defined powers reserved to the federal government. Other people believe that the federal government has the right to dictate … Continue reading “Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (States Rights for Me, But Not for Thee Edition)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":22074,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[100,99,25,718,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22072","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dolts","category-elections-2012","category-gay-stuff","category-marriage-equality","category-politics-law"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/08\/dont-tread-on-me_gadsden-flag.gif","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":45084,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2014\/09\/10\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-no-atheists-allowed-in-my-foxholes-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":0},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (No Atheists Allowed in My Foxholes Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 10-Sep-14 6:45pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Brian, you old reprobate, what are you up to these days? Ah, of course, asserting your claim that \"No atheist should be permitted to serve in the U.S. military.\" What fun. The United States Air Force has refused to allow a sergeant to re-enlist because he will not say \"so\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Church & State"","block_context":{"text":"Church & State","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law\/church-state"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/09\/Patrick-Tillman.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":20371,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/03\/03\/stop-me-if-youve-heard-this-before-but-bryan-fischer-is-a-constitutional-dolt.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":1},"title":"Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but Bryan Fischer is a (Constitutional) Dolt","author":"***Dave","date":"Thu 3-Mar-11 10:24pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Crikey. Bryan Fischer, Dolt and Christian Whacko, argues that Christian Whackos that he claims to disagree with can and should be silenced by the government. Justices Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas are all wrong in their ruling on the reprehensible Westboro Baptist Church protests at military funerals. For the record, I\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Censorship"","block_context":{"text":"Censorship","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law\/censorship"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/bryanfischer-300x225.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":51688,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/07\/07\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-dreaded-scott-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":2},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Dreaded Scott Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 7-Jul-15 3:54pm","format":false,"excerpt":"If there was one person, Bryan, whom I could count on to approach the issue of religious liberty in a diverse society in a calm, insightful, and level-headed fashion, I knew it ... well, it probably wouldn't be you. Your screed at OneNewsNow\u00a0exemplifies the best of compassionate, contemplative, and Christ-like\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Church & State"","block_context":{"text":"Church & State","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/politics-law\/church-state"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/Dred-Scott-pamphlet.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/Dred-Scott-pamphlet.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/Dred-Scott-pamphlet.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/07\/Dred-Scott-pamphlet.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":20321,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/02\/25\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-potpourri-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":3},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Potpourri Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 25-Feb-11 5:56pm","format":false,"excerpt":"I guess Bryan was unhappy with my shifting my dolt title over to some other folks and felt the need for a shotgun doltage discharge. \u00a0Here's Bryan taking on everything under the sun ... though, of course, it's mostly about Teh EVIL GAYZ and Teh EVIL PRESIDENT WHO LOVES THEM\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/bryanfischer-300x225.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":20539,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2011\/03\/23\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-constitution-for-me-but-not-for-thee-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":4},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Constitution for Me but Not for Thee Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 23-Mar-11 10:22pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Dagnabbit, Bryan -- it would have been nice to have been able to retire the whole BFiaD category, but in your unhinged hatred for the things you hate (for which I at least applaud your unwavering dedication), you keep providing targets that simply cannot be ignored. To wit, your latest\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Dolts"","block_context":{"text":"Dolts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/dolts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/bryanfischer.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":51981,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2015\/07\/28\/bryan-fischer-is-a-dolt-founders-constitution-edition.html","url_meta":{"origin":22072,"position":5},"title":"Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (Founder's Constitution Edition)","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 28-Jul-15 5:25pm","format":false,"excerpt":"TL;DR: Bryan Fischer has never read the 14th Amendment, which extends the First Amendment to state and local governments as well.Of course, the 14th Amendment wasn't part of what Bryan specifically calls out, multiple times, as \"the Founder's Constitution,\" back before it got all cluttered up with nonsense like slavery\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22072","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22072"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22072\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":46586,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22072\/revisions\/46586"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22074"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22072"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22072"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22072"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}