Thursday, March 28, 2024
39.0°F

Awakening Remarks

| August 31, 2010 9:45 AM

What are states' rights?

We all have our pet peeves. For my Dad, it was when I would chew with my mouth open when I was a kid (a fact I am thankful for, as it served as a motivator to get over that habit). Some of us have less legitimate pet peeves. Ask anyone who lives in our state capitol if they are from boy-Zee, and you are likely to see their eyes cross. They claim it is pronounced boy-See, or something weird like that.

My pet peeve is a hybrid: On its face it seems petty, but I have a legitimate concern.

In the past elections, I kept reading signs from conservatives touting their support for "states' rights." That concept is confounding. I know I am swimming upstream on this issue, including many politicians and judges, but states do not have rights. Individuals have rights. States have power; just like the federal government has power. Both state and federal power pose a danger to individual rights, and politicians and voters alike would do well to recognize that distinction in their rhetoric.

Those that argue for stronger state rights attempt to get across a message that the federal government is not the solution for the many problems we face as a society; that some issues are better dealt with on a local level. I agree. But that sentiment is better argued another way.

The rights of an individual are not analogous to the power of a state. I have the right to worship what god I choose. I have a right to say whatever politically motivated thing I want. I have a right to own a gun. None of those is an exercise in authority over anyone else.

Everything a government does, on the other hand, is an exercise in power. The entire existence of government is premised on an authoritative allocation of power and values. This is true of federal, state and local governments. To analogize individual rights to governmental powers is to cheapen the former.

This is not to say that a responsible vertical distribution of power between state and local governments is not essential, and that those who fight for local control are not fighting a legitimate fight; they are. The correct allocation of power is essential to justice, namely through its ability to protect individual rights.

But the reason to keep the two concepts distinguished from one another is paramount: all power is corruptible. A state may have a power that we are thankful the federal government doesn't, but that doesn't mean that power cannot trample the rights of the individual. A state or local government can be just as tyrannical, if not more, than the federal government.

Besides preserving the concept of rights as something sacred to the individual, my problem with labeling any governmental power as a right is that it gives more force and effect to that power. Because a local or state government is vulnerable to the same corruptibility as any other entity with power, to give that power more reverence than it has on face value is to mislead those who are subject to that power. In other words, by endorsing state power as something desirable, we raise its status to a dangerous level. Is state power better than federal power? In many ways, yes. Is it good? Not necessarily.

Rights are a hallowed concept that limits the reach of our government, and far too often the concept is confused with notions like entitlement or power. That confusion depreciates the concept. The power of the government grows with that confusion.

That is my pet peeve.

Luke Malek is a home-grown Kootenai County boy currently in a voluntary exile in pursuit of a law degree that he hopes will empower him to battle objectionable compliance with the status quo.