≡ Menu

More on Palmer the non-Federalist

Following up on this post

Palmer replied to me, and I posted a reply to him tonight. I’ll reprint them in case HNN bans me or deletes me.

Palmer:

Anthony writes that “that means to me that…” That’s a rather weak reed on which to place so much weight. Does it mean that the states can prohibit Jews or Scientologists from making alcohol? Is that an implication of the language of the 21st amendment? That would certainly fall afoul of the 14th amendment, as well as of other elements of the federal constitution. Discriminating in state law against out-of-staters and prohibiting importation into the state of non-prohibited substances falls afoul of the commerce clause, which reserves to the congress the power to regulate commerce, i.e., to make it regular. (See the work of Randy Barnett on the meaning of the commerce clause: http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm .)

Mr. Kinsella’s sad moaning about insults is pathetic. Whether he is a racist is beside the point and not a charge that I made. (Putting the “N-word” all over web sites is evidence of something, but it’s not clear of what.) He mentioned an alleged “deafening silence” regarding federalism (despite the important work my colleagues have done on reasserting federalism, notably in the California cannabis cases), which simply revealed that he doesn’t understand federalist principles, which do, after all, delegate some powers to the federal government. I responded by mentioning that he seems deaf to clearly unconstitutional rights violations and blind to the text of the federal constitution, which does not reserve to the states the power to regulate commerce among the states. No insult there. As to fantasies about state militias confronting federal officers, I have little doubt that that’s a favorite among the core lewrockwell.com crowd. It’s implied by the language of states “preventing” federal agents, and it’s certainly implied by the enthusiastic support for the Confederacy, which confronted federal troops with armed force in order to maintain a “peculiar institution.” Ugh.

Daddy’s reply:

Read Palmer’s latest closely. You’ll see he resorts yet again to the tired–but subtly insinuated–charges of racism. And he answers none of the points of my careful response I posted previously, which completely eviscerated his claims.

Palmer snidely implies I’m racist (besides another insult–that my “sad moaning about insults is pathetic.”). Wow. He claims I do not “understand federalist principles, which do, after all, delegate some powers to the federal government.” Wow. Wow, again. After this comment after I clearly stated “And of course the federal Constitution also places limits on the States. Some of the ones Palmer lists are indeed limits on states. It means something to have a Union, after all.” Wow, Palmer.

One would be tempted to observe that these ever-more-shrill charges of racism are even worse than the scattered remnants or true racism itself, had they not become so pathetic and b-o-r-i-n-g. News Flash, Palmer, No one listens to cries of wolf anymore.

Palmer writes, “I responded by mentioning that he seems deaf to clearly unconstitutional rights violations and blind to the text of the federal constitution, which does not reserve to the states the power to regulate commerce among the states.”

This very comment presupposes that in our Constitutional order the states derive their power from the Constitution. They do not. The states do not need to find in the Constitution some “power” “reserved” to them to regulate commerce. Rather, the Constitution establishes the federal government and sets up what it can do. We don’t need to find in the Constitution a grant of power, or lack of denial of same, to the states. This very comment betrays an utter confusion about our federal system.

By labeling unlibertarian state laws as “clearly unconstitutional” Palmer is either begging the question or being disingenuous. Let me be clear. A state law against rape is not unconstitutional. A federal law banning rape, however, clearly is “unconstitutional”. Clearly the states and the feds are governed by different standards, from the federal constitutional point of view.

A federal law banning marijuana is also unconstutional. Why? Because the feds are a government of strictly enumerated powers, and the Constitution nowhere enumerates a power to ban marijuana. However, a state law banning marijuana is not unconstitutional, since the states do not need to point to the Constitution for legitimacy, or for authorization or empowerment. Palmer must accept the Lincolnite myth that the states were created by the federal system and Constitution, rather than predating it. This error would help explain a lot.

“No insult there. As to fantasies about state militias confronting federal officers, I have little doubt that that’s a favorite among the core lewrockwell.com crowd. It’s implied by the language of states “preventing” federal agents, and it’s certainly implied by the enthusiastic support for the Confederacy, which confronted federal troops with armed force in order to maintain a “peculiar institution.” Ugh.”

Notice again how Palmer tries to snidely imply that being in favor of federalism means one “supports” the Confederacy–“enthusiastically” no less. He here implies that those who are in favor of federalism are racists in favor of slavery–the “peculiar institution” he is referring to. This is utterly ridiculous, as anyone reading this can see. Palmer is resorting to desperate tactics. They can speak for themselves.

My sincere view is that Palmer cannot reply substantively to the substance of my previous replies because I am actually correct and my simple comments have devastated his position, and revealed his personal attacks and disgusting tactics fow what they are. Therefore, he dodges the issue, slimily shifts ground and once again puffs his chest and tries to slam his opponents as being advocates of slavery and racism. Any fair reader can judge who is pathetic in this exchange.

Share
{ 0 comments… add one }

Leave a Comment

Bad Behavior has blocked 5180 access attempts in the last 7 days.

© 2012-2018 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright

%d bloggers like this: