Monday, August 29, 2011

Nikki Haley: "States rights trump everything"

Photo from Charleston City Paper.

I went to Charleston Saturday with Green Party members, right after Hurricane Irene decided to spare the place. We just had time to picket the US Customs House, loudly demand they bring the troops home, chow down on pizza at the Mellow Mushroom, gossip in earnest, howl in indignation, and leave. (Phabulous photos HERE)

Sitting at the Mellow Mushroom with my sweat-soaked comrades (dear God, it is HOT in Charleston!), I perused the wonderful Charleston City Paper, where I found an entertaining and thorough account of the recent Redstate Gathering, by the intrepid Paul Bowers.

The scary title?: This beautiful uprising.

But that isn't even the scariest part. The scariest excerpt concerns the political philosophy of our governor:

After [South Carolina Governor Nikki] Haley's speech, someone asked the governor what she thought about nullification, the doctrine that says a state can declare a federal law null and void within its own borders (which was one of the issues that ultimately led to the Civil War). Haley responded, "I think nullification is something we talk about when we're frustrated." When the same audience member said he really wanted to know Haley's stance on states' rights, she said, "States' rights trump everything. The 10th Amendment trumps everything."
Now, why didn't this fascinating quote make it into any of the other news accounts of the RedState Gathering? Especially since adoring teenybopper-journalists appear to be hanging on Haley's every word? How did they miss that?

Well, I find it damned alarming, so let me underscore and underline the quote here.


not ready to make nice said...

u just missed her w/bachmann at north charleston town hall meeting. bring barfbag: Nikki Haley joins Michele Bachmann town hall

D. said...

But we've already had that war!

(I like the pix, by the way.)

Sevesteen said...

In your mind, what do the ninth and tenth amendments mean, and what actions do they require or prevent? There are places where States Rights should trump federal law, and it is a shame that racists managed to attache themselves to the concept.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Sevesteen, I believe the medical marijuana movement has been founded on these amendments and could not exist otherwise. I know that various health supplements were banned in some states and not others. Etc.

Haley plans to refuse federal money, using these flimsy-ass states rights excuses... she also wants to cut Medicaid, again, using these flimsy-ass excuses. Both, in practice, will hurt African Americans in SC first, so we see that when you are the minority, racism is often the end result of "states rights" once again.

Her voter-ID law is the most restrictive in the country, and is one of her first "states rights" moves: ALERT: New photo ID law makes it harder to vote in SC than anywhere in the USA

Sevesteen said...

I don't think federal control of marijuana grown and consumed in the same state is constitutional--but that isn't what is stopping the feds from enforcing federal law against in-state growers and sellers, unfortunately.

The 10th amendment should trump a lot. The feds are involved in a whole bunch of things that they shouldn't be in, generally using some wildly expanded notion of interstate commerce as an excuse--"Pot gives munchies, and Twinkies affect interstate commerce" or some such BS. We should handle things at the most local level practical, and the feds should only step in where allowed by the constitution.