California Steps Up Its Role as Voice of Trump 'Resistance'
Looking toward the Tenth Amendment.
Steven Greenhut | 12.22.2017 12:01 AM
"States' rights" has long had a reactionary connotation because of its connection to segregation. Defenders of Jim Crow-era policies hid behind the rights of states to do as they choose as they backed noxious policies that denied basic liberties to African-Americans. The most iconic imagery comes from 1963, when Gov. George Wallace stood in front of a University of Alabama door in defiance of a federal order demanding the entry of black students.
These days, however, progressive officials in California have, ironically, become the most zealous defenders of that age-old doctrine, although for entirely different and arguably more noble purposes. The state of California, for instance, has (along with some other states) filed 22 lawsuits in recent months against the Donald Trump administration, as a means to defy federal policies that they believe undermine Californians' rights as a self-governing people.
It's not the first time in recent years that California has served as a bulwark against the federal government. In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown defied federal court orders demanding the release of prisoners from the state's then-overcrowded prisons—an act that garnered various media comparisons to Wallace's stance. Our unpredictable Democratic governor was standing up against liberal judges to protect the public from criminals. It was weird.
Despite its misuse at times, the basic concept of federalism is one of the most significant ones devised by our nation's founding fathers. States are meant to serve as "laboratories of democracy," where they are free to try different types of policies. The U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment states that the "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
It's meant to keep the government closer to the people, where it better reflects the culture and priorities of each region's particular citizens. California is not Minnesota or Mississippi and Orange County is not San Francisco or Sacramento. That's how our founding fathers designed our state-based system, with courts serving as final arbiter. It's an important concept to consider as we evaluate the lawsuits and California's ongoing resistance to the Trump administration.
I find myself conflicted when evaluating the specific actions taken by our Democratic-controlled state government. I like the idea of our state asserting itself against officials in far-off Washington, D.C., even though I disagree with most of the policies that California officials choose to advance. Some of the state lawsuits are perfectly legitimate, but state leaders aren't making many distinctions. They are just throwing stuff against the wall, it seems, hoping to thwart an administration they find distasteful. A lot of this comes across as little more than Trump spite.
For instance, California has joined Washington state in opposing the Trump administration's executive order banning the entry of refugees from Muslim-majority nations. I find the Trump proposal to be unreasonably discriminatory and dislike executive orders in general, but immigration policy is a federal matter. California argues that our state "has an interest… in prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion or national origin," but that's a stretch.
By contrast, as the Sacramento Bee reported, California "filed suit on August 14 to prevent the federal government from withholding public safety grants from cities and counties that do not expend public resources on immigration enforcement." This one makes my head spin. This lawsuit is legitimate, as it directly affects existing grants to our state.
But sanctuary cities are a troubling idea, and the feds are within their rights to withhold funds from states that don't comply with federal edicts. The entire funding system is ridiculous, actually. Why should states send money to the federal government and then lobby to get some of that money back in the form of grants? Furthermore, the president suggested he might "defund" California, but California is a donor state—it sends more to the national government than it gets in return.
Then there's the lawsuit against the federal decision to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which argues that the "program has allowed nearly 800,000 young people (including over 220,000 Californians) who have come of age in the United States—many of whom have known no other home—to come out of the shadows…" True enough and this affects California residents, but Congress is the appropriate place to restore this program.
These are complex issues, but unfortunately most policy makers—of the pro-Trump and anti-Trump variety—base their positions on whether they like or dislike the underlying policy. It would be better to evaluate them on whether they are appropriate state or federal functions. That's because states' rights are a bedrock of the American experiment. The government closest to the people doesn't always govern best, but it's wise to have this ongoing tension as a way to block any one level of government from running roughshod over the people.
This column was first published by the Orange County Register.
NEXT: Trump Commutes His First Prison Sentence
Steven Greenhut is western region director for the R Street Institute and was previously the Union-Tribune's California columnist.
California Tenth Amendment Immigration
So, I don't know of any of those lawsuits that are valid, nor do you seem to make an argument that any of them are valid.
And on immigration in particular, it is troubling if a state like California can in the end impose its policy preferences that affect the entire nation and all tax payers.
The Last American Hero
Sort of like the way they impose their environmental regs on everyone else?
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.
This is what I do… http://www.onlinecareer10.com
Start earning $90/hourly for working online from your home for few hours each day… Get regular payment on a weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time…
Read more here,….. http://www.startonlinejob.com
And Arizona was specifically barred from doing the same under Obama.
Apparently the author does not seem their efforts noble, arguably or otherwise.
But he's not much on argument in any case.
RickCaird
Since once California allows an illegal immigrant into their state, that immigrant has free rein to travel anywhere in the US. Hence, this is a federal issue, not a state issue.
Rat on a train
Orange County is not San Francisco or Sacramento
But California has a unitary not federal government. Counties derive their authority from the state instead of delegating to the state. So Los Angeles and San Francisco can impose their will on the rest of the state.
Hank Stamper
"although for entirely different and arguably more noble purposes"
No, they just want to regulate people's lives in different ways. Nothing is noble about having the government use force against its citizens.
There's still a clear difference between a state opposing the federal government because it wants to maintain the institution of slavery, and a state opposing the federal government because it wants more lax immigration laws
As long as we're going to split hairs, it wasn't slavery, it was just segregation. You're like a nazi grammar complaining with a typoe.
People who oppose states' rights often point to the Civil War as an example of how those who support states' rights actually support slavery, and how liberty means tyranny.
The sad part of this is that the southern states used states' rights as part of their argument, but a reading of the various declarations of secession very easily shows that slavery was the prime issue. So now, any time someone tries to rebalance (shrink) the power of the Federal government, all the progies have to do is scream "states' rights = slavery" and the conversation ends.
I've been assured by people south of the Mason Dixon that the "peculiar institutions" referred to in the articles of secession referred to things like sipping mint juleps on a wraparound porch and having debutante balls.
I do wish it were so, but unfortunately for my wishes, those documents are pretty easy to find, and they do indeed all prominently feature the S word.
Not true-the secession articles of North Carolina and Tennessee do not mention slavery at all (they were the last two to secede and did not go out until after Ft. Sumter).
We just aren't allowed to have nuanced views on these subjects. The South certainly seceded over slavery. And the ensuing Civil War wasn't about slavery, it was about whether or not they had the right (and might) to secede–hence "State's Rights".
Turns out that might does make right, and that the victors do write the history books. And the South lost. As did "State's Rights".
Quite right. But it's sad when the history books are re-written to change the (really pretty nasty when you think of it) concept of "preserving the union" (sort of like a shotgun marriage) into "freeing the slaves". Again, reading the words of the folks at the time (such as one A. Lincoln) makes it pretty clear what was and was not going on.
DarrenM
It kind of depends on who you are. Those documents were mainly from government officials and generally the "aristocracy", those who had more at stake in the slavery issue. How many were from the non-government workers and everyday people? Those who had to actually do the fighting.
Earth Skeptic
I do believe that most southern states held a priority for maintaining slavery as reason for secession. This is commonly accepted today.
However, I also believe that the northern states, led by the Feds, entered into armed conflict to prevent and punish the act of secession itself. Most northerners did not care much about freeing the slaves, at least not enough to fight and die for them. Any current ideas about noble emancipators marching off to war was added later.
UnrepentantCurmudgeon
It is not quite that simple. The landed gentry in the South were interested in maintaining slavery because that was at the heart of their economic system. But they knew, generally, that slavery was on the way out. The two most probable allies for the South against the North were both adamantly anti-slavery, and the only "realistic" strategy for maintaining slavery was westward expansion (which Lincoln probably feared more than the static institution itself).
Most southerners didn't care about slavery; it did not affect their lives. Ordinary southerners lived ordinary lives and did not benefit from slavery. For most of them the issue was simple: they wanted to be free of Yankee aggression (hence the common sobriquet for the war in the south: "the war of Yankee (or Northern) aggression).
Nor was the South particularly segregated before the Civil War. That was the peculiar gift of the Democrat Party in the guise of Jim Crow.
p3orion
Actually, the phrase is "The Second War of Independence."
Yes, it is true that slavery was, if not THE most important issue driving the secession of the Confederate states, then at least one of the most important. But even though that was an abhorrent institution, and it was a mistake for the southern governments to support it, the fact remains that sovereign state governments had the right, under our Constitution, to make that mistake, and to secede from the union which they had voluntarily joined four score and seven years before. "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The Union's goal was not, at least initially, to end slavery, but to subjugate the rebels who were defying Washington. Nobility did not lie with either side's motives until the winners wrote the history books.
retiredfire
If slavery was the prime issue, point to the federal legislation that threatened it, or even to a nascent effort to do so.
In fact the platform of the newly elected Republican party stated it was not going to do anything about slavery.
Seems pretty stupid to take the drastic action of secession if there was no action, or the contemplation of, ending an institution that so many claim was the prime issue.
The slavery mentioned in those secession resolutions was one of the ways the Confederate states differentiated themselves from the others.
Remember; not all slave states seceded, nor were all slaves African, nor were all slave owners white.
No, there is not. Both depend on the same principle of federalism: that the federal government is a government of limited power and the powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved to the states. The Tenth Amendment is not result-oriented; in fact one might argue that it presumes that states will make decisions other states consider wrong, and that is their perfect right. Put another way, federalism is a principle and you either support that principle or you do not.
QuadGunner
^ THIS
How does liberal immigration = government force against it's citizens?
I was speaking about the majority of the lawsuits which most are aimed at environmental policies changes, probably should have made clearer. They are using force in the following manner:
Force business and religious institutions to provide birth control
Force taxpayers to fund Obamacare subsidies.
Force taxpayers to cover student loans
Force energy consumers to have higher prices.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/pol…..01094.html
"How does liberal immigration = government force against it's citizens"
Any low income immigrant (legal or not) has a net negative fiscal impact. So, more low income immigrants = more taxation = more application of force to take private property.
Yeah, it's a pretty curious way to describe transparent attempts by politicians to accrue ever more power.
It's important to remember that states' rights are important to maintain primarily because the smaller unit of government is, theoretically at least, more responsive to its citizens. To the extent that it isn't, fuck the state.
mad.casual
It's important to remember that states' rights are important to maintain primarily because the smaller unit of government is, theoretically at least, more responsive to its citizens.
More responsive, when not responsive, more able to be overcome, when not responsive or able to be overcome, more able to be avoided.
OpenBordersLiberal-tarian
But sanctuary cities are a troubling idea, and the feds are within their rights to withhold funds from states that don't comply with federal edicts.
This is so disappointing to read in Reason. In the months I've been visiting this site, I thought immigration was the one issue Reason consistently gets correct, with its uncompromising support for open borders.
There's nothing "troubling" about sanctuary cities. On the contrary, they're an effective form of resistance to the tyrannical federal agents whose job is to deport people. And deporting undocumented Americans is morally comparable to enforcing fugitive slave laws.
Good for California, I say. I hope to live long enough to see the day when all 50 states are controlled by Democrats like California is now. Then the Libertarian Moment will really begin!
I hope to live long enough to see the day when all 50 states are controlled by Democrats like California is now. Then the Libertarian Moment will really begin!
What the…. *head explodes*
It's a parody, sarc. And kind of a clumsy one.
Poe's Law strikes again.
Nope, not a parody. Just a young libertarian who realizes that unlimited immigration is a positive thing in and of itself, which becomes an even better thing when you realize that it will give an electoral edge to Democrats in the long term. Thereby ensuring even more immigration, and more new Democratic voters, in the future. It's like a chain reaction of libertarian awesomeness.
Exactly which Democratic congress-criters are liberatarian, aside from Wyden when he's talking about the surveillance state?
Elias Fakaname
I'm prepare to take him at his word and boot him out of the US with all the other progtards.
"Progtargs" always seemd a little clumsy to me. Why not just "progs"? It has the advantage of rhyming with "frogs", "trogs", etc., so I'm sure this would make for better poetry.
Last of the Shitlords
'Progscum'? 'prog' just isn't mean enough. You make a good point though.
ByteRot
"Proglodyte."
The idea of a nation is predicated on a bounded population with a common political basis. People within its borders, whether they vote or not have the power to alter political norms. Nations have a right to protect their political consensus. You demonstrate perfectly the corrupting effect of open borders.
Why should people from outside the US get to come here and dictate what my rights are and how much of my cash they get?
They shouldn't. They don't have the right, and you don't have the right to let them.
Leader Desslok
The stupid, it burns.
Sevo
Citizen X – #6|12.22.17 @ 11:31AM|#
I remain quite certain it is commie kid. The same 'sarc' so broad as to be obviously faked.
Not anywhere near clever, which is one more reason I'm certain; "commie kid" and "clever" were never in the same time zone.
It's performance art.
For some value of "art."
"Modern"?
Same thing.
Like that urinal hanging in the museum?
I'll accept:
"It's performance"
Mayors of Sanctuary Cities (and Governors of Sanctuary States) should be arrested by the Federal government and charged with aiding and abetting criminals. And Democrat-controlled California is the least Libertarian state in the union. Are you trolling, or just stupid?
Are you trolling, or just stupid?
By far, the two most important issues for libertarians are unlimited immigration and unrestricted abortion. Based on that, there are plenty of states worse than CA from a libertarian POV.
NAP is not consistent with abortion.
Abortion is vile, but necessary on a very limited basis.
ace_m82
Murder is vile, but necessary on a very limited basis.
Theft is vile, but necessary on a very limited basis.
Rape is vile, but necessary on a very limited basis.
Forcible castration is vile, but necessary on a very limited basis.
This is a disturbing game!
Yeah………most of that is just untrue.
I am the 0.000000013%
Here's a clue. No.
Property rights are inconsistent with "open borders". I get to decide who travels through or resides in my property.
The term "open borders" is a severe red herring to logically-consistent libertarians. "Open borders" is a result of "the tragedy of the commons".
You can either have open borders or controlled immigration. I would think most libertarians would prefer some control. Of course, there may be in ideologically based desire to allow everyone who wants into the country regardless of their political and cultural inclinations which would likely in turn complete destroy any chance at any kind of really libertarian society, but I guess some consider the trade-off to be worth it. It just seems a little self-defeating to me.
This is where Libertarianism goes off the rails for me. Their solution is to open borders and ban welfare, pretending that welfare won't come back within a matter of months.
All are welcome to unite with feminists to the March on Washington Against The Traitor Trump (MoWATT).
#MoWATT-2018!!!
Join us this New Years Eve 2017-2018 as we bring in a New Year for a New Deal 2018!
We will be walking behind Rosie ODonnell, Lady Gaga and her mom Madonna, and Ashley Judd as she re-performs her "Nasty Woman" Speech!
Extra Special – Witch Amanda Yates Garcia holding a communal Cast Out Trump Spell.
Be There for Herstory !
Lady Gaga and her mom Madonna
I snort-laughed.
It's hard to separate parody from reality anymore. I'm sure the real thing will be just as ridiculous.
It's called Poe's LAW, not Poe's SUGGESTION.
No Emma Watson?
They had best quit their bitchin' and get back to the kitchen. Where they can bake the menfolk a pie.
Mickey Rat
So Greenhut's supporting California because he likes the idea that the state is sticking it to the feds, regardless of whether California is actually defending its legitimate authority under the constitution or whether what California wants is good policy. That is lazy, half-assed political thinking.
I didn't read it as support so much as praising California for remembering that States' Rights are a thing, and that it's not actually (or, at the very least, not always) a dog-whistle for slavery.
Red Rocks White Privilege
Funny how these fuckos discover the wonders of federalism when it's not a Democrat in the Oval Office.
I say let the I-5 corridor secede and then declare it a hostile entity (which it clearly is, considering how many states its migrants are intent on fucking up). A few well-placed tactical nukes might just be enough to solve the last 60 years of progressive stupidity.
Politically-based bloodlust is such a delightful impulse.
I've already seen them fuck up my home state, so at least I have some justification.
Colorado? Yeah. It's a real hell-hole. No one wants to move here.
Tell your out-of-state friends the same.
For fantasizing about murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people?
Progtards are not 'innocent'. Like all communists, they have the blood of over a hundred million truly innocent people on their hands, as they are advocates of the hundreds of millions more to be slaughtered should they ever gain total control.
^I'm truly curious to find out what it takes to get this warped. In your mind, is the shit you post something you would act on? Or do you just post here as a form of cathartic rage? Do you have children? Would you gladly slaughter children knowing that they one day might vote Democrat? Does anyone care about you, or do people generally avoid you? What does your family think of you? Do you say shit like this to them?
Well… there is the argument that political views are actually highly heritable… so are they really "innocent"?
Are you really this deluded? Do you not understand how quickly, and how bad things would get for you and yours if the progs ever had full control over the US? Why are you an apologist for then? Or maybe you just secretly share their beliefs? At a minimum, you're an enabler.
The only people that ever talk about slaughtering innocent children ARE PROGRESSIVES. So why don't you just stop with that nonsensical shit?
That's a pretty warped way to look at the world, dude. Have you considered counseling?
I'm sure a large pat of the reason that Stalinism and that sort of thing took hold and has killed so many is due in part that a number of people think your way and just refuse to see it coming. I don't have the luxury of such pleasant delusions.
Or more to the point……
https://tinyurl.com/y766n73r
Why should I weep for people who make it their life mission to do everything they can to embody the most obnoxious parts of progressivism and are doing everything in their power to import that culture outside its borders?
Even Californians know their state is fucked up, which is why they've been cashing out and spreading like a cancer to more libertarian-leaning western states.
It's fun to joke about occasionally dude, but seriously, no. I mean, how many good people who either A) don't vote or B) are just outvoted would you have to kill? And would it even make a difference?
The vast majority of Americans want immigration restrictions. The Congress Critters ignore us the moment they get elected and put in DC. Getting rid of California wouldn't change it.
Getting rid of California wouldn't change it.
There's a reason "As California goes, so goes the nation" isn't just a catchphrase.
I believe that saying is for Maine originally. Like everything else, the commies stole it.
In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say bankruptcy now, bankruptcy tomorrow, bankruptcy forever.
" I like the idea of our state asserting itself against officials in far-off Washington, D.C., even though I disagree with most of the policies that California officials choose to advance."
Anymore it seems the "defiance" to the federal government is resistance to a rollback of power.
They're rebelling against threats of reduced government, and increased liberty.
Well, front their perspective, that sort of shit can get way out of hand.
Next thing you know they are all out of a job.
Stop teasing me like that.
Yep, reduced government always leads to more liberty. It's why I'm against RCRA. RCRA made us less free. May the Cuyahoga River burn forever as a shining light of liberty.
So what does reduced government mean for you and what does it mean for the other guy…
"progressive officials in California have, ironically, become the most zealous defenders of that age-old doctrine, although for entirely different and arguably more noble purposes"
Your article did not cite one Noble item for California's TDS which is all it is,nothing more TDS top to bottom
Once you figure out that slavery and segregation are both decidedly progressive, you realize that these people have never changed.
Only people who are stupid enough to believe these dickholes when they steal the glory of classical liberalism find any irony.
In 2013, Gov. Jerry Brown defied federal court orders demanding the release of prisoners from the state's then-overcrowded prisons?an act that garnered various media comparisons to Wallace's stance. Our unpredictable Democratic governor was standing up against liberal judges to protect the public from criminals. It was weird.
Weird does not begin to describe it. Were the comparisons to Wallace because he was a Governor standing up to the Fedgov for what he believed was right or because he was literally trying to keep a majority black population in sub-human bondage?
Its also ironic since latter jErry signed a law allowing large criminal releases of "minor offenders" who now steal on a large scale since anything under $800 is no longer prosecuted so the cops don't even arrest them anymore
Is that total, or per indcident? If I make a trip to CA, can I go into a retail store with a bag, loot the place for under $800, dump the loot in. My car and go on to the next store? Or is it more complicated than that?
If so, everyone should plan day long shopping sprees in CA.
What year did he do that? I ask because "The 2016 property crime rate of 2,545 per 100,000 residents is down 3.3%, about 3.5% above the 50-year low of 2,459 in 2014." Sourced from http://www.ppic.org/publicatio…..alifornia/ . Notice 2014 was a 50 year low.
Yeah, the weird was that the media thought them comparable. Journalists can be light-weights over making comparisons.
Journalists are trained to do journalism. It takes decades of experience before they're trained in anything else, and then they quit and do something else.
A rule around my house, that my children embrace, is that when a journalist uses statistics the journalist is usually wrong in how they use the statistics.
"Despite its misuse at times, the basic concept of federalism is one of the most significant ones devised by our nation's founding fathers. States are meant to serve as "laboratories of democracy," where they are free to try different types of policies."
Describing federalism as misuse because it was, supposedly, objectively pro-segregation is conceding far too much of the battlefield. You might as well describe the First Amendment as misuse, too, because it has also been used by racists and other awful people to make their stupid arguments.
Federalism, like the First Amendment, is a good thing–regardless of whether people have tried to use it to do awful things.
Federalism isn't only meant to be used as a laboratory of democracy. It's meant to be a check on the power of the federal government. We, unfortunately, dismantled one of the linchpins of federalism with the direct election of federal senators. Before then, the senate was meant to be a check on federal power–by representing the desires of their states.
We used to choose our senators the way the UK chooses their prime minster.
Reactionary!!!
But what a great marketing scheme to sell the idea to the left. Since they love European socialist government, saying it's "just like the Brits do with their PM" might get them to run back to the state governments electing their Senators. Question is, are they blind enough to fall for it?
Hell, even the German government that we modeled on our own is arguably now more "federated" than ours – including appointed "senators".
You know who else appointed members of the German government?
I think you're on to something. You might have a real chance if you can point out that this means that the people in flyover country won't be able to stop a good Democrat from being appointed in their states if the Dems get control of the legislature.
"won't be able to stop a good Democrat from being appointed"
Define "good Democrat."
"Define 'good Democrat.' "
Well, I've liked Ted Kennedy much better these past eight years.
Federalism is a structure for government. That's all it is. We could have a Federal government without the Bill of Rights, exactly what was preposed by the Federalists.
You know, I have this same belief that the first step in destroying our Federal system was the direct election of Senators, but that was decided through our Federal system of amendment, and that from t the states being so corrupt in how they selected Senators.
The next was by Incorporation through the 14th, again by amendment. So we have the Feds playing a part in Due Process because it couldn't be trusted to the states. Because local government is just as bad if not worse than the government at a distance…
"…I oppose this act as unconstitutional…(among other reasons because) it is an assumption by Congress of powers not delegated by the Constitution; and in derogation of the rights of the States…"
/Sen. Charles Sumner (Mass.) on the federal Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
California is a donor state?it sends more to the national government than it gets in return
The residents of California when taken as a whole may send more to the national government than those residents receive, but how much does the state itself actually send?
Isn't it funny how borders only matter under certain circumstances, but not others?
Curious that, one might even say hypocritical in the extreme.
CapitalistRoader
And I wonder if SALT deductions are included in this calculation.
Deflator Mouse
The party that is out of power at the federal level always argues for states' rights and the filibuster and against federal deficits.
The Dems were pulling the same canard from 2001-06. If you want a laugh, watch the video from 2005 of Barack Obama and Harry Reid bewailing increases to the debt ceiling and plans to suspend the filibuster for confirmation of lower court judges.
"States' rights" has long had a reactionary connotation because of its connection to segregation. Defenders of Jim Crow-era policies hid behind the rights of states to do as they choose as they backed noxious policies that denied basic liberties to African-Americans.
Seems pretty consistent, doesn't it? Segregation, Jim Crow, eugencis, etc. were all policies espoused by Democrats and progressives. They tried to get away with them a century ago by insisting on states rights, just like they are trying to get away with their new racist policies by insisting on states rights.
Jim Crow wasn't espoused by progressives, in fact progressives fought against Jim Crow. Conservatives in the 1950s and 60s called the Civil Rights Movement communist inspired and MLK a Communist agitator. Conservatives supported Jim Crow because it was the established social order.
Eugenics was supported by both the Left and the Right. The Left through abortion, the Right through forced sterilization. The followers of the Fabians and the followers of Social Darwinism had common ground, they just disagreed over the means. IIRC, Gould addresses this in "The Mismeasure of Man".
The Republican Party became the Democratic Party of old when Nixon succeeded in his Southern Strategy. Oh joy, let's make the party founded on abolition and civil liberty stronger by bringing in Southern Democrats disaffected from the Democratic Party by the Civil Rights Act of 1965. They be good Republicans.
Finally, about everything you take for granted came from progressives (reading any book you want, working something like 40 hours/week rather than 112 hours/week, paid vacations, oh so long the list) . The mistake you make is thinking the word 'progressive' has always meant the same thing.
Read your history, Ariel. Woodrow Wilson was the first progressive president and an extreme racist. And there is no federal law mandating paid vacations; I don't think there's even any state laws mandating them but I could be wrong. Regardless, in almost all cases the market provided what the law later mandated, not vice versa.
" I find the Trump proposal to be unreasonably discriminatory and dislike executive orders in general"
I don't think it unreasonably discriminatory since the only way to prohibit those who would commit acts of terror from those countries would be a blanket ban.
I'm surprised that no one else has mentioned that Gov. George Wallace was a freshly elected Democrat as he spewed his "segregation forever" speech from the schoolhouse door. This was small part of the Democrats' century of terror in the Southeast. Jim Crow, Segregation, Lynchings, Peonage, Eugenics, Kangaroo Courts and other atrocities were all under the one-party rule of Democrats. The Solid South voted for any party but Lincoln's at the time.
– Jake
AFAIK Buck v. Bell has never been overturned.
And those Democrats were then taken into the Republican Party by Nixon's Southern Strategy. A strategy which changed the Republican Party for the worse to this day. Wallace was before that day.
Do you know what event killed the Klan after the 1924 Klanbake? A murder on a train that led to the exposure of the Indiana Republican party being Klan puppets. Look up D.C. Stephenson. And Indiana wasn't the only state that the Republicans and the Klan spent joy in bed. It even happened in California, but then few remember that California was more often Republican than Democrat until the latter part of the 20th. I know, I know, what is today stretches back throughout all time.
The reason the South hated the Republican Party, discounting that it was the abolition party, after the War of Secession was the Reconstruction as done by the Radical Republicans. The Radical Republicans were hell bent on punishing the South for secession and Lincoln's death. They weren't thinking of how to unite a nation torn asunder, they were at best seeking retribution, but really they were seeking revenge.
Some Solid South Democrats became Republicans, not all. It was far from a complete flip. As you say, that made the Republicans worse. I'll have to do some more study of Reconstruction and Klan ties to the GOP in the 1920's. Seems reasonable that Reconstruction was a continuation of the war. The Civil War started long before the first shots were fired on Fort Sumter. Juneteenth wasn't the last of it.
No "state" sends money to DC, only taxpayers do that. If anyone shoukd bitch abojt having to lobby to get their own mkney back its the taxpayers…
Old Monkey
Even though it will hit us, Make my Day Moonbeam, Progressives, and La Rasa Racists. It's going to hurt the Dem scourges in top 10% even more than me. Only thing keeping us from moving is my aged mother-in-law. We're retired, with similar income no longer paying into SSI, and Medicare. Your tribe will hurt, not mine. The more you stand up for and spend money on Illegals, more havoc you cause for Democrats, and vulnerable you become to being tarred, feathered, and Run out of town on a rail. Time long since passed when other than tribal influence, minorities think like the Whites their sons and daughters date. When my aged minority mother-in-law passes, out goes the Century 21 sign. In Nevada our income increases by 15%, in Ohio, our standard of living after taxes would more than double. Better weather, political scandal, and racialism not worth the financial fleecing. Besides, most minorities other than Asians, hate Chinese more than Whites. Won't hold my breath for reasons not to leave