As the health care bill drags toward a finish line, conservative opponents of the bill are raising a specter with some long history--"States' Rights." They claim to be able to nullify the federal reform bill on the state level, but the argument for states' rights has been made before to prevent progressive action from being taken, particularly around racial equality
Dedrick Muhammad, senior organizer at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Nathan Newman, executive director of the Progressive States Network, join Laura to talk about what states' rights really means, and how it can be good for progressives as well as bad.
I always appreciate your questions, Laura, as you seem able to challenge the premises even of those with whom you appear to agree; try to find Katie Couric or Chris Matthews doing that. I remember an interview where your guest was bemoaning the immense maleavolent influence wielded by corporations and the powerlessness of government (the people) to oppose it. You pointed out the success of anti tobacco legislation, auto safety (seatbelts, airbags) and CAFE standards. I wonder how these two gentlemen and “progressives” in general would view the states’ rights arguments employed by California just a couple of years ago to claim that federal law enforcement could not legitimately prosecute its citizens who were using medical marajuana in compliances with a state law. And guess who agreed with CA’s argument? Justice Clarence Thomas. The states’ rights position is not just a cover for bigoted attitudes, it is fundamental to our nation’s federal structure. That federalism is one the greatest guards of our liberties. Keep up the good work.
By Richard on March 20th, 2010 at 8:54 pm