“States Rights” Are Actually Delegated Powers

“States Rights” Are Actually Delegated Powers

There is no such thing as “states rights”, the proper term to use is state powers.

States have no rights but only powers delegated to them.

Amendment X:

“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.”

You cannot delegate individual rights as they are unalienable, as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

What governments have are powers. Observes Ayn Rand:

“[George Wallace] is not a defender of individual rights, but merely of states’ rights—which is far, far from being the same thing. When he denounces ‘Big Government,’ it is not the unlimited, arbitrary power of the state that he is denouncing, but merely its centralization—and he seeks to place the same unlimited, arbitrary power in the hands of many little governments. The break-up of a big gang into a number of warring small gangs is not a return to a constitutional system nor to individual rights nor to law and order.” [“The Presidential Candidates 1968,” The Objectivist, June 1968, 5]

I do agree, in principle, to limit the federal government to its explicitly stated powers enumerated in the U.S. constitution, as the federal government has far overreached its powers.

Decentralization (or centralization) in government is only good to the extent that it enables the protection of individual rights. What the right mix is of central vs decentralization in any given context is a practical matter.


What of the American civil war?

There’s no such thing as the right to fight a war for slavery, which is the “custom” that the South was fighting for in the American Civil War. Law is not an end in itself.

Objectively law does not exist in a vacuum, but has a purpose. Under Americanism, that purpose is stated in the Declaration of Independence: the protection of individual rights. So any state in the Union cannot legally fight a war that undermines the basis of law itself. Any republic which legally protects slavery is illegitimate to that extent. The civil war was the way this defect was remedied.

Prior to the 13th amendment the North was working to legally limit slavery and its expansion so that the non-slave states “free states” would eventually outnumber the slave states of the South. The South saw the writing on the wall. If the North was not gradually working against slavery, the South would have stayed in the Union.

Florida Law Banning Social Media For Minors Violates Parental Rights

Florida has passed a law, signed by Governor DeSantis,  that bans anyone under 14 owning a social media account as of from January 2025. The bill states children that are 14 -15 years of age must have parental consent to create an account on sites like X, Instagram, and Facebook”

“A social media platform shall prohibit a minor who is 14 or 15 years of age from entering into a contract with a social media platform to become an account holder, unless the minor’s parent or guardian provides consent for the minor to become an account holder…”

Apparently it will use “anonymous age verification.”

This bill should be overturned as it is a naked violation of parental rights.  It is up to parents to determine what their child have or do not have access to.

The state does have a role in going after child trafficking and exploitation which some claim is an issue on Instagram, but this bill is not the way to do it.

Musk on Immigration

Musk on Immigration

Here is what I found:

1. Musk did not say illegal immigrants vote. I took what he said to mean that they are likely to vote if naturalized. (He may be wrong or right on this).

2. As an immigrant himself, Musk is for greatly expanding legal immigration. He is against border anarchy.

3. Some make the argument that immigrants who enter illegally because of the Biden administration are more apt to vote for Democrats (based on interviews with them). I agree, that whether they do vote or not is an empirical matter.

4. Thanks to Biden’s executive order, illegals count toward the census which determines house seat counts in Federal elections:

“Accordingly, the executive branch has always determined the population of each State, for purposes of congressional representation, without regard to whether its residents are in lawful immigration status.”

Some estimates show that the net effect of placing them in Democratic strongholds is to give Democrats a lock on an additional 20 plus house seats.

5. Illegals in some states do end up voting in Federal elections due to the lax state ID standards for voting, etc. See this thread:

Musk may be wrong or right on some facts. I see that he is open to changing his views when presented with facts which he sees as facts. I think his errors are due to the noise out there.

Ultra-Millionaire Tax

When the 16th amendment was ratified, the federal income tax was to be no more than 2%. What will be the future rate increase and who will Warren’s confiscation of wealth tax be expanded to when the principle that she can steal people’s wealth is put into law?

According to the Tax Foundation, “The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a 25.99 percent average rate, more than eight times higher than the 3.1 percent average rate paid by the bottom half of taxpayers.”

Socialist Senator Warren lies by omission in order to confiscate the wealth of billionaires. “Fair share” for Warren and her ilk is a euphemism for legalized theft.

“Progressives” Against Free Speech

“Progressives” Against Free Speech

The free speech trifecta, therefore, covers the three areas of greatest concern for the free speech community: censorship, blacklisting and weaponization. The resulting opinions could curtail or magnify such abuses. For example, the social media case (Murthy) seemed to trouble the justices as to where to draw a line on coercion. If the court simply declines to draw such a line and rules for the government, it will likely fuel new censorship efforts by federal agencies.

What is disconcerting about the views expressed by Justices Kagan, Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor in two of the cases is not that they are outliers. The problem is that liberal justices long acted as the bulwark for free speech on the court. They are now viewed as the weakest link, often dismissive or hostile to free speech arguments.

When Justice Jackson defends the right of the government to coerce speech, she follows a long legacy of speech relativists on the court, including the earlier Justice Robert Jackson. He had warned that the court needed to approach speech prosecutions with “a little practical wisdom,” so as not to “convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

The current Justice Jackson seemed to channel the same practicalities over principle in stressing that “you’ve got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government’s perspective.”

The view of speech as harm or violence is all the rage on college campuses, and also in many Western countries where free speech is in a free fall. France, Canada and the United Kingdom now regularly arrest people for expressing hateful or controversial viewpoints. Those same anti-free speech arguments are now being heard in our own Congress and colleges in the U.S.

It is not clear how the court will decide these cases. One fear is that it could retreat to blurry lines that leave us all uncertain about what speech is protected. In an area that demands bright lines to prevent the chilling effect on speech, such vague outcomes could be lethal.

The government loves ambiguity when it comes to speech regulation. It now may have found new voices on the left side of the court to join in the ignoble effort of combating free speech. That renewed effort to introduce “a little practical wisdom” could mean a lot less freedom for Americans.


Voice of Capitalism

Capitalism news delivered every Monday to your email inbox.

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest