Not to say that it isn't a gutsy, good thing the NM legislature did, but if I read it right this is an "affirmation" with no force of law. Basically, they are just saying "please be nice in NM, Mr. Gov't Agent."
Still, it's a step in the right direction.
Nonetheless, as with the medical marijuana laws the several states have passed, the Gov't of the US doesn't give a rat's ass what the state legislatures or the people think. Making the world safe for megacorps, sure. What we want? Don't hold your breath.

Edited by author 03-16-2003 01:15 PM
Nonetheless, as with the medical marijuana laws the several states have passed, the Gov't of the US doesn't give a rat's ass what the state legislatures or the people think. Making the world safe for megacorps, sure. What we want? Don't hold your breath.

Isn't it nice that states' rights only applies to Southern states?

Actually, it's only passed the House (53-11), though it is a joint bill and will with any luck sail through the Senate. Take a look at http://legis.state.nm.us/legreports.asp and click on #8, "Passed House." It's below the SBs.

"State's Rights" is a mantra with the right wing in America unless it's something they don't like, like the marijuana laws or tort law. They have principles so malleable they're flexible enough to do gymnastics at the next Olympics.

Go NM! True, they won't be able to enforce it unless they're willing to take it all the way and try to arrest some feds, or at least take them to court. But it's a powerful statement, especially when the rest of the states have all the gumption and feistiness of Tony Blair.

Qrazy, I don't get the connection between your minirant and the NM news. I imagine the NM law is supported, and probably initiated, by libertarian types. So in a way, it seems like two sides of the right wing going after each other. Anybody know what flavor of legislators were selling this law?

It's a good move...dumb though. I expect them to lose some Federal Funds for it...

Edited by author 03-16-2003 03:12 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if the NM law is supported by a broad spectrum politically. Many conservatives are starting to realise that the things they railed about for years (like the ACLU) have a reason to be. My point was that State's Rights is indeed a big deal with the right wing federally. Their supposed support for it comes up virtually whenever they cut some federal program -- they say they want local control in government. But whenever the states start doing something they don't like they come down hard on them -- as we've seen with the local states marijuana initiatives, as we've seen in the recent overriding of states rights in control of tort law. My point is the rather obvious one that they're huge hypocrites. I am happy to see that on some levels and on some issues, the liberterians and other right wing folks are lining up with the left wing and providing support in a stand against some of these massive abuses of federal power.

Qrazy, amen. It would be interesting to see who supported it, and how many votes it got, but I can't find that stuff yet.

Anyway, in case anybody hasn't had a look at the whole bill, it's must reading. To see a state legislature actually come out and say in a legal document that "federal policies adopted since September 11, 2001, including provisions in Public Law 107-56, known as the USA Patriot Act, and related executive orders, regulations and actions threaten fundamental rights and liberties" is like looking at another, and better planet.

I'll be emailing my congressperson here in Illinois a copy with a demand that she go and do likewise, but won't be holding my breath.

Bravo New Mexico. You gotta hand it to them, they've got guts and moral direction. I wonder how appreciative the people there are of what their government this instant.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that Blair has as little spine as the other states, though. Given the sheer pressure he's under to oppose the war from his party and people, I'd say he's got a lot of guts to support the war, regardless of you believe he's right or wrong. Call him misguided or arrogant, but spineless? I don't think so.

DaveW: Seeing who did vote against it would indeed be interesting...that's the sort of vote that needs to be public and require explanation from the voter.

I think Blair painted himself into a corner. He may have been encouraged by Bush's method of going into Afghanistan, which was fairly considered and involved consulting with a wide number of countries and getting their approval or backing. I suspect Blair has been surprised by the Bush administration's method vis a vis Iraq, which started out with the same approach but when the approval and support wasn't forthcoming, simply ignoring everyone -- well, along with pretty childish insults. Now Blair is no doubt feeling stuck -- he can stick to his guns and probably go down to defeat in his next election, or he can back down and get slammed by Bush and crew. And he's left it so long, and been so ineffective at getting Bush to listen to anyone else's ideas, that he's likely to go down to defeat anyway. He might be hoping that somehow there can be a quick miracle that will make everybody happy -- mighty slim hope, but what does he have? He's made himself look like a toady, whereas in similar teaming before (Bush in Afghanistan and Clinton before) he got to look like a partner with a very powerful country. I think he was figuring he would have more of the same, and was bushwhacked -- so to speak -- by the Bush team's, well, wacky way of doing business.

I don't approve of the war, but I'd much rather have to listen to Blair speak than Bush. Maybe it's a byproduct of being a former colony, but Blair just sounds smarter. Listening to Bush this morning I could easily visualize the "deer in the headlights" look on his face as he answered questions.

re: malleable principles--Real patriots don't criticize the president--unless he's a democrat!

Just about everybody sounds smarter than Bush Jr., ex-colonial or no.

Re criticism, there've been a lot of interesting blog entries showing the same people who are now saying that it's wrong (at best) to protest or even much criticise the prez, and their previous, and exactly opposite, actions re Clinton and Kosovo, as well as other flip-flops of that sort -- ie. George Will on the appropriateness of holding up judicial appointments, then and now; and many commentators on the subject of boycotts, which they support when it's their boycott, but decry as unAmerican and anti-capitalistic when it's against them.

I believe I was the one who sent this info to boingboing -
if someone else did, then that's great....I don't know if this bill has been PASSED, but at least the grassroots organizing committees in several NM communities have gotten this far, with a strategy of UPHOLDING the Bill of Rights,
rather than as an ANTI-Patriot Act ...

See my tiny little BLOG - yes, it is brand-new, and I can't get theimages to post as of yet...and how do you get it to show html links??? I am frustrated by this....

http://chickenlil.blogspot.com

thanks - see ya at the candle-light vigil, somewhere...

PS The Bush "deer in the headlights " look is because
he is LISTENING to an earpiece, a la Wag the Dog - not
reading the teleprompter -remember? He is trying to communicate what they are telling him..."stern gestures, here...that was INVESTIGATE, not INCINERATE, George..."

Uh, this is kind of interesting, as a gesture, but not much else. The Federal government has done a good job of making states reliant on the giant federal money hose for things like education grants, highway grants, subsidies for this and that, etc. They tend to use the money as both a carrot and a stick to make the states do extra-constitutional things. The biggest example of this is the speed limit laws. Nothing in the constitution gives congress the power to set speed limits on state roads - but if the states don't play, they don't get the highway cash. When you are a state governor, try telling your wife that her worthless brother won't be getting any juicy road contracts - and see how long you last.

I don't know New Mexico's financial situation - did they spend like drunken sailors during the bubble? Most states are screwed now, since the can't shrink spending back to reasonable levels without losing their jobs - the big states like CA are begging for fed bailout. So if NM has the balls to back this up, and not take the cash, then god bless em.

Live in a real state - soon:
http://www.freestateproject.org

-Donut

ps. Speaking as a libertarian - states rights always! Education, guns, health, law enforcement to the states, everything but defense, money printing, and federal courts.

AFAIK, New Mexico has trouble money-wise due to a fair amount of territory and not all that many people, so services get spread pretty thin. I think this is not something that they could simply go it alone on, but it can be helpful because it could spawn legal cases. I doubt the feds really want legal cases on this stuff, cause they would likely lose on most of it. So even one state can put some pressure on the feds with a move like this. And of course they encourage other states to do similar things.

I'm not a super-strong states rights guy -- I figure there's a good balance somewhere, and I feel that states rights too often gets used to knock down educational standards and things like that. But I'm glad that people on both sides of that issue, as well as of various political stripes, are starting to realise they need to be able to work together on some issues. We've had far too much lack of cooperation and interaction in the US -- what we've had is failure to communicate. And that's not cool.