Natural Rights, Civil Rights and States' Rights

The philosophy of rights is deeply entrenched in the American political system, and has even older roots in Western political philosophy. Most Americans, I would venture, believe in natural rights, namely, that each person has a natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property according to the original sense). More recently, other natural rights have been asserted: women's rights, animal rights, etc. Civil Rights, especially when regarding the individual, also remain at the forefront of the American consciousness: right to attorney, right to remain silent, right of habeas corpus, right to vote, and so on. What is interesting about the philosophy of rights is the presuppositions that it seems to make. It would seem that for a person to claim a certain right as "natural," there would have to exist an objective, universal order. Unless a person can point me otherwise, I cannot see how any philosophy of natural rights can be undergirded by any system that makes moral and societal norms relative. Civil rights are granted by the state, but these rights also seem to be rooted in an evaluation of justice. Civil rights are granted because it is just and right to grant them, not because it benefits that state or the people of the state.

States' Rights, still touted by many (especially amongst Southerners) as the true issue at stake for the South in the American Civil War (AKA the War of Northern Aggression), no longer has any relevance in the minds of most Americans. Many Americans want to reduce the size of the federal government, but the question of the states taking on many functions themselves without the interference of the federal government often is not heard. The libertarians focus on the individual in his self-autonomy, with very little involvement from the government, primarily the federal government. But, so far as I am aware, there is no significant platform at present in the United States that pushes for state's rights. This is interesting considering historical precedent. The Founding Fathers first attempted a very loose Confederation of States (the Articles of Confederation). This did not work out--if I remember, Virginia and Pennsylvania declared war on each other. But I think this is important in that it shows what the Fathers looked for in a national government. The Constitution provided for a stronger government, but sadly, even early in America's history, abuses at the federal level arose. In the face of the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions was created, an early assertion of the rights of individual states against abuse of the federal government.

Hilary Clinton's RFK Comment

Yesterday, Hilary Clinton made a comment to the effect that RFK was assassinated in June. The comment came immediately after a reference to her husband going into June in the early 90's. The comment clearly was in the context of presidential nominees going into the summer without dropping out of the race; yet, for some reason, she immediately was accused of insensitivity towards the Kennedy family.

This is nonsense. Any sensible person can see that the comment was meant to say that presidential candidates still have a chance in the primaries well into the summer. I'm not a supporter of Clinton; in fact, I can't stand her. However, I think that the charges against her in this regard are nonsense.

Now, Hilary's comments on Bosnia are a different matter.