The idea of state's rights was corrupted by the founders of the Confederacy because they, mistakenly, believed that a state had the right to decide whether or not it should have slavery.
That's a very interesting argument, Senator. Please explain why then was it necessary to amend the Constitution to provide rights of citizenship to African and Caribbean Americans.
What has happened is that those who want to increase the power of our central or national government use the mistaken, incorrect and dishonest view of the Confederacy on state's rights and use it portray anyone who supports one of the basic principles of our government as a rascist.
Let's see if I understand that thought correctly. Those who want to increase the power of our central or national government would be . . . whom? I would say first and foremost the Bush Administration - real actions speak much more loudly than presumed intentions. But I assume by that you mean "Libruls". Am I right? OK, now you have described the mistaken, incorrect, and dishonest view of the Confederacy as being the conflation of "States' Rights" with the right to own slaves. Now, who could you be referring to when you say "anyone who supports one of the basic principles of our government"? That's about as clear as mud, but I'll take a stab at it. You mean, someone who carries the Constitution in his vest pocket and consults it before making any political decision?
It's hard to know
what you mean, Senator. So perhaps you can elucidate, bearing in mind that you are talking to mere Libruls who have trouble accessing your unspoken implications. Nevertheless, here's how I've translated your statement:
What has happened is that the Bush Administration and Libruls in Congress use the argument that state's rights allows for slavery and use it portray Dennis Kucinich as a rascist.
