Saturday, August 15, 2009

Boiler Room Elves On States' Rights

By the Boiler Room Elves
(edited by AndrewPrice)

To keep our internet connection working, Commentarama employs a team of unionized elves to stoke the boiler. These elves are an opinionated (and militant) group, and they constantly send us expletive-laced diatribes about various political topics. But sometimes, these diatribes are kind of interesting. So we’ve decided to share some of them with you. Without further ado, I give you the most recent rant from our Boiler Room Elves. . .


To: Management
Re: States' Rights MEANS States' Rights

If states' rights mean something to conservatives, then we must stand up for states rights. We cannot pick and choose when we want states rights to apply and when we don’t. If one is in favor of smaller government and states' rights as the best way to govern, and we are, then that belief should not stop once one's favorite pet issue comes up for debate.

I'm thinking of the recent attempt by Republicans (and joined by a surprising number of Democrats) to add an amendment to a military defense bill that would have required states to recognize concealed carry permits granted by other states. The amendment fell just short of the 60 votes needed to pass.

This amendment bothers me. I have nothing against concealed weapon permits. I would like to see all states make them available. But this isn’t the way to go about it. All over talk radio, I heard pundits arguing: “hey, if the liberals want to insist that Tennessee must recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts, then they should be willing to give the same privilege to concealed gun permits.” But that is precisely backward!

If conservatives DON'T want to force Tennessee to recognize a marriage performed in Massachusetts, then conservatives cannot turn around and insist that gun permits should be recognized nation-wide. States' rights must mean something always, not only when the other guy raises an issue. If we pick and choose when the concept applies, then all we do is weaken the concept.

There are plenty of permits and licenses granted in every state that don't cross borders. If you are licensed to teach or practice law or medicine in one state, you have to apply and go through hoops when you move. Even your drivers' license, while recognized in other states if you pass through, must be replaced by a proper license from the new state if you move to that state. And this often requires retesting, and exposes you to the risk that the new state won’t issue the new license. Concealed weapons permits should be no different.

Nor does it matter that gun ownership is a constitutional right. First, it’s not obvious to me that ownership also means that you have a constitutional right to carry the weapon concealed. The Second Amendment does not say “right to bear concealed arms.” Secondly, we have historically decided that states CAN impose regulations within states, even on supposedly absolute constitutional rights, for reasons like health, safety and the public welfare. For example, we let states and cities restrict free speech by requiring permits before groups can assemble or march, and by punishing people for yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

If we are to respect states’ rights, we should let them put in place whatever restrictions they think are appropriate, provided they don’t violate the Constitution. To do otherwise and to attempt to impose one rule on the states runs counter to the arguments conservatives routinely make about the left attempting to foist leftish ideas on the states in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

That’s why we oppose the idea of this amendment.

Signed,
Boiler Room Elves

36 comments:

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,
I agree with your boiler room elves. I heard that lately, more and more states are voting in resolutions to the Tenth amendment.

BevfromNYC said...

See, this is the difference between Elves and Trolls. Elves put forth well reasoned, thoughtful arguments. Trolls just argue with no thought. Thank you Boiler Room Elves - Can you make cookies too or is that just the Keebler-type tree elves?

Anyway, "the several states" must maintain their rights to govern as the locals see fit because it is obvious that our Federal representation is not interested in listening to the electorate.

Here is another example of Federal incursion on the States - Now the Feds want to take over the coordination of local disaster response too -

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/governors-oppose-dod-emergency-powers-2009-08-10.html

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I'm of two minds on the issue. One the hand I agree with what the elves have written. But on the other, I am also a believer that if the other side is going to use a political weapon against you, you need to turn that weapon around and show them that there will be a huge price if they try it again. If that's what this was, then I would be fine with it. But I think this was probably just the Republicans trying to score some points with gun owners at the expense of yet another fundamental principle.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, These elves can get pretty nasty. I had to remove a lot of swearing. FYI, they have called me to let me know they will be responding to comments once they get over some technical problems.

One of the things that Bush did that really troubled me was when he tried to push aside the prohibition on the use of the US military as a law enforcement agency within the United States so that they could help out in disaster relief. I think it's a horrible idea and highly corrosive of the trust we have in the military if we are going to see them potentially shooting people or rounding people up after the next Katrina.

ScottDS said...

Andrew - you'll have to write about the 2nd amendment/guns/etc. in a future article. I have some questions (Guns 101, basically) but they wouldn't be relevant in this thread.

As for the Elves, to the extent that I'm knowledgeable on the subject (read: not much), I would have to agree with them. Given my "just get it done" nature, my first impulse is usually "less bureaucracy = good."

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, not to highjack the elves' thread, but what kinds of questions do you have? Legal, technical, how phony is Hollywood, where can you buy an illegal gun? ;-)

ScottDS said...

Nothing major, really. :-)

My dad and I went to a gun show recently. My dad (a right-leaning former Republican turned Democrat) owns a couple of handguns and he's often asked me if I'd like to go with him to the gun range one day. I've never fired a gun but I would like to, just to see how good I might be. (God help us all!)

At the gun show, yes, there were a few people who looked a bit, uh, I'll just say interesting. I'm from the 'burbs and don't have much experience with this stuff. Contrary to what some people think, my dad and I both agree there are some guns that ordinary civilians probably shouldn't own. That's just me and I don't expect anyone to agree. I also have a former cop uncle who carries a concealed weapon and I have no problem with that.

So you have people who want to ban all gun ownership, or who claim its too easy for criminals to get guns. So I guess my big question is... how easy is it? I suppose my gun control philosophy can be summed up by a line from one of the Death Wish films: "Guns don't scare me. Idiots with guns do."

And some of my left-leaning friends and family are disgusted with the whole idea of gun ownership. I posted on Facebook: "Going to a gun show with Dad" and one of his cousins chimed in with, "Eww!" :-)

JG said...

Good word, although I would add that the right to bear arms means the right to bear arms - period - the state restricting that right only to licensed people who promise to hide them is putting restrictions on a Constitutional right that they have no Constitutional justification for. I mean really, if you walk into a 7/11 intending to rob it, and see the employees as well as a few of the customers have sidearms, you will probably just turn around and walk out. But that's a rant for another time :)

AndrewPrice said...

Scott, Ok, let me put some thought into it. I think I see what you're after.


JG, I'm not sure I would go that far. We do allow regulation of all rights to a certain degree and I can see where states might have an interest in banning guns from certain locations, or their use in certain manners, or even requiring things like gun safety courses. For example, I have no problems with background checks because I don't think felons or the mentally ill should have the rigtht to own guns.

That said, unfortunately, the government too often uses these powers abusively to try to prohibit the underlying activity itself. And that needs to be prevented as well.

BoilerRoomElf said...

There goes the boss-man again, disagreeing with us. Don't forget who keeps the internet running around here! >:/

Bev, we certainly can make cookies, as any elf worth his union wage can. And re the DOD disaster plan, isn't it always easiest to grab power during an emergency? People look for a leader and will follow whomever seems strongest. That's why emergencies are dangerous times.

Joel, we are heartened by the states that are asserting their 10th Amendment rights. We are just curious about whether the states will have the... ummm wings... to institute those laws if push comes to shove. Just where is that point going to be?

Scott, the BoilerRoom is full of elves exercising their 2nd Amendment right. Less bureaucracy is always good in our opinion, too.

JG, the elves would agree with you as well. An armed citizenry is a safer one - safer from an overpowering government and safer from a random nutjob who decides to shoot up the elves' workout room.

And as another thought - imagine this law being used as a weapon. Sure, a responsible Montana resident with a concealed permit can walk the streets of NYC with his gun, but what if Massachusetts decides to give concealed weapon permits to the certifiably insane? Then Texas would have to allow those folks in with their concealed weapons, too. Following that, there might soon be calls for banning all concealed weapons permits everywhere.

Joel Farnham said...

What I do know from past history is in Florida, they passed a concealed carry law. The result was that soon the tourists from out of country were targeted by the criminal element.

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: How many times do I have to tell you to stop feeding the animals? And while you're at it, quit hiding the threatening notes from the employees. All non-management employees are potential communists and anarchists. If we continue to listen to anything they have to say, they'll start thinking they have the right to demand outrageous things like lunches, and breaks, and days off. Before long, we'll be expected to pay them at least minimum wage,and provide luxuries like bathroom facilities. I insist that you immediately cease playing footsie with the plebes. I want names!

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, criminals will always pick the weakest target. Once they realized that the tourists were the least likely to be armed, that's where they went.

Lawhawk, if you want to take away the bathroom breaks, you go down there and tell them.

Elf, I don't know that it could be used as a weapon in that manner, but it would mean that in the future the issue would be decided at the federal level. Thus, if the opposed states get stronger politically, they would vote to ban such permits, and they could apply that to all states using the same mechanism.

BoilerRoomElf said...

What? There are employees in the world who get lunches and days off? Why haven't we heard of this before, Lawhawk?? And we'll check the union regs to see if we can cc you on future threatening memos...

Joel, criminals don't go after people who may be armed. It's plain logic. Why libs and trolls don't see that...

StanH said...

Now you’ve don it Guys! My elves saw your elves posting, and are now demanding equal rights. They no longer want to be called elves but “little people” and demand recognition of their first and second amendment rights, that’s just what I need armed, mouthy elves. Worst of all they’re refusing to bake their delicious cookies, it’s a disaster.
Since 10:00 AM EST they’ve been marching around my house screaming “elves are people to, elves are people to... it’s pandemonium. So I decided to make it interesting for them and I released the kitties, and “low and behold” right now I see one of the little devils on a tree limb outside of my office window and he’s waving a little white flag. Ah… I expect cookies soon : )

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Great! Now I've gotten an e-mail from the International Amalgamated Elves Union informing us that they will be holding a strike meeting tomorrow. They're demanding to renegotiate the contract. See! I told you! Give 'em and inch, they'll take a mile. All that fair employment practices nonsense is gonna cost us. For one thing, they now want an annual one-week paid vacation to the North Pole. We're going to have to start outsourcing to places that understand capitalism--like Russia or China.

BoilerRoomElf said...

Yeah, BossManL, go ahead and outsource us to China. See how much freedom of speech you get then!

Mwahahahaaaaa...

Stan, we'll be sending a negotiator to your house soon. Watch for a sleigh with a bumper sticker that reads "My other auto is .45"

HamiltonsGhost said...

Andrew and Lawhawk: I've been hovering over your site for some time now. I see that your are having labor problems. I was talking with George this morning, and we agreed that it sounds like the Whiskey Rebellion in miniature. Would you like us to send in the troops?

BevfromNYC said...

I go away for a couple of hours and all heck breaks loose!
Law and Andrew, get the Elves back downstairs and under control or I'm going to have to call in...well, you know...don't make me make that call!

AndrewPrice said...

Hamilton, I think a bit of whiskey would probably solve this crisis.


Bev, I think we've got the elf problem under control now.


BoilerRoomElf, Let me say thanks for an interesting article with some interesting ideas. . . now get back to work.

BoilerRoomElf said...

Whiskey, now we're talkin'...

Alright, alright, BossManA, we'll get back to the grind...

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: What happened to our "we don't negotiate with terrorist elves" position? You bought the little monsters whiskey? Now they'll be arrogant, and drunk.

StanH said...

Release the kitties I say, …no mercy for these rebellious wee ones.

CrispyRice said...

OMG, one can't leave this blog alone for a single day, can one?

How do I get in on this cookie action?

BevfromNYC said...

CrispyRice, it seems LawHawk and Andrew have taken a page out of Obama's book and are using alcohol as a tool to calm the Elven unrest. It must have worked because we haven't heard a peep from the Elves for awhile. But then, we haven't heard from Law or Andrew for awhile either. You don't think that the Elves have taken...naaah.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, it's a well known fact that Elfs and union guys love booze! Booze will beat a 401k plan every time!

StanH said...

It’s been quite a day my elves had settled down, (thanks to Ms. Kitty and Squeak) cookie production had restarted, then your elves negotiator showed up with his sleigh, .45, whiskey, and bad attitude. All hell broke out, long story short, my elves have the negotiator in custody in the cookie factory clink my elves are woodland elves and they say, “we don’t like no stinkin North Pole elves.” They’re drinking and appear to be building a pyre, it doesn’t look good. Any suggestions?

Suzie1 said...

Wow.

I think I heard these union elves attended some town halls this week, unfortunately they were overlooked by the media -- literally.

I have to say the safest I have ever felt was in Kennesaw, GA back in the 80s, what with its mandatory gun ownership.

AndrewPrice said...

Suzie, Switzerland is a very safe place and they have mandatory gun ownership as well.

Stan, my advice is to tell them you'll form a committee to implement their recommendations, that way you don't have to worry about it for years. Then, if they remember, you promise to form another committee to figure out what we wrong with the first committee.

Suzie1 said...

And did I misread something, or is someone holding kittens hostage!!?

AndrewPrice said...

Suzie, I think that would be Stan. We would never hold kittens hostage. . . unless there was money in it.

Individualist said...

Andrew

While I agree with the elves that Gay Marraige among other issues should be left to the states, Part of me kinda would like to see the Feds try and push it on the states. You have to admit that it would be absolutely hillarious to hear the legal arguments when they try to get around the 10th ammendment by claiming gay marraige comes under the heading of interstate commerce.

StanH said...

Thanks Andrew, the committee suggestion worked they’re happy elves once again. No Suzie my kitties are enforcers, but if money is involved, hmmm…

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, Sadly, I doubt they will both to make any arguments other than "this is fair."

Stan, You're welcome. Remember, when you want to appear to do something without doing it, form a committee.

Individualist said...

OK Andrew

So it used to be if you wanted to force some measure upon the states you either had to blackmail them by not giving money and/or claim that the edict was to control interstate commerce (I think this is the reasoning for things such as the FBI). Now we have totally dispensed with even that conceit to the constitution a nd replaced it with "THIS IS FAIR".

Hmmm So I guess what you are saying is the FAINESS is now a commodity which is traded accross state lines.

Good to Know!

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, I doubt they will say much more than "it's fair." If they somehow need to defend the position in court, then they would probably argue that the ability of married couples to move freely across state lines (e.g. right to travel) is essential to interstate commerce, and thus must be made uniform across the states. That would probably be enough for the courts.

Post a Comment