State's Rights: A Prospective Rebirth

Each time I bring up the 10th Amendment I am given one of three responses:
1) Which one is that?
2) Dude, that died with the Civil War.
3) That's such a copout.

To which I reply:
1) It states that any powers that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government as alliterated in the constitution are given to the states. You should either read up on history or kindly refrain from voting.
2) You're probably right, but that doesn't mean it should have. Drat slavery really screwing things up.
3) It is most certainly not. The tenth amendment is the most overlooked amendment of them all, despite its brilliance.

The Founders knew that even reasonably informed and intelligent men were going to disagree on things from time to time. They also knew that while it was abhorrent to allow the will of the many from trampling upon the rights of the few, it was equally abhorrent to allow the will of the minority from becoming the law of the land.

Thus, a state could legislate however it wished, within certain broad limits. In this manner, the majority in a state could decide what set of laws they wished to obey. If a group of citizens disliked a law, they would be free to find a state where the laws were less burdensome.

Of course, it was possible that no state offered the citizens the protections they believed they deserved. While unfortunate, this thing is bound to happen. It is almost infinitely more likely that a person may find a state with laws to his liking among fifty than to find that a large federal government agrees with him on even most principles.

The best way to prevent conflicts on social issues is to allow the people of the respective states to decide things for themselves. We need not look far to see the folly of ignoring the wisdom in the founders in regards to the tenth amendment. When the court ruled that abortion was a constitutional right in Roe v. Wade, half the country became incensed--and Republicans found themselves in power more often than not, funny that. With South Dakota recently making abortion illegal once again, it looks as though this issue will be revisited by the High Court. The decision is still a long ways in coming, but barring a death or retirement from a liberal justice, Roe will probably remain ensconced, if the court predictably honors president.

But there is another instance in which the issue of states rights would prove invaluable. Things in Iraq, though certainly not as bad as much of the media would have it believed, are not going terribly well. With three sects opting for power--or at least the ability to exist without persecution from the others--the ideal of tenth amendment becomes immediately practical. Only by placing Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds in sovereign states so as to govern themselves will Iraq become democratic and stable in any sense of either word.

It is tragic that the courts have trampled on this part of the Bill of Rights, and the negative effects of this have been demonstrated clearly. It is not too late to revert to strict contructionism, or even to a time when justices did not fall asleep before getting to amendment number ten. Yet in all likelihood, the federal government is not going to relinquish powers to the states barring a miracle.

While foolishly thrown out here, this principle would serve the Iraqis well were they to implement it. I don't wish to be too optimistic, but wouldn't it be humorous if the democracy of Iraq outlasted our own? To carry this absurdity further, it would be a masterful irony if the Iraqis had to liberate us from an oppressive dictator to return to us the fruits of democracy. Perhaps then we will get our state's rights back.