In his famous 1835 text, "Democracy in America" (the first volume), the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville described the new United States as he found it and the fiercely independent people he encountered. He wrote the following of the opposition he found to the federal government's infringement on states' rights in raising armies for the war of 1812:
The Constitution confers upon Congress the right of calling forth militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; and another article declares that the President of the United States is the commander-in-chief of the militia. In the war of 1812 the President ordered the militia of the Northern States to march to the frontiers; but Connecticut and Massachusetts, whose interests were impaired by the war, refused to obey the command. They argued that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to call forth the militia in case of insurrection or invasion, but that in the present instance there was neither invasion nor insurrection. They added, that the same Constitution which conferred upon the Union the right of calling forth the militia reserved to the States that of naming the officers; and that consequently (as they understood the clause) no officer of the Union had any right to command the militia, even during war, except the President in person; and in this case they were ordered to join an army commanded by another individual. These absurd and pernicious doctrines received the sanction not only of the governors and the legislative bodies, but also of the courts of justice in both States; and the Federal Government was constrained to raise elsewhere the troops which it required.
The true "states' rights" position has always been that the federal government does not have the right to call out the militia except to quell insurrection or invasion (which threaten more than one state) and those militia units remain under the command of their respective states. The true "states' rights" position does not permit the federal government to raise taxes to maintain a standing army, or to use that army to enact foreign policy as an arm of the executive branch (which is responsible for foreign relations and treaties). The true "states' rights" position would never grant to the federal government the power to invade and occupy a sovereign nation with whom the United States is not at war and has not attacked the U.S.
Today's modern "states' rightists" and other opponents of big government (that they claim has callously infringed on our rights as individuals and those of the states) should have opposed both wars that the United States is currently involved in. Quite simply, they should realize that war and claims of "national security" is how the federal government increases its own power at the expense of the states; it is how the federal government cements its authority over the states.
And where were the voices of the "Tea Party" crowd in early 2002 when they should've been heard loud and clear? They were completely silent. Submissive.
What these people want now, from us, is a respect they haven't earned; a dignity they don't deserve. I say don't let them have it. People tell me that we downplay the significance of the Tea Party movement at our own risk. I'll take that risk. These people disgust me with their hypocrisy.
The current opposition to the policies of our Democratic President has very little to do with "states' rights" or with liberty but, instead, has partisan motives and is not based, primarily, on principle. Anything that's happened in the past seventeen months is mild compared to the virtually dictatorial assaults on American liberties and Constitution that occurred under the last President (and to which our "Tea Party" submitted without resistance or complaint).
Again, the question is not "Why are people taking a stand for 'states' rights' against a powerful federal government, infringing on our liberties, only now that Barack Obama is the nation's 'chief executive' and 'Commander in Chief' of the nation's armed forces?"
The question is, "Why were these same people silent for 8 years?"
Is that the rank stench of hypocrisy I detect?
War...should only be declared by the authority of the people ... instead of the government which is to reap its fruits.
The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.
-- James Madison, United States "founding father"