Skip to main content

It's not actually true, but it could be:  It is closer to the truth than many things  that pass as absolutes today, and in any event, the part which is an exaggerate is the least significant part of it.  So whether or not it was Mark Twain who first described the Civil War as the time when the words "United States" went from being a plural to the singular what is true is that the what took place on this date in 1776 was the several colonies, each declaring their own, independent statehood and joining together for the purpose of securing their independence from the Crown.

Thereafter, and certainly until the Civil War, the "union" was of sovereign states, bound together to a greater degree than, say, the United Nations or the European Union today, but not in a way that made what was housed in Washington, D.C. to be the main government which served the public's needs.  Schools, roads, police protection and the like were the province of state government, and the federal government simply the way these multiple states dealt with the rest of the world.

It was the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment that changed all that, though it was not completely clear that it had until the New Deal changed the relationship of the federal government to that of the state and its citizens, irrevocably.  One nation, indivisible.

With their fife and drums and nostalgia for a "simpler time," when foreigners were kept at bay and women and especially "Negroes" knew their place, the tea partiers and their fellow travelers whole just love a good (and sellable) story, have convinced our fellows that this debate rages on.  The argument before the Supreme Court was not, as almost everyone seems to think, whether government can require the purchase of health insurance; it was whether the federal government could.  State government requires you to send your child to school, but also to be immunized from various diseases before the child can go to school.

After the Supreme Court threw out the NRA during the early days of the New Deal, and President Roosevelt accused the Court of hearkening back to the horse and buggy era and threatening the Court's legitimacy, the Court famously re-thought its position and decided that the commerce clause permitted the federal government with authority over practically anything that could impact interstate commerce.  By the early 1940s when interest over this issue had waned into practical insignificance (there was a world war going on at the time, too) so that it was almost a footnote when the Court held that a wheat farmer, who sold nothing out of state, and kept a fair amount of what he grew for his own personal use, was nonetheless subject to federal regulation:

The effect of the statute before us is to restrict the amount which may be produced for market and the extent, as well, to which one may forestall resort to the market by producing to meet his own needs. That appellee's own contribution to the demand for wheat may be trivial by itself is not enough to remove him from the
scope of federal regulation where, as here, his contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

There is no going back.  When Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act in tribute to the murdered president, it told restaurants wholly contained in a single state that it had to serve men and women of all races because, of course,

refusals of service to Negroes have imposed burdens both upon the interstate flow of food and upon the movement of products generally
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 US 294 (1964)

So the Chief Justice, or new hero, can keep babbling nonsense, such as this little ditty:

To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were 'practical statesmen,' not metaphysical philosophers.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

but still vote with a four other justices who are a bit less politically minded, to hold that Congress can regulate health care.


E pluribus unum, y' know.

and to my friends wanting to refight the civil war, and the New Deal and thinking they have five justices who will fight it with them, may it be noted simply that dicta is dicta is because what a judge writes when it has no bearing on outcome of the case, does not bind that judge (or justice) to say the same thing when it matters(or when, perhaps, someone makes a better argument.

We have also gone 70 years since Wickard without the federal government trying to regulate "non-activity" so the teeth gnashing is certainly not worth it. None of this means much to most people in the 21st century, but the argument is not, as people think it to be, whether government should be limited, but whether the federal government should be limited. New York can require me to buy broccoli, but not Congress.

We are in this together folks, whether we like it or not.

This my first post in awhile, and my last for another while.  The time has passed when there were a few minutes to wax on what this holiday means and it is hard to imagine when this might happen again.

In the meantime, don't worry about our president's re-election, and when you feel you must, just go here, where facts predominate over gut feelings, emotion or Marc Halperin.

But you have to elect a Democratic House and keep the Senate at least nominally Democratic.  If you do not, President Obama will have four years to stare out of the window.

and make sure you watch Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and take nobody else seriously.

See ya.

Originally posted to Barth on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:33 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    Important whining and Red Sox stuff at

    by Barth on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:33:43 AM PDT

  •  'We are in this together folks' (0+ / 0-)


    Happy 4th!

    "For what profit a man, if he gain the world, but has to pay taxes on it?" -ontheleftcoast, The Book of Paul

    by MsGrin on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 12:07:50 PM PDT

  •  Tipped and rec'd for this (5+ / 0-)
    But you have to elect a Democratic House and keep the Senate at least nominally Democratic.  If you do not, President Obama will have four years to stare out of the window.
    Because it's true.  I don't have a problem with Cenk or Ed either, but I'm over 60 and I can sort stuff out myself.

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:07:41 PM PDT

    •  Damn skippy! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge

      We have to get this done.  

      If somebody asks, "why?" simply point them to the Pelosi house and what those discussions were like compared to the ones we are having today.

      Should be a no-brainer, but it isn't.  

      ***Be Excellent To One Another***

      by potatohead on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:55:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well done (0+ / 0-)

    tipped and recced. By me, not one of your biggest supporters.


    Both parties are beholden to their corporate sponsors. The Democratic Party deigns to throw us a few bones from the table on which to gnaw and squabble over, but it's just kabuki.

    by ozsea1 on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:35:09 PM PDT

  •  I enjoyed this diary. (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for the refresher on some of what today means.

    Happy 4th.

    ***Be Excellent To One Another***

    by potatohead on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 01:54:39 PM PDT

  •  See ya! (0+ / 0-)

    Enjoy your Fourth... it may be the last one. yeah, in an odd mood.. just saw the movie "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World". it was killer good.

    "A civilization which does not provide young people with a way to earn a living is pretty poor". Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Superpole on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 07:03:59 PM PDT

  •  The United States of America, LLC (0+ / 0-)

    Mitt’s solution is and has been is business philosophy. He sees the United States as a profit losing business. So he, using his Bain mentality, wants to take the country over. Now comes the good part.
    •    Borrow against the country’s and government owned assets (Federally owned land, National Parks, Real Estate owned buildings in all 50 states, etc.)
    •    Cut the Federal work force. After all, the American job workers are too expensive.
    •    Now outsource federal government department’s work (Department of Health & Human Services, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture) to low cost overseas labor market nations.
    •    Get overseas investors (money rich countries) to buy in on the new Capitalistic America.
    •    Then take parts of the Department of Defense and outsource it to Private Companies. Force Defense Contractors to partner with outsourced overseas businesses.

    Now Mitt turns his billionaire investors and cronies who are trying to buy him the Presidency. He owes them profits. So he turns to
    •    Getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency
    •    Getting rid of the Consumer Protection Agency
    •    Dismantle what’s left of the Department of Health & Human Services to Private Companies
    •    Dismantle the Department of Labor
    •    Make drastic cuts to the Department of Transportation, outsource to Private Companies
    •    Dismantle the Department of Justice. Outsource Correctional Facilities to Private firms. Privatize the FBI. Privatize the ATF and TSA.
    •    Through hundreds of Executive Orders (not seen since GWB) eliminates Regulations to free up Wall Street firms, Banks, Fossil Fuel Energy Companies, Water Pollution Manufacturers, Insurance Companies

    After four years, his billionaire and trillionaire cronies are richer. They pay off Mitt for a job well done. Mitt leaves country to Switzerland to join the Bachmann family.

    Who cares about the United States, he helped his investors and that’s all that’s important. Let the next guy deal with the collapsed bankrupt country’s problem.

    The Republican Congress is almost finished on its “Christian Nation Amendment” which dismantles, The Bill of Rights, most of the previous Amendments and turns governess towards a Taliban style rule, which demotes Women and allows discrimination for every nationality except European Whites.

    Welcome to the Republican/Romney vision of America.
    The United States of America, LLC

    I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death.

    by cobaltbay on Thu Jul 05, 2012 at 09:02:16 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site