Do Libertarians Care More about States? Rights or State Abuses of Power?

Over the past week, Daily Beast blogger Andrew Sullivan

has been weighing the pros and cons of libertarianism. On
Friday, he brought his readers into the discussion, publishing
several of their negative takes. One comment in particular struck
me as worth responding to. Here?s what Sullivan published:

A real libertarian should be just as concerned about a State
government's infringement of individual liberty as the
Federal government's. There should be no distinction.
Period. Instead, for some strange reason, American libertarians
always rail against Federal power and champion the cause of
unfettered State power. Why do you think American libertarians
historically champion the cause of unfettered State power in the
name of "individual liberty"?


For starters, it is completely incorrect to say that ?American
libertarians historically champion the cause of unfettered State
power.? Moorfield Storey,
the great libertarian lawyer who co-founded the NAACP and
served as its first president, won the 1917 Supreme Court case of
Buchanan v. Warley by arguing that a Jim Crow residential
segregation law in Louisville, Kentucky violated property rights
under the 14th Amendment, which commands, ?No State shall...deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law.? Storey correctly argued that the 14th Amendment forbids state
and local governments from violating the rights of both blacks and
whites.
Take a look at three of the most prominent Supreme Court cases
from recent years and you?ll find libertarians making the exact
same argument in favor of individual rights and against unfettered
state and local power:
? In 2003 the libertarian Cato Institute and the libertarian
Institute for Justice each submitted friend of the court briefs in
the case of Lawrence v. Texas urging the Supreme Court to
strike down that state?s odious ban on gay sex. In his majority
opinion nullifying Texas? Homosexual Conduct Law, Justice
Anthony Kennedy repeatedly cited the arguments put forward in the
Cato brief. So much for championing unfettered state power.
? In 2005 the aforementioned Institute for Justice brought the
case of Kelo v. City of New London to the Supreme Court.
At issue was an eminent domain land grab by local officials in New
London, Connecticut. Regrettably, the Court got
that one wrong. Nonetheless, the libertarians who litigated the
case (and thereby brought eminent domain abuse into the national
spotlight) did so by urging the federal courts to force local
officials to respect fundamental rights under the Constitution.
? Finally, in the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago,
libertarian lawyer Alan Gura convinced the Supreme Court to strike
down Chicago?s draconian handgun ban because it violated the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms
as applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Once again,
this was a libertarian argument which held that state and local
governments may not violate fundamental rights.
I happen to agree that ?a real libertarian should be just as
concerned about a State government's infringement of individual
liberty as the Federal government's.? But as the facts clearly
demonstrate, plenty of real libertarians are concerned with
both.

lesbian fiction lesbian posters lesbian comedy