States' Rights

States' rights continue to be an issue in modern society. Tara Trower Doolittle, editor of the Viewpoints section of the Austin American-Statesman, gives us her thoughts on states' rights in her recent article titled States' Rights Arguments Can't Be Separated From History. She believes that the states aren't deserving of the power that the 10th amendment gives them, which states the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states or the people. Her whole argument is stemmed from what Republican candidate Ken Paxton said about how states should be able to control every aspect of marriage, not just whether or not same sex marriages should be recognized. Doolittle, who is African American, brings up the Loving v. Virginia case, which invalidated any laws prohibiting interracial marriages. She tries to use the Loving case to make Paxton's ideas on states' rights seem ridiculous, but she failed to establish credibility on the subject by not using a direct quote from Paxton. She could be twisting Paxton's words just to throw the fact that she is part of an interracial marriage herself. Doolittle even says "with that logic it stands to reason" that Paxton basically wants to ban interracial marriages. She really has no evidence to make such a statement. Her closing statement is about how the federal government should take away all the power from the states in order to protect the people. I completely disagree with her belief that the federal government does a better job of protecting citizens each individual state. Texas does a great job of protecting its people, which is one reason people keep moving here. If you don't like the way things are run in Texas, don't move here.

Wendy Davis on Gun Rights

Davis Takes Friendly Fire on Gun Issue

This article is from The Texas Tribune and it involves Wendy Davis' new stance on gun laws. She has previously been against the American citizen's rights to own/carry firearms, but just a few days ago she stated that she supports open-carry of handguns. Open-carry would mean that someone could have a handgun on a holster where it can be seen. Currently the only way citizens can carry a handgun legally is by having a Concealed Handgun License and carrying it where it cannot be seen. This article shows that she is taking the side of her opposition, likely to earn votes from conservatives. While she may be trying to get more votes from conservatives, she is taking heat from other Democrats who strongly oppose open-carry legislation. This is an interesting article because we are in an election year and we are already seeing candidates working on swing voters. I find it funny that someone as liberal as Wendy Davis "supports" expanding our right to bear arms, especially after voting for legislation that would limit our second amendment rights. Sounds like a politician being a politician (lying to get votes) to me. This article should be read so you can see that when Wendy Davis picks a side, she sticks with it until the end.