print“States across the country are rediscovering and reasserting the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
“Quaint, I know, but to the federal government were delegated only limited and enumerated powers (Article I, Section 8): 17 to be precise. Most everything it does these days is extra-constitutional.”
The latest States’ Rights push-back (via the New York Times):
“In more than a dozen statehouses across the country, a small but growing group of lawmakers is pressing for state constitutional amendments that would outlaw a crucial element of the health care plans under discussion in Washington: the requirement that everyone buy insurance or pay a penalty.”
“Approval of the measures, the lawmakers suggest, would set off a legal battle over the rights of states versus the reach of federal power — an issue that is, for some, central to the current health care debate but also one that has tentacles stretching into a broad range of other matters, including education and drug policy.”
Bring it on (state’s rights)! The strategic sin of the Hebrews seems to have been a desire for centralized authority. The Lord angrily gave them one and the rest of the Torah seems to be a huge “I warned you!”
‘It is your destruction, O Israel,
That you are against Me, against your help.
Where now is your king
That he may save you in all your cities,
And your judges of whom you requested,
“Give me a king and princes”?
I gave you a king in My anger
And took him away in My wrath.’ Hosea 13: 9-11
It’s long past time for states and individuals to reassert their rights – rights that the central government has repeatedly and continuously violated since our country’s inception.
And, while I would find a Supreme Court debate on the subject of compulsory health insurance fascinating, its track record with respect to the Constitution has been truly horrid over the last 70 years. Even in cases where they find for those fighting against the cancerous growth of the feds, it’s almost always narrowly written.
When was the last time SCOTUS rejected an entire piece of significant legislation? Can you imagine 5 judges stating that the whole idea of federally imposed health care is unconstitutional? Me neither.
Answer to Steve Hogan:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez
A very rare case. However, this was
contradicted by Gonzales v. Raich.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZS.html
I am skeptical about all politicians not named “Ron Paul”. Yes – Dennis Kucinich is less likely to get involved in dopey wars than some mainstream politicians and Michele Bachmann is less likely to socialize medicine than some mainstream politicians. The question is more whether they will abuse the constitution like a cheap dishrag when it is for some statist thing they like.
I am not searching for political purity and if Michele Bachmann is in favor of local firefighters (e.g. “impure” for Rothbardian anarchists), that is most assuredly NOT a 10th Amendment national issue. I am waiting for some of these Glenn Becks and Michele Bachmanns to wake up that the US Congress cannot require a DEA to search Glaucoma Grannie’s basement for a marijuana plant. It would also help if she realized that this same Constitution does not authorize a “commander-in-chief” from sending an American Praetorian Guard into to “liberate” Yingyangland and provide them with a “democracy”.
Like her cute cousin Sarah, she gets a couple of good grades – but I’m not sure whether she can master the entire curriculum.
{P.S. My late wife excepted, the Republicans lead in the babe factor}
I’m puzzled as to what effect state constitutional amendments might have. An individual who refused to purchase health insurance would be prosecuted for a criminal offense in federal court. His state of residence would not be a party, and would probably not pay his legal fees. Any federal district judge would invoke the supremacy clause in less time than it’s taken me to write this sentence. The defendant could claim that the law requiring him to buy health insurance is unconstitutional on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds with or without a state constitutional amendment to that effect.
Walter Williams has a interesting take on the states 10th amendment rights
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09/StatesRebellionPending.htm
A big effort should be raised to encourage our state reps to use the constitution to take back there power to determine what is best for there individual states and there residents
If a state withholds tax money to ” The DC Dim Bulbs ” I wonder if that will get there attention ?
If the states had testicles, they could just assert that WHEN 20 other states agree to these 10th Amendment things, they would cease all paperwork cooperation with the federal government (on highway funds, leaving no child behind, etc.) – if the feds cut off the funds, there would be 40 Senators to gridlock all future funding.
Until then, talk is cheap.
There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed in making the 10th Amendment work as it should.
One of the major debates that needs to be raised in this area is the fed’s use of “promoting the general welfare” and “regulate commerce” clauses. As long as “judicial interpretation” allows the use of these clauses to undermine the very reason the Constitution was adopted, then States Rights will be hamstrung. In fact FDR used the judicial interpretation of these clauses to centralize power (See J. T. Flynn’s work: Decline of the American Republic).
Secondly, the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed. It provides the fed with unrestrained control over the nation’s purse strings. As long as the fed has that power, the States will face constant encroachment upon their Constitutionally defined territory, which is broad in contrast to the specified powers enumerated for the fed. The 16th Amendment has solidified what Oppenheimer called the “political means of living” – in other words thievery.
Both of these matters blatantly contradict the purpose of 10th Amendment. I hope that States Rights become a rallying cry, not merely for a specific issue, but for a return to the reason the original 1789 document was adopted in the first place – to prevent centralization of power.
I love the reaction that people are demonstrating against nationalized health care. If the plan is defeated, great. But we need to get to the root of where these “designs” come from to begin with. The fed needs to be stripped of its centralized power, which came about by an assault on the Constitution.
Some of y’all don’t seem to understand that the 16th Amendment emasculated the states and made them dependent on Washington. Since 1913, the feds have collected taxes directly from individual citizens and given some pittance to the states, provided that the states comply with federal policies. The states contribute no significant revenue to the federal government, and are therefore in no position to deny the federal government.
Besides, denying revenue to the fedgov solves nothing. A government that issues a fiat currency need not collect any taxes at all. The income tax is simply an Orwellian expression of power. I don’t really expect any change until the foreigners who supply most of our petroleum and manufactured goods stop accepting our Monopoly money.
I am for whatever strategy works to get the Federales back to governing as a Constitutional Republic.
I would like everyone to respond to this:
Have you called or asked your State Reps and encouraged them to take back there power as a State to stop the encroachment of the Federales.
My Ca. State Reps Nestande & Benoit tell me I am the only one of their constituents that brings this up.
As the Tea Parties, 9-12 march show, when the natives get restless, the ruling elite start paying attention. [But you being the only one to ask also supports the thesis of “Meathead America”.]
What is the best way to get this concept rolling?
[Good question: maybe we need to start our own TP.]