printFrom my new, column, which you can now read on Taki’s Magazine (“10th Division”):
“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.
Forced to accept piles of paper from the federales, for “federally mandated increases in spending on Medicaid and education,” some states have realized that the price is too steep. Not only would they have to obey the occupying force; but the states could expect to splinter under the statist burden of a panoply of programs prescribed by the Healer-in-Chief, who would play them like hooked fish.
So, governors and state representatives are invoking that which ought to have been the law of the land: the ingenious Tenth Amendment
Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.
The Supreme Court has created so many exceptions to that part of the Constitution that it now exists in name only.
Ilana,
This sentence confused me: “Why, then, you’re in a bit of a pickle ? all the more so since many neoconservatives, these days, are celebrating signs of local self-government, not for love of liberty, but because they mistake the awakening for a revolt against the ruling rat pack (Democrats).”
I don’t think neocons are hoping for a revolt. Obama and a pliant Congress have extended all of the odious Bush policies. More wars, more deficit spending, more empire-building. From a neocon’s perspective, this is what they lust for.
[Neocons are ostensibly protesting big government and rejoicing in local revolts. They’re doing it. Of course it’s contradictory–both of their stance on states’ rights and of their love of big brother.]
What is somewhat interesting is Democratic Governor Schweitzer (MT) defending state right to bear arms while Republican Governor Schwarzenegger (CA) is heading towards a federal bailout/rescue of the state employee’s unions. However, this town (DC) is not only into running everything in the USA but also micromanaging the entire planet. The two rival gangs, Republicans and Democrats, who reside here – pass laws which move only to increase the power of the federal government and further violate the 10th Amendment. Ironically, one power that the Federal Government has (under Article 1 Section 8) is to pass a uniform rule of naturalization and thus prevent states from providing aid to illegal aliens (a federal court struck down California’s Proposition 187 since it interfered with federal authority) but Congress refuses to pass a law to enforce our own borders. I imagine that while the Democrats are in power, the Republicans will sound good on the 10th Amendment until they get THEIR chance to leave no urine-tested abstinence-trained illegal-alien child behind, passing drinking age laws, medical pot bans, steroid bans, prescription drug plans, disability acts, agribusiness subsidies, dream downpayments, and even more unimagined mischief.
Somewhere, deep inside my underworked mind, I think I wonder; If human nature results in an “unholy federal trinity – the judicial, legislative and executive” at the federal level, then likewise such a human nature should be seen at the local level. [Of course, but it’s easier to control the local representative, as he lives among you and fears you more.]
Of note, it appears the majority of voters indeed voted for Obama. Then I witness rising property taxes from the local government’s accessor/commissioner alliances (in my case tax and spend Republikans) during our real estate recession.
Shall I long for alloidial title, or seek the Noahides in vain?
Too late, I fear; the “occupying force” (po-tay-to/pa-tah-to -Demokrat/Republikan-Federal Government/Local Government) is already here.
The last paragraph ILana said in this article sums it up for me. What is extremely concerning is the Supreme court. Well, 4 out of 5 of them that is. Recently 4 out of 5 justices did NOT recognize the 2nd Ammendment..plain and simple. Now, we have a justice leaving and Obama gets 2 choose a new one. Take a quick peak at Janet Napalatano and one can only imagine what kind of replacement will further emasculate our Constitution. Martin Berrow
I went to Salt Lake City the other day to the kick off of the Patrick Henry Caucus set in motion for this very purpose of asserting the 10th Amendment and states’ right. It was an encouraging experience. This is a serious matter, and opposition to comrade O is growing apace. This is where real opposition stands a chance — from legislatures and state leadership. Keep this in mind in 2010 when it comes time to remake the House in Washington. The power is still with the people IF the people will act in the interest of their own liberties.
[Tell us more! Be our correspondent on the event! Who spoke; what was said, etc.]
Ms. Mercer:
Thank you for your thoughtful piece on state rights and the constitution.
My hope is we are not too late to reverse the 140 year old swing to the federal side of the equation.
With the Socialist in Chief and both parties to the left of liberty, we are in trouble.
Thanks again for work you do,
Walter Williams the GMU economist said in a column titled Its Time to Part Co. dated 9-8-2000 “Nowhere amongst the enumerated powers of congress is there authority to tax and spend for: Social Security, public education, farm subsidies, bank bailouts, food stamps and other activities that represent roughly two-thirds of the federal budget. Neither is there authority for Congress’s mandates to the states and people about how they may use their land, the speed at which they can drive, whether a library has wheelchair ramps and the gallons of water used per toilet flush. A list of congressional violations of the letter and spirit of the Constitution is virtually without end” . If the states are really serious about reclaiming there 10th amendment rights , why don’t the states withhold their residents federal tax money until the federal government is in compliance with the powers they are delegated under the constitution. I think if the states withhold tax money to the federal government invoking their 10th amendment right and stating the feds have no authority under the constitution to tax their states residents to bailout private companies, spend taxpayer money with no oversight, mandate practically everything each state can or can not do, or otherwise usurp powers reserved for each individual state, it will get the attention in DC much quicker than passing feel good resolutions, that the federales in DC will just ignore anyway.
Ilana,
As you are now a contributor to Taki’s Magazine, and as the current article deals with neocons, I thought to include this link to Taki’s “About” page: http://www.takimag.com/info/about/
I particularly appreciated his characterization of neocons as “a bunch of pudgy, pasty-faced kids in bow-ties and blue blazers who spent their youths playing Risk in gothic dormitories, while sipping port and smoking their father’s stolen cigars.”
So, good that you are now contributing to that site!
Ilana:
Not that I disagree with anything specific that you wrote, and indeed agree with the spirit of both it and the Tenth, but would just note that I wouldn’t get my hopes up about it ever actually being meaningful legally.
The problem, as Robert Bork even has noted (calling it “an inkblot”), is that it doesn’t really say anything. Not delegating any powers or granting any rights itself, all it can logically be said to state is “that which we hasn’t been given (to the Federal government) hasn’t been given.”
Since of course this begs what is always the question (“what *has* been given?”), this is why you see so few litigants ever citing same to support their position and even less jurisprudence even addressing the Amendment.
Again, not that I disagree with its spirit, and indeed love that it makes it irrefutable that the Constitution is indeed a document of delegation and not one of limitation (not that same has helped much), but logically speaking it is inkblottish at best.