Obama Citizenship

States? Rights: More Commentary, WND News, Printz v. US, On Blog Talk Radio

By Phil

While it is true that there is an American Secession Project underway examining the implications and importance (as they claim) for maintaining the ability for any given State to secede from the Union, I have — through this blog — taken the stance that the many State initiatives currently underway are meant as a bulwark for guarding against federal overreach more than a desire to completely sever ties. Gina Cobb concurs with my sentiment.

WorldNetDaily is currently reporting on this movement, and blogger Dave Nalle has put much of this into coherent and reasoned perspective (I’ll excerpt from his posting, as it contains a lot of good info):

You may not have heard much about it, but there?s a quiet movement afoot to reassert state sovereignty and stop the uncontrolled expansion of federal government power. Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.

Four things are interesting about this push by many States towards enforcement of their implied rights under the 10th Amendment…

1. Some States are considering resolutions for addressing the 10th Amendment issue. Since resolutions (see any done at the federal level for examples) do not create law and therefore do not require a Governor to sign, they can be more easily passed, and simply “express the sense” of the legislators that they view the 10th Amendment with great importance. This can potentially be a good proverbial stepping stone towards specific bills;
2. Some States are considering bills, whereby an actual law is created. Typically, you will see a particular issue — such as gun control or abortion rights — associated with such a bill. On the face of it, what a State is really saying by passing such a law is that, for this particular issue, they assert the constitutionally-guaranteed right to reserve un-federally-enumerated powers/authority to themselves. The importance of this cannot be overstated: should such a law be passed, this then creates precedence;
3. In the cases of New Hampshire and Oklahoma, they’ve chosen to “go all the way” with the 10th Amendment by proposing bills that are effectively saying to the federal government, “If you try to make us do something that is constitutionally outside of your enumerated powers, we will push back and tell you exactly what we think.” While all of the States’ initiatives are worth watching, these two could be harbingers of a new era in the balance of federal and State power.
4. “Unfunded mandates” are another issue with which States must contend (from Dave):
   

   It has become increasingly common for Congress to pass legislation which dictates policy to the states, but which comes without adequate federal funding and the expectation that the cost of these programs, which the states had no real say in approving, will come out of state budgets. This has been a long-term problem with Medicaid and Medicare, but the unfunded mandate which stirred up the most ire recently was the No Child Left Behind program. More concern has been raised with the recent reauthorization and expansion of the SCHIP program which has a history of requiring more expenditure than is provided for in the federal budget.

Dave goes on:

The founding fathers believed in a balance between state and federal power. This state sovereignty movement clearly arises from the belief that the balance of power has tilted too far and for too long in the direction of the federal government and that it?s time to restore that lose balance.

The emergence of this movement is a hopeful sign of the people asserting their rights and the rights of the states and finally crying ?enough? to runaway government. With the threat of increasingly out of control federal spending, some of these sovereignty bills may stand a fair chance of passage in the coming year.

He, too, agrees that this is not about secession:

Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union, nor are they an effort to block collection of the income tax, appealing though that might be. For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government. Despite the movement picking up steam as he came to office, the target of these bills is not President Obama, but rather the Democrat-dominated Congress whose plans for massive bailouts and expanded social programs are likely to come at an enormous cost to the states. …

What this movement is most similar to is the Nullification Crisis of 1832 where the State of South Carolina asserted that it had the right to nullify the authority of federal laws within its borders. In this case the states are not asserting anything as broad as the Doctrine of Nullification, but are merely reasserting the limits which the 10th Amendment places on federal authority, specifically as it applies to spending, the idea being that they don?t have to pay for federal mandates if their legislators choose not to.

How does he see things looking at the moment?

As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.

While I am aware that both CA and GA did have proposals for their respective General Assemblies, these are years old, and until current action occurs, my view is that these States cannot be considered to be “actively pursuing 10th Amendment-based issues” (certainly feel free to pass along info to me if I’m wrong on that). I am also awaiting word from the other States before posting so that there’s something in hand going on in those jurisdictions.

Further, it’s important to note two key Supreme Court cases regarding the delineation between the States and federal power: US v. NJ and Printz v. US [HTML version]. Printz pointed out the following:

The Court constructed its opinion on the old principle that state legislatures are not subject to federal direction. The Court explained that while Congress may require the federal government to regulate commerce directly, in this case by performing background-checks on applicants for handgun ownership, the Necessary and Proper Clause does not empower it to compel state CLEOs ["local chief law enforcement officers"] to fulfill its federal tasks for it - even temporarily. The Court added that the Brady Bill could not require CLEOs to perform the related tasks of disposing of handgun-application forms or notifying certain applicants of the reasons for their refusal in writing, since the Brady Bill reserved such duties only for those CLEO’s who voluntarily accepted them.

The Printz case was pointed out via a fantastic, very recent document created for Congress, Federalism, State Sovereignty, and the Constitution: Basis and Limits of Congressional Power. It’s 29 pages and definitely worth a read for those who wish to be “in the known” regarding this vital federalist issue.

And finally, I’ll be on the “My Two Cents” Blog Talk Radio show Tuesday, February 10 at 10pm ET discussing the latest on this issue.

-Phil

Full post as published by The Right Side of Life on February 07, 2009 (boomark / email).