Every attempt is being made by the corporate media to peg the 10th Amendment movement as just another incarnation of the Republican party. Attacks on liberty minded folks blindly color us with the same contempt previously directed at the Neo-Conservatives and other right wing groups.
There’s just one problem with their strategy- this movement is not on the Left or on the Right, not some exotic political instrument at all in fact. This movement IS the mainstream of America, from every political background.
Go to any street corner and ask about the US Constitution written so carefully by the ‘1776 Squad’ and you will find the one common view shared by average people from the right, left and center. The Constitution was carefully crafted to protect the original American dream of liberty and limited government and it doesn’t take a scholar to understand why that’s good for those outside of the political class. In fact, people from all backgrounds just get it on an instinctive level.
Many times when I am asked by a friend what the 10th Amendment is, I respond thusly-
“It basically says that if the Federal Government isn’t following the constitution, that the States don’t have to go along with it.”
Democrats and Republicans alike typically react with the same happily surprised nod.
“Yeah, that just seems obvious!” is one typical response.
This movement is not about pundits and politicians, not about the divisive partisan debate. It is about concepts that average Americans understand, like people in their own states and counties representing them, rather than DC bureaucrats. It’s about simpler and more effective rather than elaborate and wasteful. It’s about the will of the true mainstream, a group who’s viewpoint was lost on the corporate media hype machine long, long ago.
It’s about liberty and a better life for our children and grandchildren and what could be more mainstream than that?
Yes yes, of course. I should have said: “Laying out at least a minimum set of those rights.”. Of course the people have numerous other rights that no government, state or federal, can legitimately infringe.
The question for states to decide, however, is “what additional explicit, protected rights do the people have, per the 9th Amendment”, not “what rights expressed in the country’s founding document can we get away with restricting, and to what degree”.
This is one of those particular instances where there was a good reason to amend the Constitution, i.e. the 14th. The states were restricting the rights of some people in a way that was deemed impermissible, so the federal government was given the power, explicitly, *by the states* to take a hand in assuring that none of the states restricted at least those rights of the people which were reasonably considered “immunities and privileges of Citizens of the United States”.
We shouldn’t see the Constitution as a “living document” in the sense of wholesale changing the meaning as has been done with the Commerce and General Welfare clauses, but that doesn’t mean it’s an *inflexible* document either. It was explicitly designed with the intent that future generations could accommodate new situations that arose which will fit within the general terms. Otherwise, you end up with the absurd conclusion that, for example, cars can be taken by the government because “obviously” they can’t have been included in “property” in the clauses that mention prohibitions on “takings” because they didn’t exist when those clauses were written.
Whether they intended to make the 14th exactly as sweeping as has been subsequently decided is a political question to answer. If we, as a country, decide that the federal government has gone too far in *protecting our rights*, we have the option to make a further amendment clarifying the powers that were previously (perhaps sloppily) granted. But saying that these powers were not granted is simply a waste of air, and not only isn’t going to get us anywhere, but is actively pernicious.
@hacksoncode – you’ve made some grave errors in your comment. These are quite common, because most people don’t understand how the Constitution work and was intended to work.
1. The people do not have rights “per the 9th Amendment” None. The Amendment is an additional limit on the power of federal government. It tells them – look, just because we gave you this list doesn’t mean you can assume that’s a full list of rights, so butt out.
2. The 14th and “incorporation” is not only constitutionally wrong, but it’s extremely bad for liberty.
3. Your example about cars is seriously off-base and indicates your greatest misunderstanding of how the constitution works. Do some reading on this site about enumerated powers and the necessary and proper clause and we can discuss it further. If you’d like recommendations, I’ll provide some links.
That way, you’ll be able to make your comments on-topic rather than on this post.
Regarding hacksoncode’s comments on “laying out what those rights are”.
You do not seem to understand that the Constitution was a Limiting Document. Not a document bestowing rights to the people rather a document limiting the powers of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights [amendments to the Constitution] were put in place to assure inalienable rights in order to achieve ratification.
All governments [ours included] are the natural enemies of the governed, and will attempt to usurp the rights of the people at every possible opportunity. A reading of history will prove this correct.
Our Founders wanted a government with the least amount of power necessary to prevent anarchy. The first attempt [ Articles of Confederation, was not quite enough to prevent anarchy. With the articles as a starting point they made such changes as necessary while still keeping the power of government at the lowest possible level.
Granted States can impinge on some rights, but it is far easier to change State laws then Federal laws. Given the extreme diversity of our Country both economically and geographically having the States remain sovereign is really the only manner by which to govern. A centralized federal government with unbridled powers as we have today, simply cannot adjust to the extreme differences in our Country.
As the late Tip O’Neil once said “All politics are local”
While I am sure one could mention all sorts of idiotic and unrealistic extensions of localism or State’s rights, the basic premise of limited federal government still supersedes all.
Regarding Josh’s last comment, there’s absolutely no fundamental difference between leaving the state and leaving the country. It’s merely a difference in degree, and in some cases a fairly minor difference in degree (Alaska, anyone?).
If some subset of the 10thers get their way, the states basically *become* countries unto themselves, with absolutely no restraints and no checks and balances except what they enact themselves.
That’s fine and indeed good and proper for the vast majority of things, like deciding what kind of services the state should provide, or what the traffic laws are, how to organize fire and police forces, etc., etc., etc.
Huge swaths of things that the federal government now sticks their noses into are unnecessary, should be left completely to the states, are not granted federal powers, and therefore violate the Constitution.
It’s not ok when it comes to defending civil rights. We fought a freaking *civil war* over that. That’s defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to be at least *partly* the job of the federal government. While it should still *largely* be left to the states, particularly when it comes to the actual execution/enforcement, it can’t be left to them alone. And *isn’t* left to them alone by the Constitution.
States, of course, are and should be free to uniformly and equally offer to protect *more* liberties of their citizens than are protected by the federal Constitution (though technically it already does that in the 9th Amendment). That’s an area where experimentation and local control is surely a good thing.
“The people” is a fine answer. The question becomes “what people? And what’s the best way to get to that?”.
When it comes to identifying civil rights, the most conservative approach is required, which is to provide a framework (in this case the Constitution, and/or state Constitutions) laying out what those rights are, appointing people at least somewhat isolated from the political process to interpret it (again, I don’t really care whether it’s the state or federal judiciary, as long as there are some checks and balances and it stays away from mob rule), and provide some mechanism (i.e. amendments) whereby any problems caused by this mechanism or even the fundamental rules, that a very large majority of the country (and/or state) disagrees with, it can be fixed. I.e. a republic with a strong judiciary, not a democracy.
Luckily, that’s pretty much what we have.
51% is just a mob, when it comes to civil rights. California’s proposition mechanism that allows a simple majority to amend the state constitution is a gross abuse of the process, for example.
Nobody said freedom was easy. Don’t like the laws of your state? Vote with your feet.
There is a HUGE difference between leaving Virginia due to a law you don’t like, and having to leave the country altogether.
Ultimately, I am a libertarian. Once we succeed in reestablishing true federalism in America, Hacksoncode and I can travel from state to state convincing the various populations that the least amount of government possible is the best way to go.
But they have to see it for themselves. Not just be forced to accept it because Hacksoncode and the people in Washington, D.C. say so.
And until that day, I will side with ANYONE who wants to assert the right of their state to exercise powers left to it by the Tenth Amendment. That’s what this movement is all about.
The problem with this theory is that it’s almost *always* a majority that infringes on civil rights of a minority.
And I’m happy with saying that the 14th Amendment simply incorporated the Bill of Rights into each state’s constitution, which they are therefore bound to respect and enforce themselves.
The question becomes, what do you do when they don’t? When the majority in a state infringes on the civil rights of a minority (and I’m not necessarily talking about racial minorities, here, just any group whose rights are trampled by popular vote)? Expecting the minority to “rise up and throw off the tyranny” is naive at best. Indeed, this is *why* the 14th Amendment came into being.
I have absolutely no respect for the “will of the majority”, whether on the local, state, or federal level. The only valid purpose of government is to ensure and enforce people’s rights, which is really only especially important in the case of minorities (the majority can typically take care of itself).
This whole “people closer to the problem have the best solutions” ultimately argues for *city* (or even neighborhood) governments to have ultimate power. States are huge conglomerations of dozens of differing opinions. Why should the rest of Texas get to dictate to the citizens of Austin?
Frankly, local is not always better. Neighborhood and homeowners associations are some of the vicious and abusive “governing” bodies in existence.
That’s why I asked you, Hacksoncode, who you thought the final arbiter should be. The founders and ratifiers – well, they said it was “the people.” I happen to agree with them.
Governments will always violate your liberty. When you keep those violations limited in their geographic scope, there’s at least an escape route. Your plan – the centralizers plan – keeps everyone in the same chains of tyranny with no escape. That’s where we are headed more and more every decade.
FYI – You are quite wrong about the 14th and incorporation, constitutionally speaking. And, there are better places to discuss that on this website…places where that particular discussion would be on topic. I provided a link to one in a comment above.
Michael,
I would argue that the final arbiter on constitutional questions must be the people. That is why the people themselves will have to rise up against the unconstitutional actions of the federal government today by demanding that their state governments do something.
The point of state sovereignty is to have the most effective body of government as close as possible to the people, who must ultimately decide these questions of constitutionality for themselves.
Which is why states are unlikely to adopt or perpetuate laws that are incompatible with freedom. The people themselves would not allow it.
Look to the state constitutions for questions about what is constitutional in a state. If the citizens of that state choose to adopt the federal bill of rights then the state must respect those rights. But if they choose not to, then simply because the federal government cannot pass laws restricting certain freedoms does not meant that states cannot pass such laws.
One need only look at our history to see that was exactly the case when this country was founded. If you believe in freedom, you have to believe that eventually it will triumph over bad ideas. Freedom is all about risk vs. reward.
The easily corruptible power of the federal government should not be used to coerce the states to do what is “right.” When the feds decide what’s right and wrong, then we get what we have today.
Exactly, Josh – that’s just the point.
The American system gave the world something unique – “we the people” and not kings or politicians, as the true sovereign.
It doesn’t “have” to be, it merely “can”. Indeed, I expect the states to protect those rights. In fact, what would the point be of the Bill of Rights applying to the states if the states didn’t then protect those rights?
“Just move” isn’t an answer if a state violates them, any more than “just go live in another country” is an answer if the federal government violates them.
There’s absolutely no “freedom” associated with allowing states to selectively or wholesale violate the civil rights of their citizens, only bigotry and hate.
And, of course, wanting the federal government to protect fundamental rights in no way excuses them for violating those same rights. Indeed, it’s a complete nonsequitor.
There is no difference. ANY federal government that has to be the guarantor of your rights is a federal government that can eventually be used to take those rights. Just ask our founders.
Trust competition between the states to demonstrate what ideas work and what ideas do not. For example, we would be far more free in a country where some states banned abortion and gay marriage, while others offered universal health care and polygamy, than we are today. Because when and if certain ideas prove to be incompatible with freedom, it is far easier to change misguided laws at the state level than at the federal level.
The unbelievably irresponsible federal drug prohibition policy is a case in point.
Not “the”, “a”.
While what you say is true, I have observed that there is a loud and obnoxious subset of the 10th Amendment movement that seems primarily interested in restricting people’s rights by insisting that the Bill of Rights wasn’t incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.
It’s the crowd that wants to let states have state religions and push religion into government at all levels, ban abortions, not fulfill their Constitutional requirements by failing to recognize gay marriages performed in other states, restrict freedom of speech, etc., etc., etc.
Much like how people hold Islam accountable for, and characterize it by the actions of a few terrorists, if we don’t, as a group, shun these people then the 10th Amendment movement is doomed to the same obscurity that the Republicans are sliding into.
Wait, you WANT the federal government to be the “guarantor” of your rights?
Bad, bad choice. You’ll hear a lot of that “loud and obnoxious subset” here. Just refer back to the article where you first brought this issue up, Kevin Gutzman’s “phony originalism” for a little more detail
Hacksoncode – sounds like a great plan – if YOU were in charge. (or me, for that matter). But that’s not the case.
Curious – who is the final arbiter?