Navigation

Tag Archives | Federalism

Federalism and the 10th: The State Reclamation Begins

By on December 14, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Delegated Powers, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 3

The state governments are now beginning in earnest to do something about the encroaching federal government. Way back in 1994 when the “Republican Revolution” was taking place in Congress the Republican Governors Association (RGA) “adopted” a sort of “declaration of independence” for themselves.  From Congress we got the “Contract with America” and from the RGA we saw a resolution that the states will actively fight against the federal government’s encroachment upon states authority.

Underlying the theme of both “movements” was the idea that the federal government was going beyond its constitutional duties and something needed to be done to bring it back in line. While these had good intentions, they fell short like everything else from the government does. People will always fall back to doing what they know and in the case of government; that is trying to gain power over everything.

At least twelve states had passed resolutions demanding that Congress get rid of all the unfunded federal mandates. Many of the other states asked for “mandate-relief” because they could not afford to implement the mandates. Kansas and South Dakota were probably the most vociferous; they were calling for a constitutional convention and wanted an amendment to our Constitution forbidding the federal government making such mandates.

Many states took up the call and passed resolutions asserting states sovereignty. The language of the resolutions was all similar in nature with their call for the federal government to halt its behavior of violating the 10th Amendment.  Walter Williams had noted:

The 10th Amendment movement may be America’s last chance to peacefully get Congress to obey the Constitution. Politicians have seriously underestimated public anger and are blind to the rebellion spreading across the land.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19941222&id=IBtOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=f-wDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3154,3716396

For all their wanting, the RGA still fell short and the states dropped the ball. They were right to stand up and be noticed. It was all talk and no action. Unfortunately, over time, history has shown that people will always revert to what they have been taught. This effort slowly fizzled out as the states and federal government once again began colluding with each other.

The federal government can control things one of two ways. They can do it with the point of a gun or the use of the purse. So, while the states flexed their muscles, President Clinton gave them some of what they wanted to help rebuild their autonomy but he insisted on the federal government controlling the funds and their usage. He did this in his speech to the National Governors Association on Jan. 31, 1995, when he told them:

Even though you’ll have more flexibility to solve your problems, you must be held accountable for how you spend the federal money

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/WCPD-1995-02-06/html/WCPD-1995-02-06-Pg151-2.htm

Even though that part of our history proved to be faulty, the idea of the 10th Amendment and the force behind it; is not. Today many states are sick and tired of what the federal government is doing and mandating them to do. We are witnessing the “states political revolution” all over again. The difference here and now is that he states are no longer “asking permission”.

It is always easier to “do” and say you are sorry later, then to ask for permission and wait for denial. Apparently many states have learned the lessons of this folly from the 1994/95 fiasco. States are NOT asking the federal government for permission any more. They are enacting their own laws to nullify the federal government’s mandates.

States are finally stepping up the jurisdiction game and putting authority where it belongs. Several states have already passed medical marijuana laws making the drug legal for medical use. Two states (Washington and Colorado) have completely decriminalized marijuana all together.

This is a direct slap in the face of the federal government’s drug war policies. If EVERY state followed Washington and Colorado’s example, what could the federal government do?  Would they build a wall around the entire United States and say that everyone is in jail because of drug use? These actions, where they states work together to accomplish the same goal is exactly what James Madison was talking about when he said they would band together against the federal encroachment.

There is also a growing consensus among the states to nullify things like ObamaCare. Many states have enacted laws against its implementation. Some states, like Texas, even lay fines and penalties against anyone who aides the federal government in getting it implemented within their state.

More work still needs to be done before the correct balance of federalism is restored. As people learn more about Liberty they will insist their states exercise their 10th Amendment rights and hold the federal government accountable. People and state legislatures will need to read and acquire a sound understanding of the Constitution, what it says and why it says it.

Knowing how the Constitution was designed to properly function is vital to the successful 10th Amendment “movement” that Walter Williams was talking about. It should be obvious, to even the most casual observer, that the only way to restore our American federalism, is to know all the inner workings and apply the very principles it was built upon.

Freedom is not free. We, each of us, have an obligation to learn the principles are fore-fathers laid out for us. From there, it is our responsibility to hold our elected officials accountable and force them to abide by those principles. The Constitution cannot protect itself. We the people, MUST, be the ones to do it. If we do not, everything we do to try and get our system back on track will fail in misery.

The present battles, between the states and federal government, to recover federalism throughout the country; goes directly to the principles enshrined within our Constitution. The primary objective of our fore-fathers, when designing the Constitution, was NOT to answer how we run any public policy.

Public policy question and answers were nowhere in their minds. What they set out to do was to define the level where decisions would be made (the vertical plane). They created the Constitution in such a way as to define what they viewed as the federal-state relationships. Exercising the Constitution in any other way was not part of its original design.

In conclusion, it is up to us, we the people, to ensure the 10th Amendment is properly exercised. Failure to do so will ensure the rise of a tyrannical government.

Yours in Liberty

 

Continue Reading 3

Federalism and the 10th: The States’ Great Awakening

By on December 11, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Founding Principles, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 9

In Part 1 of this series, I explained how our federalism works and how the powers were divided between the states and our national government. The details showed that the states were superior to the federal government on the hierarchy scale and that the 10th amendment protected that position whenever the federal government stepped outside its boundaries.

The Constitution is a great document, but it is nothing more the words on a piece of paper unless those responsible for working within its boundaries are held accountable. The Constitution is absolutely meaningless if the federal government can ignore it and do whatever it wants at any time it wants.

Slowly, of the course of the last century or so, we have witnessed the deterioration of our Constitution. The federal government has stolen power from the states and people on a regular basis. Our rights that are supposed to be guaranteed protection from an encroaching federal government are being dismantled one by one as new laws keep coming out of the federal government.

Members of Congress are vehemently imposing their will upon the states and the people with no regard to the Constitution at all. Perhaps they need to return to school and learn what happened the last time an “imperial” government mandated edicts while ignoring the people. If the federal government continues to treat the states like Britain did the colonies, how could they not expect the “revolution” to happen?

Today we can easily see that our federal government is pushing harder than ever to take on the dominate role in our country’s politics. The servant is attempting to become the master and centralizing power in Washington. The answer to stopping this usurpation lies in the governors and state legislatures. It is within their power to correct this problem.

President Obama and his Administration seem to want to repeat history. They are trying to recreate the New Deal in modern terms. Through the use of Congress, the Fed and the judiciary, they are overstepping their bounds and violating the fiscal and constitutional rights of state and local governments. The imbalance of power in our federalist system has finally reached a tipping point.

When the pain gets large enough, people will do something about it. Apparently, James Madison was correct about the states banding together. While a lot has been taken away, the beginnings of the reclamation process is becoming more evident in our modern times. Several states, although not making compacts with each other, are all moving in the same direction to oppose federal intrusions on their authority.

Perhaps the legal axiom of “silence is acceptance” is being put to use as the states are no longer being silent. That silence has been broken is the first indicator that the pain threshold has been breached. There seems to be a growing movement among the states now to take back the power that is rightfully theirs.  The wheels of insurrection are turning. State and local officials are fighting back. The giant has awakened.

Continue Reading 9

Federalism and the 10th: How It Works

By on December 10, 2012 in Activism, Big Government, Constitution, Federalism, Founding Fathers, Government, Law, Nullification, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty, Tenthers 14

What we are witnessing all around the country is a political revolution. As time goes by, the revolution will grow huge, into a massive historical event.

The people are beginning to understand what is going on, and are starting to take the necessary steps to reestablish their correct place and boundaries in our federalist system. After so many years of seeing the power usurped, it does my heart good to see steps finally being taken to correct that wrong.

Many times we hear people say that this country is a democracy. That is not true, we are a republic, and we use democracy as a means to pick our representatives in a federalist form of government. Somehow, people seem to conveniently forget that fact. So, what is federalism?

When our founders created the Constitution and established our federal government they did it on two planes, vertically and horizontally. Everyone gets taught the horizontal plane in school where we have the separation of powers between the various branches of government. Unfortunately, they are never taught the vertical plane which is where the whole federalist structure is set in place with a division of power between the national and state governments. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 14

Nullification: The means to reestablish federalism

By on November 23, 2012 in Uncategorized 62

In a USA Today article titled A solution to secession – federalism, Glenn Harlan “Instapundit” Reynolds  proposes federalism as a way to rein in government without splitting up the Union.

He defines federalism as, ” Let the central government do the things that only central governments can do — national defense, regulation of trade to keep the provinces from engaging in economic warfare with one another, protection of basic civil rights — and then let the provinces go their own way in most other issues.” After all, that political philosophy is the foundation of the country.

The Instapundit doesn’t suggest how we might actually make that happen.

Judging by the size and power of the central government, the reach of the laws it passes, and the accelerating rate of increase in all of the above, expecting the Congress and president to voluntarily stop doing what they’ve been doing for the past 100 years, or so, is insanity. It doesn’t matter which party wrests control of the system, the federal government continues to grow. Don’t expect the Supreme Court to side with Liberty, either. Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 62

10th Amendment and illegal memorandums of understanding

By on July 9, 2010 in Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 1

State Rep. Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt) announced today that with HJR YY and SJR Y not making it onto the ballot that he would be introducing a statutory version of the federalism bills as a backup to keep the issue moving.

“It is disappointing that we could not get this needed law onto the ballot, especially with what a bad year it has been for federal overreach,” said Opsommer. “But based on the events of this week it is now more clear than ever that the Legislature needs a better way to enforce the 10th Amendment.” Continue Reading →

Continue Reading 1

ObamaCare or Federalism: There Can Be Only One

By on April 5, 2010 in Health Care, Sovereignty Movement, State Sovereignty 2

Being the statists that they are, it’s only natural Congress and the president should think simply passing and signing a bill makes it reality. But, in reality, a law with implications as vast as ObamaCare requires wholehearted state cooperation to implement. Cooperation unlikely to be soon forthcoming.

Upwards of 30 states currently have plans to oppose the so-called “reform” bill (along with other myriad federal actions) in some manner, and as Armstrong Williams notes this week in the Washington Times:

the actions of the states speak to a larger political dilemma for the Obama administration and any future initiatives it pursues. You can’t keep jamming unwanted and unpopular national measures [like a VAT, for instance] through Congress, hoping it’ll get sorted out later. The White House is slated next to consider reauthorizing federal education programs. Does it honestly believe states should sit this one out, let alone acquiesce on that important 10th Amendment prerogative?

Sooner or later the looming choice will have to be made. Will the states continue to abet their own slide into political irrelevance, accepting along with ObamaCare, and countless other unfunded mandates, their permanent status as mere administrative arms of the federal government?

Or will they stand up for their citizens, and for the system of dual sovereignty established and ratified by the independent states when they formed the federal government to act as their common agent?

It’s possible, even likely, that most states will eventually roll over for (increasingly worthless) federal fiat dollars, but it only takes one state, like Virginia, with an Attorney General like Ken Cuccinelli, to keep stirring the pot, and before too long, the whole damn country will be reading, understanding, and expecting fidelity to our Constitution.

Which may lead to an even bigger set of problems for Democrats (and Big Government Republicans) than this November’s mid-term elections.

Williams continues

In the Democrats’ blind zeal to pass their leftist policies, they are by default writing checks they know they can’t cash. That massive bout of irresponsibility doesn’t just end with aimless numbers on a congressional budget page. Contrary to what the president and party Democrats believe, our nation’s debt is “not all on paper…”

Every statewide elected official… woke up last Monday morning with the stark realization that they now have to pay for the mess Congress has created. And I guarantee you every one of them began the thought process with similar words, “Unlike Washington, we have to balance our budgets. What are we going to do?”

What, indeed?

Crossposted from Tertium Quids.

Continue Reading 2

State Government vs. Federal Government Radio Show

By on March 9, 2010 in Media, State Sovereignty 2

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

The Steel on Steel radio show, hosted by John Loeffler, this weekend was focused on state vs. federal governments.  I was interviewed for the show for the 10th Amendment segment.  To listen to the interview click the player embedded in this post.

There were many good areas on this show so the entire broadcast is being offered as well.  The link will take you to the full show.

Full Steel On Steel Episode

Please feel free to provide feedback on the interview portion that starts around the 24 minute mark of the show.

Continue Reading 2

Stephan Kinsella on Nullification and Secession

By on December 17, 2009 in Federalism, Nullification 5

Every weekday morning I stop by Mises.org (after first going to LewRockwell.com) to read, learn something new, and share info with others. Today, to my surprise, what I consider to be one of the best writers anywhere, Stephan Kinsella, has written a blog post discussing an article that I wrote earlier this year. “Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism.” I’m more than honored that Mr Kinsella has take the time to write a blog entry on my article. Thank you!

I thought it would be good to make a few points on Stephan’s post. My comments follow his, which are in italics.

I just recalled interesting article by Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, Randy Barnett and the Destruction of Federalism. I had made some comments on it to someone in email, which are adapted below. I also commented on this previously in Randy Barnett’s Proposed “Federalism Amendment”. In my view, a better view is that amendments are pointless, as the state is construing its own limits. (See on this Hoppe and de Jasay.)

That’s actually the argument that I was at least attempting to make in the article – that nullification – mass civil disobedience to the central state, with support from the individual state governments and local governments – is a far better strategy than trying to reform the federal government through amendments (or any other way, for that matter)

Also, as Boldin is proposing nullification, he could have mentioned some previous proposals for amendments that do similar things–i.e. instead of just advocating nullification, advocate the recognition of this right, in an amendment to the Constitution

Since I don’t believe that amendments are the best route to go, this is not really in my line of thinking. But – yes, if I believed it possible that a national “consensus” could be reached for a constitutional amendment that the people of each individual state could direct their elected politicians to ignore federal laws and regulations deemed by those people to be unconstitutional – I’d be all in favor of it! I just think that a better strategy is to take action more locally.

It’s not clear why Boldin doesn’t mention secession. That goes along with nullification. The right to secede is the most important way to have real federalism–the threat of leaving. A real federalism amendment would explicitly recognize the right to secede.

Agreed. As to why I didn’t mention it – while nullification and secession are both essential checks on central power, I see them as different. As Professor Kirk Wood has pointed out in his multi-volume book, Nullification: A Constitutional History, nullification is actually the opposite of secession – it’s a way of saying NO, but still keeping the “union” together. It’s the states “saying,” in effect – we’ll stick around, but we’re not going to go along with (blank).

But, I do agree that secession is the ultimate check. And, I think it should go both ways. In a union of states that supposedly is a great advantage, if any state takes the opportunity of decentralization to start committing mass violations of liberty, then the rest of that union should kick them out.

Overall, I think Mr. Kinsella and I pretty much agree on these issues. My preferred method is various forms of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. It seems to me that with states resisting federal laws on marijuana, real id, gun regulations and more, that the time is right to try to pull the state governments into the fold to help in such efforts. Thus, my strong support for state nullification both in that article and on this website as a whole

The funny thing here – in a recent report done by Media Matters I was lambasted for simply running a website that would discuss the idea of secession. Now, I’m not covering it enough! I guess I just need better balance…

Continue Reading 5

A Compromise on Health Care?

By on September 28, 2009 in Health Care 0

Writes Phyllis Tilson Piotrow:

Let those states that oppose allowing their citizens to choose a public plan opt out of the public plan and rely on existing private or cooperative insurance plans. Let those states that want their citizens to have a non-federally subsidized public option cooperate with the relevant federal agency to participate in such programs.

Not a bad idea – almost sounds like federalism. I’d say, just get the federal government out of the health care business altogether. They have no Constitutional authority to do so, no matter what the general Welfare Brigade (Pelosi, MSNBC, ThinkProgress, et al) tells you.

Continue Reading 0

Pawlenty urges Governors to Assert Sovereignty

By on September 11, 2009 in Federalism, Sovereignty Movement 5

Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty urged fellow governors on Thursday to more frequently assert state sovereignty over the federal government and suggested that the country may increasingly see states suing the federal government.

Asked by a caller about the option of asserting the Tenth Amendment as a tactic to reject a successful health care overhaul by President Barack Obama during a tele-town hall organized by the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty said, “that’s a possibility.”

Speaking generally about the tenth amendment, Pawlenty said the country has not had “a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue in the 1980s.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27023.html

Continue Reading 5