The Revolt of the States

Warning Signs ^ | 14 April 2010 | Alan Caruba

[K-oneTexas]

The Revolt of the States

By Alan Caruba


President Obama, his weird circle of advisors (czars), and the ideologues within the Democrat Party led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid only have a few months left to completely destroy the separation of powers between the States and the federal government.

A major battle is looming over the Tenth Amendment which declares that “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.”

Almost everywhere one looks today, the States are in rebellion to the overreaching of the federal government. The process involved is called nullification, a legal theory that a U.S. State has the right to nullify, i.e., invalidate, any federal law deemed unconstitutional. Since the Supreme Court moves at a glacial pace, the States through their legislatures have taken the lead in many cases.

Nullification is not secession as in the case of the Civil War, but there is a history of nullification that includes the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions against the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both argued that the States are the ultimate interpreters of the Constitution, arguing that the States could “interpose” themselves to protect their citizens from unconstitutional national laws.

Much of the discord in the nation today has its roots in the vital difference between a conservative attachment to traditional values and a liberal ideology that would impose a One World Government on our sovereign nation.

The great philosopher of American conservatism, Russell Kirk, wrote “True conservatism is the antithesis of ideology. It is the negation of ideology. For conservative is grounded in the past. Its principles are derived from the Constitution, experience, history, tradition, custom, and the wisdom of those who have gone before us—‘the best that has been thought and said.’ It does not purport to know the future. It is about preserving the true, the good, the beautiful. Conservatism views all ideologies with skepticism, and the more zealous and fanatic with hostility.”

A case in point is the way that State after State has lined up to oppose through the courts and by individual legal action the imposition of the president’s healthcare legislation, passed on strict party lines by the Democrat Party and only after the most vile revelations of bribery and backroom deals. It is a bill whose content Speaker Pelosi said Americans should supinely consider only after it was passed.

There has been a rapidly growing awareness and rejection of the assertion that the federal government can “own” General Motors or that the government should be in the business of buying and selling mortgages.

Pending financial reform legislation would permit the federal take over any company to install its own board of directors and thus control the economy. The failure to exercise existing regulation of the financial sector hardly calls for more regulation. It calls for stronger enforcement of existing laws.

The increasing awareness and rejection of the false “theory of global warming” is being rejected on the basis of the widely perceived cooling of the earth during this decade and the wild projections of warming 25, 50, a hundred or more years into the unknown future. More and more Americans now know it is based on feeble and deliberately false “computer models”.

That is why the Cap-and-Trade bill, a huge tax on energy use, awaiting action in the Senate, even if imposed in the same fashion as the healthcare bill, will be rejected by the States. There is no need to regulate carbon dioxide, a natural gas that has nothing to do with “warming”, but a rogue government agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, is set to assert this falsehood through massive regulation that will destroy the nation’s economic base.

With increasing pace, the States are demanding that the Second Amendment protecting the right to own and bear arms be respected and asserting their right to pass laws permitting gun ownership, including the right to carry concealed arms for self defense. States that have enacted such laws have seen a dramatic decrease in crime.

The assertion of unconstitutional federal powers lies at the heart of the State’s rejection of these efforts. Unfunded federal mandates are bankrupting the States and they want an end to them. The rapacious taking of State lands is crippling theirs and the nation’s ability to access our natural resources.

A growing spectrum of federal laws intruding upon the sovereignty of individual States is being challenged and this is a good thing. We should all take heart from these challenges as well as the spontaneous occurrence of the Tea Party movement that is a dramatic demonstration that the spirit of individual liberty and of States rights is alive and well in America.

A new generation of Americans is learning that the Constitution was designed to ensure a small and limited federal government and that the States, like the Union, are individual republics.

The battle has been joined.

[tgusa]

Good post, thanks!

[screaminsunshine]

Repeal the Commerce Clause and our problem is solved.

[jiminycricket000]

It’s a damn shame that the constitutional amendment that supposedly gives soverienity to the States wasn’t written with more clarity and specificity. Seems almost like it was written with intentional ambiguity so that the Federal government could interpret it as they choose. Either that or they just couldn’t foresee a time when dishonesy and deceipt in government (and society) would become a national virtue.

[crz]

Here Here!

[central_va]

The shelter from things like the income tax and cap n screw was supposed to be the Constitution, but since the civil war and the SCOTUS be-shat it during the great depression, the protection value has diminshed to where it is just a fig leaf for the ugly nakedness of the state-ist to hide behind.

What good is personal freedom without economic freedom? The republic is dead. You heard it here first.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

All things not delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the commerce clause period.....welcome to tyranny.

[theBuckwheat]

I am heartened by the fact that more states are considering resolutions and laws protecting their citizens from the federal “health care” law than are required to call a Constitutional Convention.

Personally, since any proposed changes to the Constitution that would come out of any Convention would still have to be ratified by a super-majority of the States, I think the risks posed by a Convention are now outweighed by the risks of the massive spending and massive debt imposed on us by Washington.

We must put Leviathan back in his cage while we still can.

[K-oneTexas]

Agree.

We need Reps in Congress that will craft specific amendments to get to the States for a vote.

I am (currently) against a Constitutional Convention being called as (for me) it will lead to a Liberal takeover and quicker destruction of the country.

[AngelesCrestHighway]

[phockthis]

save

[The Great RJ]

Obama may succeed in not only destroying the US economy, but also the union. Our Republic will never be the same.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Nullification will not work, for the sole reason that the system has become unbalanced.

1) The power of the federal government should be balanced with that of the States and the people. But since the 17th Amendment, the Direct Election of Senators, the States were stripped of their means of balancing the federal government. In the same year (1913), the 16th Amendment, The Income Tax, provided a means for the federal government to *directly* control the people, not through the intermediary of the States.

2) In addition to this, the federal government is imbalanced within itself, a problem going back to the beginning of the country. The president is effectively “above the law”, and with the use of “Czars”, memorandums, and “presidential signing statements”, has co-opted power from the other two branches.

The judiciary is likewise caught up in an antiquated structure, and needs to be updated, as well as have its power over the States restrained. Federal judges should not be allowed to intervene in State matters, nor should they be able to force States to appropriate monies.

3) And large parts of the bureaucracy, especially the 16 intelligence agencies, and 40+ federal police agencies, have become semi-autonomous, and no longer responsive to the elected government.

[K-oneTexas]

I would agree.

Repeal the 13th and 17th Amendments. Tax Reform and Spending reform are mandatory.

Steps needed at the Cabinet level, giving them a specific purpose and a clear mission:

1) Abolish the FED. Totally and completely.

2) Abolish the Department of Education. Belongs with the States, and the Dep’t of Ed truthfully educates no one.

3) Smaller Dep’t of the Interior - by release all federal lands back to the States with the exception of National Parks.

4) Dep’t of Health should have Medicare, Medicaid (if we actually can keep them and sustain them) and the Surgeon General, public health & medical research (CDC and such) at the federal level.

5) Put ALL welfare programs under Dep’t of Welfare to downgrade duplication and multiple funds being disbursed to numerous agencies.

6) Create a Sunset Commission to backstop Congress and review ALL laws and force repeal of outmoded, outdated and duplicative statutes.

7) Close Import/Export Bank, Overseas private Investment Corp to name a few independent agencies (including funding).

8) Shut down US participation in the UN, World Court, WTO and other international treaty organizations (including funding).

We should end up with (roughly): Departments of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce & Labor (incl Nat’l Labor relations Board), Natural Resources, Justice, VA, Treasury and Interior.

If we need to oversee the financial markets that may best be done with a small commission and it could take ALL financial matters. Including those of the Securities & Exchange Commission, Commodities Futures Trading Commission and the like.

Just an idea or two to start. No additional commissions or agencies are needed. Already too much duplication of effort and excessive spending.

[bestintxas]

States have the ultimate power as per art V of Constitution.

All they have to do is stop braying individually and get together.

Zer0 and his robots will try to keep that from happening at all costs to preerve their own power.

[marktwain]

“Repeal the Commerce Clause and our problem is solved.”

If the court will not enforce the clear words of the Constitution, why do you think they would enforce an amendment?

The courts have ruled that the federal government can regulate any commerce that might affect interstate commerce. This has come to mean *all* commerce. If the writers of the constitution had meant for the federal government to have the power to regulate all commerce, they would not have limited to *interstate* commerce.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

(I know it was a typo, but we should not abolish the 13th Amendment, the Abolition of Slavery.) Also, there currently is no enumerated federal authority for any kind of welfare.

Other issues for consideration, likely in a constitutional convention, as there are too many for individual consideration:

Flat Income Tax Amendment;

Balanced Budget Amendment;

Presidential Line Item Veto Amendment;

National Census Enumeration Only Amendment;

Personal Information and Records Limitation Amendment;

Corporate Civil Rights Distinct From The Civil Rights Of Living Persons Amendment;

Oligopoly Antitrust Amendment;

Presidential War Powers and Posse Comitatus Amendments;

Limitations on Presidential Authority To Declare Martial Law Amendment;

Presidential Authority Only Through Cabinet Officers, Appointment and Impeachment of Cabinet Officers Amendment; Term Limits for Recess Appointments;

Congressional Approval of Bureaucratic Regulatory Authority Amendment;

Creation of a State Appointed Constitutional Review Court Amendment (50 State Judges To Sit As a Federal Nullification Court);

Reorganization of Federal Judiciary Amendment;

Amendment for the Reduction of the Size and Authority of the Federal Government and Enabling Acts;

Writ of Mandamus Amendment;

Congressional and Judicial Term Limits Amendment;

Restoration of State Lands from Federal Land Takings and Limitations of Eminent Domain Amendment;

Delineation of a National Tribal Congress for Indigenous Peoples Amendment (renegotiation of treaties and integration of tribal and commercial law).

Limitations of Federal Intelligence and Police Authority, Surveillance and Records Retention Amendment;

Renunciation of the National Debt Amendment;

Abolition of the FED Amendment;

Prohibition of Federal Largess to Individuals Amendment;

Restrictions on Earmarks, Single Subject Congressional Act Amendment;

Abolition of Government Employee Unions Amendment;

[K-oneTexas]

Your right about the typo - it should read the repeal the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) and the 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators).

I am not in favor of a Constitutional Convention as it opens the door to too much tinkering. Carefully worded amendments are the key to be passed by the individual States.

Carefully worded Amendments could include:
Balanced Budget, Presidential Line Item Veto, Abolish the FED, abolish McCain-Feingold, Term Limits (8 years on politicians - 30 years on judges) ... to start. We must find a way to fund elections without federal/political party involvement.

A Flat Tax is out of the question. The current Income Tax started in 1913 as a flat tax and look where we are today. Totally wrong as we can not trust Congress to morph any ‘new flat tax’ into a lobbyist & special interest haven.

I think along with a separation of church and state (as originally intended) there should be a separation of unions and the state.

Tax Reform and Spending Reform would go hand-in-hand to eliminate pork. If the FairTax were adopted special interest would have no clout. Taking the total tax revenue and first funding Social Security and Medicare the balance would have to be spent on essential functions of government.

Sun-setting and reorganizing the Cabinet and executive Branch cutting the duplication and waste would be the place to start. Duplicate statutes, programs and agencies.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A constitutional convention does not lend itself to radical change. In that it must be called by 2/3rds (34) of the States, and any changes must be ratified by 3/4ths (38) of the States, it is extremely hard to find *any* issue worthy of calling it forth.

Importantly, a constitutional convention will not happen for “popular” reasons, but because the States believe their prerogatives and power must be maintained. This is a very different perspective than for an individual Amendment pushed through congress.

Comparatively speaking, there were several “spurts” of Amendments, first the post Civil War group of three, followed by the “progressive” Amendments: 16th, 17th, 18th (Prohibition), and 19th (Women’s Suffrage). Finally the “sort of Civil Rights” group, 23rd to 26th.

These were the “radical Amendments”, focused issues. But the potential Amendments that a constitutional convention might consider fit into two broad categories:

1) Strengthening State power to be more in balance with federal power.

2) Reducing federal power that was never authorized the federal government. This is to restore the federal government to a constitutional framework, as a truly “federal” government, not a centralized government.

In both cases, the concept of a constitutional convention is to restore the real argument: that of federalism vs. anti-federalism.

Federalism supports the idea of federal superiority over the States, but that such superiority is needed to maintain union and function.

Anti-federalism supports the idea of federal inferiority to the States, the government just being the glue that keeps things together, and that State prerogatives only support the government as States choose to do.

Neither of these considered an overpowering central government that tries to strip all the power from the States. So this is why a constitutional convention is held, to cut down and reshape the federal government into what the States want, not what the federal government wants.

[K-oneTexas]

My belief is that it can be accomplished without a Constitutional Convention. And is should be accomplished without a Constitutional Convention.

I believe it can be done with one or possibly two ‘laser-honed’ amendments keyed on specific issues and the repeal of two to four now in effect. These would re-establish Federalism in its proper role and authority.

A Convention is unnecessary and ill-advised when so many Libs (Dem & Rino) exist that would populate such a Convention. As well as foolish since the majority of American has already voted us an unaccountable and out-of-control President.