States fearing mandates assert rights

Washington Times ^ | February 20, 2009 | David M. Dickson

[ForGod'sSake]

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

[Vozda]

I would prefer the United States to stay connected and strong, but if having the states be sovereign means I won’t have a liberal President and Congress passing laws that I must follow, then I am all for it.

[djsherin]

What if it’s a “conservative” President and Congress passing liberal laws that you must follow?

Better put, what if it’s ANY party’s President and Congress passing unconstitutional laws that you must follow?

[Outland]

I don’t see how any of these attempts will have any teeth since they all seem to be in the form of resolutions which in and of themselves, mean little or nothing. If push came to shove, the SCOTUS would knock it down.

The proper place for such a thing is a well-defined amendment to a state’s constitution. All hell would break loose if the SCOTUS went after a state’s constitution.

[karibdes]

lol Boy you remembered well. That is exactly correct. An amusing anecdote:

While I was taking the bar review course (BARBRI), during the Con Law section the instructor said about 10 billion times (a bit of an exaggeration lol), “for the multi-state exam (a multiple choice exam), remember, the answer is NEVER ‘the tenth amendment’”. So there I am, at the exam. Question #1, choice A “the 10th Amendment”. I say to myself, “well it sure as hell isn’t that.” So I go through the other 3 choices and it is ABSOLUTELY not those. Turns out the correct answer (which I chose cause the others weren’t even close) was the 10th Amendment. =)

We are so far removed from what this nation was over 200 years ago that there really are no states rights (blame the commerce clause). About the only way to change it would be a Constitutional Convention and starting over. I can’t even see this SCOTUS expanding states rights via the 10th Amendment.

[ForGod'sSake]

~snip~

Many of the sovereignty resolutions under consideration in the states will not have the force of law. Even if they did, said Mr. Alt, "through the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution, so long as a federal statute is constitutional, it would trump state law."

~snip~

Huh? Can anybody help me out here with this "suprmacy clause" legalese? Sounds to me like a bit of mangling of the intent of the Founders, but whadda I know...

[Vozda]

Um..we won’t elect Presidents and Congress that will pass unconstitutional laws. And if they do, they’ll be automatically thrown out of office.

[djsherin]

We’ve been doing it all century.
And by we I mean the country as a whole.

[djsherin]

There’s something wrong when law students are told that the highest law of the land is not a valid justification in the courts. It would seem we need a little more ‘Constitution’ in ‘Constitutional Law’.

[ForGod'sSake]

JMO, but I believe all the mechanisms are already in place within the Constitution for the states to reclaim their sovereignty. The states have allowed themselves to used as doormats by the fedrales, whether through fear of reprisals, ignorance or laziness; doesn't matter. AND, I've run across this so many times now on these threads; folks want to lay this question of "state's" sovereignty on an "agent" of the feral government, the USSC. Think about that for a minute...

[ronnyquest]

"The funniest part is that much of this was started by liberals during the Bush presidency. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing, only that what they used as an insult can be turned against them for a noble cause."

That just makes it more fun.

[Popman]

The States are already sovereign They just need to remind Congress

We are The United States of America not the American Union
As a country we elect only one position POTUS

Every other elected seat is done at state or below level

[karibdes]

Well, understand your point, but that wasn’t exactly what they were doing. his point was that they never made the 10th Amendment the answer on the exam, even though it happened to be the first question and correct answer on mine. =)

Interestingly, almost to a man, the law students with whom I studied were pretty much all on the side of the tenth amendment and decried it’s erosion under decades of SCOTUS rulings.

So, hope I didn’t leave the wrong impression. The instructor wasn’t telling us to ignore the tenth amendment because it was somehow not valid or a lesser amendment, but because it was just never the answer. And we also weren’t taught that it was a lesser amendment but that it was significantly eroded by SCOTUS decisions.

[P8riot]

Shades of 1861

[George Smiley]

"States were adding Medicaid benefits when times were good. Now the federal government must bail the states out through the so-called stimulus bill because the states' revenues have taken a hit and they must operate under a balanced-budget mandate," Mr. DeHaven said.

UNSPOKEN: UNLIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...

[flaglady47]

“Rock and roll!”

I say “lock and load”.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

Great work FGS, don’t listen to the naysayers!

[MrB]

It has to start somewhere.

I think what we’re seeing is the “continuum of resistance”, starting out with a “NO”.

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

The Tenth Amendment does exist, regardless of your instructor’s rant. Good anecdote!

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

ping

[MrB]

Lock and Load doesn’t come until we skip down this path a little further.

We’ll start with seeing when the fedgov blinks.

There will be some back and forth, some action and reaction and counteraction,

before it comes down to some force being used to either enforce or resist federal law and its agents.