States rights protect freedom

Nathan McClintock.com ^ | 06/19/2002 | Nathan McClintock

[NathanM]

States’ rights protect freedom By Nathan McClintock In this day and age, States’ rights have been long forgotten. After all, is it not the federal government that takes care of everything from Welfare to Medicare to Social Security to public education? In essence, if we pay our tax dollars, then the federal government will allow us to participate in these programs. Yes, the federal government even seems to be interested in protecting your rights. Take, for example, the 1st, 2nd, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which protect every citizen’s civil liberties. And if the States decide to restrict one’s freedoms, the federal government is quick to get involved. But wait, would our Founding Fathers have approved of all these federal programs and federal protections? The long forgotten 10th Amendment stands as a bulwark of protection for the people. Among the first 10 amendments, which comprise the original Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers placed three definite checks on big government. The first check, as I have already discussed in a previous column, is the First Amendment, which restricts the federal government from removing freedom of speech from a person or State, while leaving the States unrestricted. Yet another balance is the Second Amendment, which protects the peoples right to bare arms. Lastly, the 10th Amendment protects the States and the people from a large, out of control, unconstitutional government. Each of these amendments in some way or another checks the federal government. The 10th Amendment restricts the federal government from taking dictatorial control over the States and the people. The 10th Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government a certain power, then that power remains in the hands of the States and the people. “But Nathan,” you may say, “the government does many things without constitutional power, but does this make it unconstitutional?” To answer this question, we must remember that the States ratified the U.S. Constitution and were therefore the supreme power at this time. New Hampshire, in their ratification paper, stated, “That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.” The States were very emphatic about what powers they were delegating to the federal entity. If the States sensed this need for protection of States’ rights, how does it affect the people who are under regulation by the States? The States, not the federal government, can better protect each citizen’s rights because they were designed with the people’s protection in mind. Because the States have smaller populations than the federal government, you have an influence in State politics that far exceeds most peoples’ sphere of power over the federal government. States’ rights protect the people because citizens can more easily attain public office at the State level. Typical candidates running for a high level political office in Washington, DC, may plan to spend millions of dollars. For most people, this is not an option. Political influence at the federal level comes only with lots of cash, something that is provided frequently by large, politically liberal, companies and organizations. In contrast, most conservatives have a difficult time raising monetary support, and thus rarely find their way to Washington. On the other hand, running for public office at the State level is much less expensive. Here conservatives can thrive, because it is the people, not the liberal businesses and political action committees, that are responsible for the campaigns success. With States’ rights come citizens’ rights. In a large, federally run government, the people have trouble lobbying and protesting government decisions. For most, going to Washington to protest or lobby is not an option. On the flip side, going to one’s State capital is not out of the question. Yes, when States make decisions, the people have a stronger voice, a more adamant opinion, and an increased bear upon their lawmakers’ decisions. And, in the worst-case scenario, you have the freedom to relocate in a different State. In this day, many special interest groups sue the federal government in an effort to bring America under their subjection. They are ripping our Constitution and changing our laws. Prayer and Bible reading have been taken from our schools. The killing of innocent children has become a legal practice and the norm in American society. The Constitution establishes the States alone with the responsibility to enact and rule on legislation of this kind. Imagine if the States still held this power. In that case, before abortion could become legal in all the States, lawsuits would have to be fought and won in every State, instead of just one lawsuit in the United States. Supreme Court. And there is a good chance that many States would still protect the unborn. I believe that America would be a better place, because it would better represent the people of the State. The States have more rights and political power under the Constitution and are capable of protecting their citizens to a greater extent then the federal government can. And while federal programs and civil rights protections may seem gratifying at the time, they undermine the rights given to the States and the freedom of the people as express by the Constitution.

Nathan McClintock is a self-syndicated columnist. To read his past columns, go to www.nathanmcclintock.com. He may be contacted at Nathan@NathanMcClintock.com. © Copyright 2001 Nathan McClintock. All rights reserved.

[jwalsh07]

Nathan,

When you use paragraphs, I'll read your screeds.

Until then, adios.

[NathanM]

States’ rights protect freedom

By Nathan McClintock

In this day and age, States’ rights have been long forgotten. After all, is it not the federal government that takes care of everything from Welfare to Medicare to Social Security to public education? In essence, if we pay our tax dollars, then the federal government will allow us to participate in these programs. Yes, the federal government even seems to be interested in protecting your rights. Take, for example, the 1st, 2nd, 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which protect every citizen’s civil liberties. And if the States decide to restrict one’s freedoms, the federal government is quick to get involved.

But wait, would our Founding Fathers have approved of all these federal programs and federal protections?

The long forgotten 10th Amendment stands as a bulwark of protection for the people. Among the first 10 amendments, which comprise the original Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers placed three definite checks on big government. The first check, as I have already discussed in a previous column, is the First Amendment, which restricts the federal government from removing freedom of speech from a person or State, while leaving the States unrestricted. Yet another balance is the Second Amendment, which protects the peoples right to bare arms. Lastly, the 10th Amendment protects the States and the people from a large, out of control, unconstitutional government. Each of these amendments in some way or another checks the federal government. The 10th Amendment restricts the federal government from taking dictatorial control over the States and the people.

The 10th Amendment reads, “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.” In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government a certain power, then that power remains in the hands of the States and the people. “But Nathan,” you may say, “the government does many things without constitutional power, but does this make it unconstitutional?”

To answer this question, we must remember that the States ratified the U.S. Constitution and were therefore the supreme power at this time. New Hampshire, in their ratification paper, stated, “That it be Explicitly declared that all Powers not expressly & particularly Delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States to be, by them Exercised.” The States were very emphatic about what powers they were delegating to the federal entity.

If the States sensed this need for protection of States’ rights, how does it affect the people who are under regulation by the States?

The States, not the federal government, can better protect each citizen’s rights because they were designed with the people’s protection in mind. Because the States have smaller populations than the federal government, you have an influence in State politics that far exceeds most peoples’ sphere of power over the federal government.
States’ rights protect the people because citizens can more easily attain public office at the State level. Typical candidates running for a high level political office in Washington, DC, may plan to spend millions of dollars. For most people, this is not an option. Political influence at the federal level comes only with lots of cash, something that is provided frequently by large, politically liberal, companies and organizations. In contrast, most conservatives have a difficult time raising monetary support, and thus rarely find their way to Washington. On the other hand, running for public office at the State level is much less expensive. Here conservatives can thrive, because it is the people, not the liberal businesses and political action committees, that are responsible for the campaigns success.

With States’ rights come citizens’ rights. In a large, federally run government, the people have trouble lobbying and protesting government decisions. For most, going to Washington to protest or lobby is not an option. On the flip side, going to one’s State capital is not out of the question. Yes, when States make decisions, the people have a stronger voice, a more adamant opinion, and an increased bear upon their lawmakers’ decisions. And, in the worst-case scenario, you have the freedom to relocate in a different State.

In this day, many special interest groups sue the federal government in an effort to bring America under their subjection. They are ripping our Constitution and changing our laws. Prayer and Bible reading have been taken from our schools. The killing of innocent children has become a legal practice and the norm in American society. The Constitution establishes the States alone with the responsibility to enact and rule on legislation of this kind. Imagine if the States still held this power. In that case, before abortion could become legal in all the States, lawsuits would have to be fought and won in every State, instead of just one lawsuit in the United States. Supreme Court. And there is a good chance that many States would still protect the unborn. I believe that America would be a better place, because it would better represent the people of the State.

The States have more rights and political power under the Constitution and are capable of protecting their citizens to a greater extent then the federal government can. And while federal programs and civil rights protections may seem gratifying at the time, they undermine the rights given to the States and the freedom of the people as express by the Constitution.

Nathan McClintock is a self-syndicated columnist. To read his past columns, go to www.nathanmcclintock.com. He may be contacted at Nathan@NathanMcClintock.com. © Copyright 2001 Nathan McClintock. All rights reserved.

[Kwilliams]

Much better