Saturday, May 9, 2009

Tenth Amendment update

As reported at the Tenth Amendment Center, lawmakers from various states, including Randy Brogdon of Oklahoma, on May 5, 2009 issued a Joint Announcement on State Sovereignty:

Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C. Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens’ wishes. We believe that the best government is one which governs closer to the people…. The current price of erosion of states’ rights exceeds $11 trillion. Without the countless attempts in Washington to duplicate and micromanage our states’ affairs, much of this debt could have been avoided.

Amen, and amen. But don't these legislators know that the all-powerful 'federal' government can simply "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" of the state and local authorities, and, poof!, it's done? Apparently they didn't get the memo on that. Or, if they did get the memo, they simply reject it, as do I.

Brace yourselves, y'all, we're headed down a road that hasn't been traveled, nor maintained, in quite some time. We'll have to clear away trees and overgrowth, and fill the potholes as we go along.

8 comments:

Ron Russell said...

This Tenth Amendment thing, could turn into something big. The federal government will not just go away on this one. I can see the Supreme court going either way on this issue given their current make-up. I do think the issue will end up there. The full issue of states rights has never been decided by the courts only by force of arms during the War Between the States.

chiu_chunling said...

I would have to dispute the statement that the Civil War settled anything with respect to state's rights. The judgment of history and of the vast majority of contemporary sources is that the main issue was slavery.

Never forget that it was the refusal of the Southern states to allow Northern states to remain slavery free which swung the issue decisively to war. Otherwise there would have been no cause for either side to fight. If not for secession, the most Lincoln would realistically have done would be to make judicial appointments likely to overturn Dred Scott.

Of course, without a friendly national government, slavery was doomed. Economically, it's only a bit more competitive than Communism. Southerners understood this, and decided (for some reason) to try war rather than economics.

Make no mistake, those who seek to enslave others will resort to war when other means fail. This issue may go to the Supreme Court, but there is no way it will end there.

Call Me Mom said...

I've got a shovel and a saw.

Ron, I've seen the suggestion that the passage of Wyoming's recent legislation on gun ownership in that state may be the trigger for that case.

Terry Morris said...

I agree with Chiu on the question of whether the Civil War settled the issue of states' rights.

The establishment of a U.S. citizenship, the direct election of Senators, the allowance of the federal courts to move into jurisdictions not properly theirs, etc., -- these are all assaults on federalism, but in the end they settle nothing. The best these new innovations on Constitutional Republicanism have accomplished is to swap one form of slavery for another, more sweeping kind.

Every time I read in the amendments following the Bill of Rights that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article...", I start to get a little anxious for some odd reason.

Mom,

On the Wyoming legislation: I understand that Texas has a similar piece of legislation it's trying to pass. Oklahoma -- I imagine -- is probably working up something very similar as well. And etc.

Things is a fixin' to get real interesting. 'bout time.

By the way, Mom, Happy Mother's Day!

Call Me Mom said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Terry Morris said...

Chiu wrote:

Make no mistake, those who seek to enslave others will resort to war when other means fail.I agree with that statement 100%. It's easy to be a pacifist when pacifism is, well, easy. In other words, whenever everything is seemingly going the liberal, holier-than-thou pacifist's way.

I wrote an entry to this blog sometime back to which someone said that I was wrong in asserting that we were headed for another violent civil conflict in America. His position was something to the effect that liberals don't have the stomach for a civil war, thus it is averted by their cowardice. Uh, yeah.

Call Me Mom said...

Sorry about the deleted post. It's been a very long week and the spelling was too atrocious to allow. Haste really does make waste.
What I had intended to say was:
Thank you Mr. Morris and a Very Happy Mother's Day to your lovely wife as well.

chiu_chunling said...

War is always the result of irrationality. After all, one side (at least) is going to lose. But usually everybody thinks it's the other guy who is deluded.

To embrace the insane (often solipsist) belief that others exist to serve your needs rather than their own ends is the most dangerous delusion. Not only is it the least true of possible ideas, it is the one best calculated both to justify resorting to coercive force and to convince the believer that such force is likely to succeed.

The opposite error, believing that others are necessarily rational rather than irrational, is only accidentally false by comparison. It leaves one open to unpleasant surprises, but is surprisingly useful in the crisis.

But of course it is best to realize that, while individuals exist for their own purposes, irrationality is a real problem. Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, and you will prosper in time and eternity.