Background 1. Our founding fathers determined that sharing government power was also the way to limit power. It was thus that at the federal level, each branch of government is equal — meaning that one can trump the other. The president can refuse to sign a bill into law, the Supreme Court can overturn a law, and the legislature can refuse to fund a presidential program.
2. Our founding fathers also sought to limit the power of the federal government by acknowledging every state as sovereign, and that every power not specifically delineated in the Constitution to the federal government shall be reserved to the states, and to the people.
Discussion
1. Since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, a period following the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and a period during which the United States experienced an ecological disaster of epic proportions, the federal government has progressively encroached on the rights of states (and the people) in delivering “human services.” We might today argue that some of these programs were (and continue to be) unconstitutional, or that legislators back then did not consider the long-term implications of the laws they passed with all good intentions. We must also acknowledge that people have benefitted from some programs, and that the likelihood of overturning “social security” (as an example) is highly unlikely.
2. If we do not wish to see the United States moving ever-steadily toward a socialist state, then we must at least begin to dialogue about the right of the federal government to impose “human services,” paid for by the American taxpayer, and which effectively deny states their constitutional authority to govern themselves. What right, for example, does the federal government have to impose “educational standards” on any state educational system? Aren’t state educational standards a matter for the citizens of states to decide for themselves? Similarly, what right does the federal government have to impose “national health care,” a relevant question even if we erroneously concluded that the federal government is better able to manage it than independent states?
3. The only rights we have under federal rules were those accorded to us by the Bill of Rights, and even then, only once our state of domicile incorporated them. This relationship must be a two-way street. If a federal program violates the Tenth Amendment, our states must vociferously object to it, thus protecting “the people” from unwarranted (and unconstitutional) intrusion by the federal government. Over many years, our states have allowed the federal government to intrude on states’ rights; examples of this include state acceptance of federal money for education and highway construction.
4. We now face a Democratic Congress who, rather than exhibiting any discipline in spending, believe their recent “mandate” allows them to impose even more taxes to support a plethora of federalist programs. In my view, we must resist . . . the only way to do that is to insist our state governors and legislatures demand adherence to the Tenth Amendment.
My Opinion
1. Politicians at the federal level only address “the people” when they are seeking election. Most of the time, they could care less about what we think, and few of them ever ask for our opinions before they vote on pending legislation. This is in fact how representative democracy works; we are like the proverbial mushroom: they feed us crap and keep us in the dark.
2. For far too long, most citizens have forgotten they are first and foremost, citizens of states. It has become convenient to buy into federal programs legislation, especially if we mistakenly believe that we will benefit from them personally. In fact, this may be one of the greatest lies ever told. Considering the abject failure of the American educational system, which demands hundreds of millions of dollars each and every year, no one can effectively argue the results justify the costs.
3. If citizens of Indiana agree that they must be entitled to universal health care, it is up to the state of Indiana (and its citizens) to pay for such a program. The people of Indiana are not entitled to monetary resources from the hard-working people of any of the remaining 49 states.
4. If we believe that the Constitution is our “protector” from intrusive federal government, then we must begin to assert our constitutional rights — and our attachment to our state of domicile. Until that happens, there will be no change in the behavior of the federal or state governments.
Recommendations
1. Citizens must correspond with state legislatures and governors to demand they in turn challenge every federal program that interferes with the rights of states to govern themselves, on behalf of the citizens of those states.
2. Citizens must encourage state government to reject federal money whenever those expenditures require state obedience to federal mandates. Note: the NCLB law is a case in point.
x-post: Praesidium Respublicae
Posts
