Given the editor’s affinity for arguing for more government power, one should not be too surprised at which side of the fence the editor is on, but the numerous “state sovereignty” bills and resolutions (more on that later), cannot be boiled down to “backward” opinions and petty partisanship.
Sure, these are partly in response to a Democrat administration and many of these so called “states’ rights” folks were nowhere to be found during the dismal years of Bush/Cheney when they should have been making noise about No Child Left Behind, Faith Based Initiatives, and the Patriot Act, etc.
But still the issue cannot be discredited by painting it as silly Republican agenda and backward thinking. The reader need not miss the hypocrisy of labeling this as mere partisanship.
The state sovereignty issue is not small potatoes. When the anti-Federalists were holding out, it was the bill of rights that got them on board. The tenth amendment did not state anything new in the Constitution, but was a recapitulation of the document’s limit on federal government power along with the ninth amendment.
Furthermore, the editor’s examples of abuses are not idiotic. They are legitimate abuses. One should find humorous the patronizing rhetoric that the author employed…
“the concept of state sovereignty is a noble one. The constitution takes pains
to limit the powers of the federal government, and those powers reserved to the
states should be protected diligently.” (emphasis mine)
…then go on and mock legitimate petitions of redress. The author is basically paying “lip service” to the Constitution while scoffing it in ideology.
The tenth amendment reserves ALL powers to the state or to the people except those which are expressly given to the federal government by the Constitution or prohibited to the states by the Constitution.
Minimum wage? Not a power given to Uncle Sam.
Healthcare? Again, not even addressed in the Constitution.
Have part ownership in any business? Really? Engels and Marx would be giddy with delight, but nope no Constitutional authority here.
Regulating emissions on my car? You might make a huge stretch of the “general welfare” clause and come up with a measly and still unwinnable argument.
As for the horribly inaccurate statement regarding Alaska being the only other state that has “joined in the effort to rein in federal powers,” it takes a simple web search and a little bit of current knowledge to find that this is horribly misleading.
I am sure that the author was only referring to states that have actually signed this into law as only Alaska and Tennessee have, yet he should not get a pass for semantics.
As of October 1, 2009, state sovereignty resolution have passed both houses in Louisiana, North Dakota, Idaho, South Dakota, Oklahoma, (those are awaiting the respective governors’ signatures) and the aforementioned Alaska and Tennessee.
These same resolutions have been passed by one (or more) houses in Texas, Ohio, Mississippi, Indiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Michigan, and Arizona.
Nearly every other state has introduced similar resolutions awaiting action. In all, 37 states have introduced state sovereignty resolutions. Of those only three have failed to pass as of October 1.
And while the editor is ashamed that his home state has (at least in rhetoric) reaffirmed its sovereignty, it is long overdue. Perhaps the media and pundits along with the power hungry on the hill should be the ones with bags on their heads.
The real question that begs to be answered, though, is will the state stand its ground?
My guess is no.
Posts
