by Robert Romano, Americans for Limited Government
Often, talk of the nation’s founding principles is discarded as an irrelevancy in public discourse. But in truth they are more salient than ever as power in Washington grows to untold heights. And those who still value liberty must take note of this unprecedented rise and take action if this nation is to ever take steps back toward constitutionally limited government.
In an effort to cast off the shackles of never-ending federal mandates from Washington, Michigan State Representative Paul Opsommer (R-DeWitt) has offered “House Concurrent Resolution No. 4†to “affirm Michigan’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and to urge the federal government to halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States.â€
It is an example to be emulated by states across the Union, and one on which a new emphasis by states upon their sovereignty ought to be built. The first step, of course, proceeds from the statement of a single principle: The states are sovereign entities.
They derive said sovereignty from the consent of the governed. That’s the only source of political and legal legitimacy through which any claim to sovereignty may be justified as being representative of the wills of those governed, and by which it may be carried forth in accordance with the natural rights of the people.
Only if those governed accept the political arrangement may the government legitimately exercise its powers. And in the immediate case of the United States, those powers are explicitly enumerated in the Federal Constitution. Very specifically, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€
This inherent limit upon the authority allows the federal government only to exercise those powers contained in the Constitution. But it also provides that the states may be limited in their powers by the Constitution. Thus is America’s unique federal system.
However, constitutionally limited government is in grave jeopardy today. The House Concurrent Resolution in Michigan states that “Today, in 2009, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government, and… [m]any federal mandates from previous administrations and some now pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the Constitution of the United States…â€
These include, but are hardly limited to, federal education standards, fuel standards, health care standards, and environmental standards, as well as Supreme Court rulings vacating states’ rightful powers including the power to enact term limits as in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, etc. Regardless of the motivation for each mandate, the impact is always the same: the states and the people lose their respective powers and liberty to govern their own affairs, and the federal Leviathan increases in its own unenumerated powers.
Eventually, the government will—if liberty and limited government is not defended—turn on the people it is sworn to protect and defend. This is the greatest danger, and history suggests is the inevitable outcome of the progressive growth of the powers of central authority. Already, provisions of the Constitution—the only true limits on the powers of the government—are largely ignored or reinterpreted to suit the interests of the federal government.
The danger is that this central authority will give rise to tyranny. And it is incumbent upon the states and the people to use the constitutional system to defend against this. Michigan and her people, should it enact House Concurrent Resolution No. 4, are acting well within their rights to remind the federal government that Michigan is indeed a sovereign entity that derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
It’s a small step, but through many small steps, the states and the people will take back their respective powers and rights, and the government once again will be limited by its own Constitution.
Robert Romano is the Editor of ALG News Bureau.
You misquoted the 10th amendment.
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.
How much of this comes from states accepting federal funds for highway and educational programs, which often come with conditions, provisions, and/or requirements?
So the government can only legitimately exercise its powers if it is given consent by those that it governs? Great! I hereby revoke my consent (which I never gave in the first place). The government may no longer coerce me into following any of its laws. Finally I am free!
Or did I somehow lose the right to revoke my consent because some people who live in the same area as me vote to choose a representative in the government? Do I still give my consent to the government even if I refuse to vote?
I’ll see your Tenth Amendment, and raise you The Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Any State that feels so inclined to exercise their sovereignty against the Federal Government will find itself isolated, broke, and at the mercy of her neighboring states. Michigan is suffering enough right now economically, why would you want to make a bad situation worse?
Great post!
It all comes either from:
a.) the interstate commerce clause — which has been recently broadly interpreted by the Supremes, or
b.) the conditions placed on the states in order to receive federal funds.
Ostensibly, I’m not against (b). Simply put, the federal government has a responsibility to the people (us, the taxpayers) to ensure that the funds it disperses are well-spent, and further, that the funds are spent for their intended purpose. This is not unreasonable — it is thusly similar to how a bank which loans your company money to build a new production plant wants to ensure that a plant is actually built, and moreso, that the plant meets the specifications required for its purpose; otherwise, the bank’s loan will be unrecoverable in the end.
On the other hand, (a) — the interstate commerce clause — has been abused by the federal government. One example is that it is able to continue to determine that possession of marijuana in CA (and other decrim states) because the trafficking there impacts trafficking in other states — affecting “commerce” (albeit not directly) across state lines. That’s hooey on the face of it.
(b). Simply put, the federal government has a responsibility to the people (us, the taxpayers) to ensure that the funds it disperses are well-spent, and further, that the funds are spent for their intended purpose. This is not unreasonable — it is thusly similar to how a bank which loans your company money to build a new production plant wants to ensure that a plant is actually built, and moreso, that the plant meets the specifications required for its purpose; otherwise, the bank’s loan will be unrecoverable in the end.
Indeed it is. But if a majority of state citizens don’t agree to, say, stricter carbon emissions that has been enacted by executive order, and would vote against it at the state level if it came up for vote, wouldn’t the 10th protect the state?
I think an important point is that power is always liable to be abused. When politicians have too much power, even if good ones are elected, eventually the “bad” ones are going to get in office and use that same power in a completely different way.
That’s why the 10th Amendment was included in the Constitution. The founders felt so strongly about the need to limit the powers of the general government that even those who were accused of wanting a big central government would be considered radical small government supporters today.
The idea is simple – the most difficult issues don’t have a one-size-fits all solution, and are best handled by the people in their states or their local communities.
Yellowduc
Repeal the 16th Ammendment and you’re argument about the states not getting money from the Fed’s goes away. The Fed’s shouldn’t be getting the money to begin with.