States Assert Sovereignty with 10th Amendment

Posted by Tenth Amendment

by David M. Dickson

Worried the federal government is increasing its dominance over their affairs, several states are pursuing legislative action to assert their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution in hopes of warding off demands from Washington on how to spend money or enact policy. The growing concerns even have a handful of governors questioning whether to accept federal stimulus money that comes with strings attached.

The sentiments to declare themselves legally independent from Washington have swept across as many as a dozen states, renewing a debate over so-called unfunded mandates that last raged in the 1990s. The states question whether the U.S. government can force states to take actions without paying for them or impose conditions on states if they accept certain federal funding.

“We are telling the federal government that we are a sovereign state and want to be treated as such. We are not a branch of the federal government,” said Arizona state Rep. Judy Burges, who is leading an effort in her state to pass a resolution called “Sovereignty: the 10th Amendment.” Ms. Burges was inspired to action by a pair of Bush administration initiatives: The No Child Left Behind education law of 2002 and the Real ID Act, a 2005 law that established national standards for state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards.

In other states, lawmakers say they are bracing to repeal federal mandates to spend their money that they expect will emanate from Washington once President Obama begins delivering some of the big-ticket programs promised during his presidential campaign.

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

This entry was posted on Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 8:42 am. It is filed under State Sovereignty Movement. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

←

→

B. Johnson

The USSC wrongly politically struck down 10th A. protected state powers as follows. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., had clarified that the 14th A. was not intended to take away state powers. See for yourselves.

"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5d

"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy

"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globehttp://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n

The problem is that corrupt, anti-state power Justices later forced politically correct interpretations of the 14th Amendment. Consider the following statement from a case opinion which completely ignores Bingham's words.

"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut 1940.http://tinyurl.com/38a87c

Again, the USSC perverted Bingham's intentions for the 14th A. by wrongly applying the 1st A.'s prohibition on federal government power to regulate religion to the states, essentially repealing the 10th A. by judicial fiat.

share flag

spam
offensive
disagree
off topic

Michael Boldin

Barry, although your link isn't working, I can assume you're referring to the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution.

The important thing to note, is that Congress is given the authority to do just 18 things in Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution. Then, they wrote that in order to do those activities, that Congress would have the authority to enact laws that were "necessary and proper" to do those tasks.

Barry in Alaska

Apparently certain words needed to actually make the 10th amendment binding to the Federal Government in the Issue of States Sovreignty were left out and this Clause was put in , So these States can file these articles but in actuality, if I read it correctly, the states articles are not worth the paper they are printed on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neces...