by State Senator John Carey (OH-17th)
Over the past several years, our leaders in Washington — from both political parties — have watched over a major expansion of the size and scope of the federal government.
This has been fueled by excessive regulations, unfunded mandates, multi-billion dollar bailouts and the federalization of banks and other industries.
This growth not only threatens the financial stability of states and local governments and the well-being of future generations of Americans, but violates the very ideals that our country was founded upon.
When our Founding Fathers traveled to Philadelphia in 1787 to draft the Constitution, they came from states as far south as Georgia and as far north as New Hampshire, all with different economies, landscapes and traditions.
Therefore, they fought to preserve their states’ individuality and ensure that the laws of the nation protected the right of each state to govern themselves and make local decisions.
The 10th Amendment reads: “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.â€
In other words, the federal government only has certain powers which are spelled out in the Constitution.
Unfortunately, many recent actions by the federal government directly contradict this principle.
For instance, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress continue to champion a cap and trade energy policy that could have a devastating effect on Ohio’s economy, while dramatically raising electricity prices for consumers in our region.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also pushing excessive regulations on states that would not only increase operating costs for existing Ohio business, but could impact our ability to attract new development and create jobs.
In addition, the President is leading an effort to create a public health care option and give the federal government more control over our nation’s health care system.
Concerned about the increasing influence of the federal government and its impact on the future of our state and Ohio taxpayers, my colleagues and I in the Ohio Senate recently approved Senate Concurrent Resolution 13, which urges Congress to respect the 10th Amendment and adhere only to the limited rights and responsibilities delegated by the states to the federal government.
I co-sponsored the resolution.
Similar resolutions have been introduced in other states, including New Hampshire, Arizona, Michigan and Missouri.
However, it is important to note that SCR 13 does not threaten secession; it only seeks to affirm Ohio’s sovereignty at a time when the federal government is rapidly expanding.
Former President and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, once said: “The states should be left to do whatever they can do as well as the federal government.â€
While all levels of government can serve a valuable purpose in our society, there must be a strong balance between local, state and federal power.
What is good policy for California or New York may not be good for Ohio or West Virginia. For that reason, our leaders in Washington need to honor the 10th Amendment and respect the right of the states to make their own decisions.
Originally published at The Ironton Tribune
John A. Carey is a member of the Ohio Senate and represents the 17th District. He can be reached at Ohio Senate, Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio 43215 or by phone at (614) 466-8156.
I am wondering if State Issue 2 on the November ballot is also partly a sovereignty issue even though it “only” deals with animal welfare. Makes animal welfare a state responsibility and can thumb their nose at the Human Society of the US (and PETA too) if disagree. Don’t need other people telling us what to do and how to do it.
I am not in favor of abusing animals but some of the HSUS people have never been on a farm–see the TED video of Mike Rowe and his comments re:HSUS
We at Ohio Freedom Alliance are OPPOSED to Issue 2 because it would create an unaccountable board that will set all livestock standards in the state of Ohio. The way this board is structured, regulations will inevitably be created that benefit a few powerful special interests and the consumer and small farmer will pay the cost.
Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS has stated that they will continue with their plans to place a ballot initiative to stop certain farming practices on next year’s ballot whether Issue 2 passes or fails. This seems odd that proponents for Issue 2 are professing that a yes vote will stop the HSUS and other animal rights groups from doing this very thing.
I learned today why Issue 2 cannot stop these special interest groups from pushing their agenda on Ohio’s farmers. The State Senate passed SJR6 (Issue 2) with specific language to “Grant exclusive authority to the Board to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock in this stateâ€. The adjective “exclusive†is necessary so that no competing authority can overrule the board’s authority.
When SJR6 went to the House it was changed. The word “exclusive†was stricken from the resolution so that it now allows for other authorities, such as other Constitutional amendments, to overrule the Standards Board. Sadly few are aware of this and believe that Issue 2 will really protect them when the reality is that it can’t. The HSUS can easily pass a ballot initiative that will overrule SJR6, and they intend to do so.
At any rate, many thanks to Sen. Carey for the AYE vote on SCR-13!
Gabe McGranahan, So you would vote for issue 2 if it has the “exclusive” language in it?
The League of Women Voters doesn’t see “powerful special interests” taking over. Please provide some links so we know who these are. There is no search button on your blog so I can’t find posts on this.
The first 3 links have the proposed amendment the last is the ballot language.
http://www.smartvoter.org/2009/11/03/oh/state/issue/2/
http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_SJR_6
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/2-final_explanation.pdf
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/upload/ballotboard/2009/2-final_language.pdf
Can you please explain how two consumers, two veterinarians, 3 family farmers and a county humane society rep constitute special interests on this board? That is 8 out of 13 slots, a majority. Links please to your allegations.
My main concern is that it’s an amendment and I am generally opposed to them on principle but that is “generally” not “always”. I am opposed to private business plans in the constitution such as Issue 3 but there are times amendments are needed.
Also,
“The Board would have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio, subject only to the authority of the General Assembly.”
So it is subject to the GA and is not a completely unaccountable board.
I found additional thoughts here without a for/against but possible scenarios:
http://agvanwert.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/some-thoughts-on-ohio-issue-2/
To TenthAmendment center, if this is too far of topic for the post I’ll quit asking questions. Let me know.
The Ohio LWV is opposed to Issue 2. http://lwvohio.igpr.com/base.cfm?page_id=1678
Really there is only one question… Who should have the final say as to how livestock are raised and cared for in the state of Ohio?
I say farmers.
Issue 2 creates a government bureaucracy in and of itself. One full of appointees. Only 3 of which actually represent family farms. On a board of 13, chaired by the director of the Ohio Dept of Agriculture. Chairmen decide what is voted upon and discussed. Other members of this board will include 1) “The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university located in this state”. A dean of a state funded and subsidied organization. Hmm… I feel safer. 2) “The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture”. Again… no chance of partisan politics or special interests being served here. I feel even safer now. Partisan politics, and therefore special interests will reign supreme on this board.
When the HSUS submits their legislation, I will oppose it too. But, Issue 2 is the wrong way to prevent it from occurring.
So yes… it is a state sovereignty issue. But not yet. Right now it is a personal sovereignty issue. A farmers sovereignty issue.
Here’s the Ohio Freedom Alliance blog on the subject: http://www.ohiofreedom.com/?p=296
Thanks Michael (TAC) for the leeway.
Thanks for the link to your site.
Seems we agree on a few things.
I had seen a few emails coming this way about issue 2 in Ohio. Glad I’ve got a link to a good blog post on the subject now! Gabe, Barb, thank you both for bringing up this important issue…
states rights are an exceedingly important part of the government of the united states, but at the same time some states tend to pioneer while others lag in adopting necessary legislation. remember adhering to states rights prevented women from voting until 1920, blacks until 1964 – for all the talk of america being the land of the free, we were way behind such bastions of democracy as ukraine, the soviet union and azerbaijan to name but a few in granting women the right to vote.
as for epa regulations – climate change is happening. like evolution some may choose not to believe it, but that doesn’t make it any less real. the core question remains what is causing the change is it natural, is it man made or is it a combination? allow me to give an allegory. say you had a tree in your backyard, the tree towers over your home and has a tire swing attached to one of the branches. one day while your kids are playing on the swing you hear a large crack. you invite five tree surgeons over and four of the five say unfortunately the tire swing is causing unnecessary stress on the root system and it will eventually come unrooted and crush your home; the fifth surgeon says the tree is fine and is going through a natural life cycle change. wouldn’t you take some precautions? remove the tire swing? add support to the tree so if it does fall it won’t land on your roof? don’t wrap the danger to our environment up in politics or left/right nonsense. the danger is very real and regardless of its cause steps must be taken to affect change. many of those steps are going to be unpleasant in the short-term, but as a country we’ve shirked short-term sacrifice for short-term gain for 30 years now.
Senator John Carey,
Please don’t take my comments the wrong way, you have done a good work, and have built a foundation for state sovereignty, but the hard to impossible task of building on that foundation will be the real challenge. Where you have just now arrived in Ohio, Idaho has been for months.
As we both know, the Feds could care less about Idaho and Ohio sending them a sovereignty resolution, when it arrives in DC, it figurative goes in the trash can and is forgotten.
The challenge for you, your fellow Legislators, and Governor of Ohio is to actively reject and nullify incoming Federal mandates and laws that usurp 10th Amendment rights, review and nullify existing laws that usurp 10th Amendment rights, and prepare a budget that will enable Ohio to operate without the Federal finding you will lose if you actually enforce your sovereignty resolution.
If you are able to accomplice all that, please let me know how you did it.
I have been trying for months to move the Idaho Legislature and Governor to act on their resolution (HJM No.4), but alas the feds have us by the throat through Federal funding, and the Idaho Legislature and Governor have demonstrated that they are not going to do anything to jeopardize their dependency on said funds.
We have had a petition circulating through Idaho for months, requesting the Idaho Legislature and Governor put force of action to their resolution, but so far they have ignored it.
@dashiel
You are right. Climate change is happening. It’s getting colder.
When 31,000 scientists sign a petition declaring they don’t believe in climate change (http://www.oism.org/pproject/), then something is wrong. Stop stating “climate change is happening” when in reality the federal government is really trying to make us a third-world nation by taxing all of our energy supplies and making us ultimately non-competitive with the rest of the world. It’s nothing but scare tactics so the feds can milk us for more money and destroy our economy.
Back on topic. Oppose issue 2!
As a Farm Bureau member I worked on our local committee to find ways to fight and defeat HSUS and PETA at their own game.
My problem with this constitutional amendment is the excessive power it places in the hands of a 13 member group of non-elected bureaucrats.
This issue should not have been a constitutional amendment. The same objective to thwart PETA and HSUS could have been accomplished by including the key words “agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being†in section 900 of the Ohio Revised Code.
The big question for me is, “What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure?†If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
VOTE NO on ISSUE 2
Issue 2 is an expansion of State Government that creates unchecked power and new layers of unaccountable bureaucracy over our livestock farmers.
What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure? If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
The text of issue 2 shows just how rushed the process was and how little thought went into doing the job right. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not even an imperfect solution. It is not a solution at all. The correct solution is to add the proper language into Ohio Revised Code, a process that would require both the House and Senate to debate and agree on language and the Governor to sign the bill into law.
We are being told that this Board will protect farms from animal rights groups, but what will protect the farmers from the Board, a panel of bureaucrats without accountability?
After reading the proposed resolution, we have several questions regarding Issue 2.
Why did the Ohio Farmers Union decide to oppose issue 2 in their August meeting?
Will we need a license or permit to own and raise livestock in this state?
Will special training and classes be required to obtain the right to raise livestock?
Will someone come to our farm to ensure that we follow the guidelines set forth by this Board, without search warrants or probable cause?
Will we be criminals, and subject to fines/prison if we disagree with the standards set by the Board and fail to comply?
Will these board members be paid? If so, who decides their salary?
How will the actions of this board be funded: by taxpayers or farmers?
How will Board decrees be enforced?
How long will the terms of appointees be? Indefinite or limited?
Why is this Board given “excusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state†instead of the farmer?
Why are the members of this Board appointed (10 by Governor) and not voted into their position by the farmers themselves?
What appeal process will be available for those who wish to challenge the standards set by this Board? Will that appeal require a fee also?
Why only three “family farmers� Won’t they be outnumbered by the other 10 non-farmers?
What effect will the approval of the Board have on organic and all natural farms?
Why is Farm Bureau using fear to provoke the acceptance of this amendment?
Will this Board view livestock as the private property of the farmers with Divine right to govern them as their own conscience directs? Or is livestock the property of the State?
Will this Board establish rules regarding vaccines?
Will we be required to keep updated farm records and submit them annually to this board?
Will the Amish of Ohio be exempt from any rules that contradict their religious beliefs?
Why would we want to establish a government entity to “protect us (farmers) from special interest groups†when the very way these groups achieve their goals is to lobby and control government entities?
Doesn’t this proposed amendment contradict the original FFA Creed. paragraph three, which states:
I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly, with such knowledge and skill as I can secure, and in the ability of organized farmers to serve our own and public interest in marketing the product of our toil. I believe we can safeguard those rights against practices and policies that are unfair.
If we have sworn the oath of the Pledge Of Allegiance, which professes “Liberty and Justice for all,†since this amendment takes the liberty to raise livestock from an individual farmer and gives it to the direct control of the State, would we be committing hypocrisy according to our spoken oath?
Are horses included under the authority of this Board? If not, shouldn’t they be protected from animal rights groups too and be subject to the standards decreed by this Board?
Is forfeiture of liberty the only way to protect livestock farms in Ohio from animal rights groups? Are there other options available?
In conclusion, we support the opposition to Issue 2 as expressed by the Ohio Farmers Union, The League of Women Voters, Ohio Food and Water Watch, The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and all the major newspapers in Ohio.