Concordia res Parvae Crescunt
by Josh Eboch
In a recent piece at the Huffington Post, columnist David Sirota attempted to advance a somewhat tortured political theory, one he called “Progressive Federalism,” that demonstrated two important things; neither of which were likely what he intended.
First, despite the ignorant vitriol against “tenthers,” the state sovereignty movement is alive, well, and continuing to gain much-needed penetration into the national political discussion.
And second, when it comes to advancing statism, some members of the so-called media elite either utterly lack knowledge of history or have no regard whatsoever for the meaning of words.
Sirota’s article starts out innocently enough, quoting the New York Times‘ definition of Progressive Federalism as an ideology whereby “governors and activist state attorneys general [are allowed to] lead the way on environmental initiatives, consumer protection and other issues.”
States setting their own environmental and consumer protection standards? So far so good.
In fact, one might be forgiven for confusing Sirota’s Progressive Federalism with the good old fashioned Jeffersonian kind that was codified in our Constitution.
But then, showing his ignorance of the history behind both federalism and state sovereignty, Sirota follows up with this gem:
[I]n order for Progressive Federalism to happen, the federal government has to be supportive of floors, not ceilings — that is, oriented toward setting minimum progressive regulatory standards that states must at least comply with, not maximum regulatory ceilings that states are not allowed to go above and beyond.
In other words, “governors and activist state attorneys general” may foist as much progressive policy onto voters as they can get away with, but no less than the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. determine is necessary for their own power lust.
Heads they win, tails you lose.
Experimenting with 50 laboratories of progressivism may sound like a great idea to some, but a wasteful, corrupt political class holding sway over the entire country sounds like a nightmare to me. Which is why the point of federalism was not to institutionalize Sirota’s brand of liberal self-righteousness, but rather to divide power so that no ideological camp could gain control over a central authority and so assert their agenda by force.
Contrary to the prevailing attitude in politics and the media today, the words of our founders do still have meaning for many Americans. They value both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, and, as its Tenth Amendment underscores, that document intentionally placed each state on coequal footing with the federal government, which the sovereign states themselves created.
In no place other than the very minimal, very enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, did the states surrender any sovereignty at all. Which means that, quite simply, the states don’t need permission to exercise any of the countless rights left to their individual discretion.
If progressives like David Sirota wish to claim that the power of the federal government over their own lives has always been unlimited, simply because its three branches now act as if it is, they are certainly free to do so. Just as we who fear and detest centralized power are free to point out the historical errors in that logic.
But Sirota’s misunderstanding of history (willful or otherwise) is no excuse for allowing him to repackage his paternalistic fantasies as federalism. Intellectual honesty demands that our opponents not justify their incessant drive toward absolutism by perverting the meaning and intent of a constitutional system designed explicitly to abolish it.
Josh is a freelance writer and journalist originally from the Washington D.C. area. He is a cynically optimistic and unrepentant news junkie. His work has been published locally and in Charleston, SC. Email Josh.
In private life, Rob Natelson is a long-time conservative/free market activist, but professionally he is a constitutional scholar whose meticulous studies of the Constitution's original meaning have been published or cited by many top law journals. (See: www.constitution.i2i.org/about/.) Most recently, he co-authored The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause (Cambridge University Press) and The Original Constitution (Tenth Amendment Center). After a quarter of a century as Professor of Law at the University of Montana, he recently retired to work full time at Colorado's Independence Institute.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Consider that by default the Federal Government is actively acknowledging States’ rights under the 10th. Most any Federal violation of the 10th perpetrated against the States comes with some form of punishment for failure to comply. This knowing act in and of itself is self evident that the Federal Government has a belief that the various States must thereby possess a Constitutional right of refusal under such circumstances and therefore must be coerced into compliance if they do not “voluntarily†implement the subject Federal legislation. If this were not true, it would be perfectly clear in the Constitution that States would be legally bound into compliance with any and all Federal legislation passed by Congress or Presidential order.
Other than voting, what is the single point of contact people in our States have with the Federal Government? - The tax return. If the people of the various states were instructed by their Governors and State Legislators to massively ignore selected Federal law, not much would or could happen to the people other than they would turn to their state leaders for more guidance. This would create the exact exposure state legislators would need in moving forward. Using a move out of the Community Organizer’s playbook to “swamp the systemâ€, literally hundreds of lawsuits would need to be filed by the Federal Government and the States could also file their share. If the States chose to ignore, say, just 25 Federal doctrines that would be 25 X 50 or at a minimum 1,250 high level court cases.
This way might be more effective (and in vogue by Progressive standards) in countering the threat to our States. Voting has been our traditional approach to governmental problems but I too agree we are playing with a stacked deck, i.e. Heads I Win – Tails You Loose. They think they have this figured out this time. I say all this because it looks like over half of the unspent stimulus money will be available for disbursement in perfect timely synchronization with the midterm election campaign. Make no mistake; your tax money will be used to insure Progressives maintain full control over congress and in various state elections. Thank you very much but don’t worry, you won’t have to pay it all back, your kids will do that for you.
“Progressive Federalism,†Talk about a contradiction in terms. Just another liberal with a selective memory....movr along folks, just the usual mefty moonbat garbage.
Our politicians , having declared themselves over and above the voters have become a new form of "royalty".
I refer you to your local public library: Go there and read up on the events that led to the French Revolution.
It was necessary to eliminate all of the “royals” to prevent a recurrence of the horrors their government had perpetrated against them. Our “royals” are of the same mold.
The solution? Where can we get an operable guillotine?
Lots of if this then thats but no quick fix. Well, there is one if a certain judge pulls his finger out of the breeze and seeks direction from the intention of the original defenders of liberty as is his humble duty.
Old Jim has a great plan but as power goes so does cash and that is something the true communist knows to lavish in the right circles and in our case it is the paychecks of government employees. Those bucks have a trail of allegiance called family benefits which effectively multiplies power among the ruling class/ feeders at the trough. Toss in some apathy and you have a real internal threat that is just as dangerous as an external invader only it wisely clothes itself in terms the lay person can grasp. It will not matter to those who accept a paycheck that they abet a crime and it matters greatly to the educated that they do what they can to raise the alarm but the vast majority will enslave themselves willingly until at some point they realize they were fooled. What then? History shows the result of this chicanery and one that comes to mind that is most closely related to the sly usurpation technique is the last great one, the nationalist socialists. Today they would be known as the nationalist progressives. They are twins in the assent to power so far. Lets just keep watching this child grow as a spoiled brat, issuing tantrums daily, and see what it becomes. If you believe in fate do nothing assertive.
TSB is right. The destroyers of the Constitution love the term "progressive." It sounds so right.
Those of us who insist on the Foundations - the United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, The Ten Commandments of Almighty God are termed "regressive."
The "attack" is that we do not want to move forward!!! My question is what is this "forward movement all about????"
You guessed it. Destroy the Foundations of America - the Constitution, especially so "they" can "progress" to "our" enslavement.
That's why "we, the people" insist on our "Liberty in Law" - The Constitution of the United States.
Back to the Foundations, we do not want to "pay for their "progressive schemes" and that is what it is all about anyway. Making us pay for "their progressive schemes." The bones of the taxpayers have already been picked clean by the "Vultures of these Progressive schemes. LEAVE US(the United States) ALONE.
For God & Country
Ruth Ann Wilson
Consider that by default the Federal Government is actively acknowledging States’ rights under the 10th. Most any Federal violation of the 10th perpetrated against the States comes with some form of punishment for failure to comply. This knowing act in and of itself is self evident that the Federal Government has a belief that the various States must thereby possess a Constitutional right of refusal under such circumstances and therefore must be coerced into compliance if they do not “voluntarily” implement the subject Federal legislation. If this were not true, it would be perfectly clear in the Constitution that States would be legally bound into compliance with any and all Federal legislation passed by Congress or Presidential order.
Other than voting, what is the single point of contact people in our States have with the Federal Government? - The tax return. If the people of the various states were instructed by their Governors and State Legislators to massively ignore selected Federal law, not much would or could happen to the people other than they would turn to their state leaders for more guidance. This would create the exact exposure state legislators would need in moving forward. Using a move out of the Community Organizer’s playbook to “swamp the system”, literally hundreds of lawsuits would need to be filed by the Federal Government and the States could also file their share. If the States chose to ignore, say, just 25 Federal doctrines that would be 25 X 50 or at a minimum 1,250 high level court cases.
This way might be more effective (and in vogue by Progressive standards) in countering the threat to our States. Voting has been our traditional approach to governmental problems but I too agree we are playing with a stacked deck, i.e. Heads I Win – Tails You Loose. They think they have this figured out this time. I say all this because it looks like over half of the unspent stimulus money will be available for disbursement in perfect timely synchronization with the midterm election campaign. Make no mistake; your tax money will be used to insure Progressives maintain full control over congress and in various state elections. Thank you very much but don’t worry, you won’t have to pay it all back, your kids will do that for you.
"Progressive" preceding ANYTHING is not to be trusted. Progressive = Socialism. It's elite double speak. Translate - BS.
Progressive Federalism my ass...It is Progressive Revisionism plain and simple.
“Progressive Federalism,” Talk about a contradiction in terms. Just another liberal with a selective memory....movr along folks, just the usual mefty moonbat garbage.
All these blissninnies need a slap in the back of the head.
Let's say for instance all their expanding powers of government are in fact held by Saint Obama and the Bambi brigade; all is well in the world and the expanded government power users channel Saint Francis, defy gravity and the laws of statistics in their benoveolent rush to save us from the loss of a non-native smelt in San Fransisco Bay, grow sunflower seeds with hot air, and each sits beneath his own olive tree in the San Joaquin with loaves and fishes and "smack! smack!" a fount of cool water from Moses as he hits a rock with his staff.
Well, Nancy, those expanded powers are a fat black juicy plum hanging low in the garden. Rest assured the base, the vile, the blood thirsty, and the avaricial will lick their chops with a "SHINK SHINK SHINK" as they rub the blades together getting ready for dinner, and we're on the menu.
Silly cows.
This is typical marxist methodology to obfuscate the meaning of a word to make it acceptable
Consider-- marxist=communist=statist=socialist=progressive. Democrat belongs in that list somewhere,probably after statist.
The communist party in France recently decided to change their name to the socialist party. I'd bet it won't be long before they change it to the progressive party.
Anyone reading the 'huffy paste' is evidence of their mattoidial malady.
Others giving them credibilty by bringing their existence into the public discourse is suspect of behavior modification.
Drop the dribble!
@Rich - that is an absurd statement.
HuffPo is the 47th most read website in the US.
FoxNews is 40, CBSNews is 345, and TownHall is 1,179 (for some examples)
As an educational organization, it's our role - and our duty - to provide examples of commonly held misbeliefs about the Constitutional role of government. Huffington Post is an excellent example, and we'll continue to do so.
If you'd prefer to live in a cave and just ignore the opposition, I encourage you to go do so, but don't snipe at us for doing our job.
Yes, Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist (that is, Republican) in the 1790s, but that shouldn't be confused with an Antifederalist (opponent of federal reform) in the 1770s/'80s.
In fact, if my intellect does not fail me now, Mr Jefferson was an ANTI-federalist (versus Mr Hamilton, who was a Federalist). Progressive federalism sounds like more hogwash! Much like their method of absconding with the term "democracy"....many think now their brand of democracy is true Americanism....indeed, it is nothing but from the playbook of Karl Marx. Jefferson's main argument and concern with Mr Hamilton was the centralization of too much power in the national government, (versus that of individual and state). And environmental initiatives????? That is just another shell game by the communist party here in America AND abroad. Progressive federalism? Hmmmm.....I guess if it works for them. I don't believe, though, that is what Hamilton had in mind. And I hate that term progressive....as if the rest of us are.....regressive?
More excellence from Mr Eboch. Thank you for pointing out the total lack of reason and logic from the establishment media on these issues.
"Ignore the man behind the curtain...look, we're HELPING PEOPLE! Hooray!"
It's just such blatant hypocrisy...these people objected vehemently when it was W pushing his ideological agenda. Now that it's their illusions of humanitarian philosophy, they love tyranny.
Somebody re-animate Murrow, quickly.
Misconceptions about federalism
http://disinter.wordpress.com/2009/05/30/misconceptions-about-federalism/
Josh - Finland, as most European countries who recall the moment of truth hailed when the Bastille was breached, knows the power and ownership of any nation resides in the people.
I just turned off TV. Bill Maher's real time was attempting mass hypnosis with neo liberal shill Chaffe of Rhode Island. Chaffe was heart broken, and born again tough, at how the Taliban treated women. Meanwhile Senator (choke) sessions was on the floor at the podium attempting to excuse Haliburton for gang rape of a female Haliburton employee. And, as expected, no one on Billy's Dilly ever mentions the number of fetus homicides cause by Merikon DU in Iraq or the number of brides Merikon Predator UAVs have killed when the arm chair murderers in the control rooms suspected any of many Muslim weddings were, instead, really a cover for AL KADA conventions. Hilary is jumping on Russia for Human Rights violations - snicker - what a fat puta that fat cheeked biache has become!
Puffy Huffy is just another Zog Hog that will be flogged and fed to the dogs. Glenn Greenwald literally handed her her hat on Morning Meeting:
http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/youtube-glenn-greenwald-arianna-huffington-discuss/
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2012 by Tenth Amendment Center
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter and di kele, Liberty Ideals. Liberty Ideals said: A Note to the Huffington Post: Federalism Is Not ?Progressive? #libertarian http://bit.ly/4metnK [...]
[...] Finland has just passed a law making access to broadband a legal right for Finnish citizens. A Note to the Huffington Post: Federalism Is Not ‘Progressive’ – tenthamendmentcenter.com 10/15/2009 by Josh Eboch In a recent piece at the Huffington Post, [...]