by Gary Johnson
EDITOR’S NOTE: We are pleased to announce that former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson will be joining us as a featured speaker at Nullify Now! on 10-10-10 in Orlando, Florida. Click here for more information and to reserve tickets now. (for additional tour stops, visit http://www.nullifynow.com)
As the governor of New Mexico, I spent eight years dealing with issues unique and specific to our state – addressing immigration, education, the privatization of our prison system, ways to streamline state agencies, and keeping our spending under control. During those eight years, we proved that, with a little common sense and by embracing the reality that government is not the answer to every question, spending can be controlled, bureaucracy can be reduced, and individuals can manage their own lives.
Last December, after growing not just alarmed, but angry at the direction of the current government in Washington, we launched the OUR America Initiative to help give voice to those same ideas I put to work in New Mexico. Since then I’ve been traveling around the country, visiting a total of 23 states so far.
During these travels, I’ve realized more than ever that not only are Americans ready for a very different direction, but that each of the 50 states must deal with its own unique set of challenges, needs and priorities.
As a nation, we’ve been hearing a lot about states’ rights lately, particularly in the context of Arizona’s immigration reform law, and the Obama administration’s very bad decision to challenge that state law in court.
I have said that I would not have signed the Arizona immigration law, because I’m concerned it could lead to racial profiling. But, having served as governor of another border state, New Mexico, I empathize with Arizona’s frustration, and absolutely support the prerogative of that state’s officials to act. Think about it: Congress and the federal government have failed, due to political cowardice, to do anything meaningful about immigration reform; yet when a desperate border state does decide to do something, the feds go running into court claiming that Arizona is trying to usurp their authority.
The situation in Arizona is a crystallizing example of how the federal government has taken the very limited authority granted it by the Constitution and expanded that authority to make a mockery of states’ rights and primacy.
How many times have we heard in the weeks since the Arizona law was enacted that “Immigration is a federal issue?” Certainly, securing our border and managing the flow of people across that border is an appropriate federal role – consistent with the Constitution. But, where is it written in the founding documents that a state doesn’t have the right to enact its own laws and policies relating to immigrants, both legal and illegal, who choose to enter and reside in that state?
I would suggest that just the opposite is true. Every state is different, and is presented with its own challenges and opportunities related to immigration – and countless other issues. Rather than trying, as the Obama administration is doing, to stop Arizona from implementing its own approach, we should be encouraging the states to be the policy laboratories they were intended to be in our federal system.
Arizona feels it needs to enact state law to deal with illegal immigrants. Similarly, farmers in a state like Iowa need a guest worker program that actually meets their needs for reliable, economical and legal seasonal labor. Each state needs a system where willing employers and willing immigrant workers can connect in a practical, realistic and most importantly, legal, way. And if Congress lacks the courage to enact that kind of system, why shouldn’t state legislators be free to come up with policies that serve their unique needs? That is what state primacy and federalism are all about, and should be encouraged – not punished — by an overreaching federal government.
Immigration is the issue that is right in front of us today, but it is just the tip of the states’ rights iceberg. Education, welfare, health care, drug policy: These are just a few of the issues that have been slowly but surely usurped by the feds – with no real basis in the Constitution or the clear intent of the Founders.
As the Honorary Chairman of the Our America Initiative, challenging these federal power grabs is one of my highest priorities. Someone needs to ask the obvious questions about why the federal government insists on doing so much, spending so much, and attempting to ultimately control so many local issues.
We can see where their approach has gotten us: borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the government spends, with no end in sight.
The time has never been better for a long-overdue reassessment of the balance of power between the federal government and the 50 individual states. If it takes a controversial Arizona immigration law, or an insane federal takeover of health care to bring this debate to a head, so be it. Let’s have this debate and let common sense – and genuine states’ rights – prevail.
Gary Johnson is the honorary chairman of the OUR America Initiative (www.ouramericainitiative.com) and the former Republican governor of New Mexico (1994-2002).
States do not have the right to act as tyranical entities. It has nothing to do with immigration being a sate or federal issue, it has to do with Arizona infringing upon the rights of their citizens in the name of oppressing non-citizens.
Actually, under the constitution, states have the authority to do all kinds of bad things. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. the idea is simple – when those bad ideas are limited in size and scope to just one area, the odds that they will last long are much lower.
We have been doing it the other way around for a long time- where everything is decided on a national level. How’s that working?
Concise and very true, Michael.
States are only limited by what the constitition says they are limited by. There are few limitations placed on states stated in the constitutin itself and outside those limitations a state can do anything because the only power any government has is the law itself. Anything outside the law is untouchable by that government.
Here is the real kicker behind the relationship between state and federal government. Even if a state did do something illegal that may not mean the federal government can stop them since they only have the powers granted to them. They may not have the legal power to stop a state even if the state is doing something quite illegal.
Why would any state act as a tyranical entity when and if the state became so bad they know the people can simply leave. This puts a check on the behavior of the legislatures because they know their authority can be checked by the people so they are less likely to pass tyrnaical laws. Think of small towns. Do they pass really bad laws? Rarely do they do because they know people can leave but the larger and higher up you go the more you see bad laws being passed.
Bret
States have the 'rights' given to them by the people who founded them and who control them. States do not exist in the real world and are not tangible entities. The citizens of a state agree to a set of rules called a state constitution that controls what the people who work for the state can and cannot do.
Whether the AZ law in question violates the AZ state constitution and its protections of the rights of the citizens of AZ can be determined by the AZ court system. If the people of AZ are not happy with the outcome, they can amend their constitution and/or replace their legislators.
For the purposes of this web site, the issue is whether the federal government has any say in this matter and, if so, how much. So, contrary to your assertion, I submit this AZ law has everything to do with state vs. federal powers.
@ Bret Alan. Say what?
If one actually reads teh law, they find that racial profiling is not allowed in accordance with the law. The law talks at length about how Federal law is being applied at a State level. If it is racial profiling at the State level, it is racial profiling at the Federal level. And unlike what Obama has stated about being at the ice cream store and having a cop ask for your papers, it states exactly how after you are already being detained for violating another law, only then can the police ask about immigration status. Does it mean that someone won't be stupid and improperly enforce the law? No. We have that with every other law out there. There are always people who will do stupid thing and unfortunately some of them are Law Enforcement Officers, but does that mean that Arizona should just throw its hands up in the air and expect our inept Federal Government to actually do its job when border security has been an abismal failure? The Arizona law, unlike what has been coming out of DC lately, was short and concise and covered all the bases. We can't say that about most federal laws and all of them since 20 January 2009.
Mr. Johnson says he would not have signed the AZ law because "it could lead to racial profiling.” That’s going to take a lot more explanation for me to accept as sufficient justification. As a former governor, Mr. Johnson was required to follow the NM state constitution just as Jan Brewer is bound to follow the AZ state constitution. Mr. Johnson needs to refer to that document and its SPECIFIC provisions in order to determine that a law duly passed by the AZ legislature should be vetoed. I’m not seeing that anywhere in his extremely brief analysis.
I went to the “Our America” web site and read about his initiative. To me, Mr. Johnson and the initiative he represents don't have the ring of clarity and consistency I hear when I read or hear something from Ron Paul. Ron Paul is consistent and clear because the US Constitution is always his guide. Every issue is answered by Paul with a reference to some part of the Constitution (much like this web site). Without that, Our America reads more like a political candidate’s issue statements based on his personal views and NOT based on the unchanging words of the US Constitution.
For example, on drugs, Our America believes:
“Marijuana should be regulated and taxed by the federal government (just like tobacco is currently), which would lead to a lower price for the product and eliminate the criminal element from its distribution, much like the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol many decades back.”
Where in the US Constitution does the federal government get the power to regulate and tax marijuana? That doesn’t sound like someone who supports “state rights” and the 10th amendment to me…
His statement about taxes is simply that they “should not be raised.” Not much substance there. His issue statement about the Middle East wars contains no reference to the US Constitution at all.
FWIW, I believe Mr. Johnson's initiative would be greatly helped by a clear and consistent reference to the US Constitution as the source of the answers to all the questions we face. That assumes, of course, that he actually believes in following the original intent of the US Constitution. Reading Our America, it’s hard to reach that conclusion.
I do believe that the Federal Government has the Supreme Power over the 50 states it governs over, and it has been that way since the Constitution was written and should stayt that way!…Why do states want to challenge the Federal Government over issues that are clearly at the Federal level?