Bridging the Political Chasm

  • Share on Tumblr

by Michael Maharrey

The issue of state sovereignty, and a balance of power between State and federal governments, as explicitly stated in the 10th Amendment, should span political ideologies and party lines. But many, particularly Democrats and folks leaning toward the left side of the political aisle, misunderstand, believing that “tenthers” belong exclusively to the “right” or to the Republican Party.

Undeniably, some have hijacked the Tenth Amendment for their own causes, narrowly applying the principles of state sovereignty and limited federal power to specific issues. But the Tenth Amendment Center stands for an even application of the Tenth and constitutional principles, limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers, even in cases where we may find the outcomes advocated by the feds favorable.

Our eyes remain singularly focused on the process, regardless of political outcome. We stand solidly committed to James Madison’s summary of the powers delegated to the federal government.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce; with which the last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

True advocates of the Tenth Amendment don’t necessarily oppose government health care solutions. We just insist health care falls under state authority and any government run system must evolve at the state level. We don’t necessarily favor the legalization of drugs, but understand that the federal government has no Constitutional authority to prosecute a drug war. Each state must make its own decisions about the legalization of marijuana and other substances. “Tenthers” don’t necessarily oppose public funding for art, but recognize the federal government does not have the authority to pass out money for the arts. States must create their own mechanisms for art funding, if they deem it a priority. Political liberals should welcome the intended constitutional restrictions on waging war.

Democrats as well as Republicans, those leaning toward the political left as well as those leaning to the right, should embrace the Tenth Amendment, because it protects every citizen from the dangers of concentrated power. The founders created dual sovereignty for this very reason. They feared the tyranny inherent in big, centralized governments.

Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this principle brilliantly in a 1996 Supreme Court Ruling striking down parts of the Brady bill in Mack/Printz v. USA.

“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.

The great innovation of this design was that our citizens would have two political capacities, one state and one federal, each protected by incursion from the other ‘ – -’a legal system unprecedented in form and design, establishing two orders of government, each with its own direct relationship, its own privity, its own set of mutual rights and obligations to the people who sustain it and are governed by it.’ U.S. Term Limits Inc. v. Thornton 514 U.S. 779 838 (1995) (Kennedy J., concurring). The Constitution thus contemplates that a State’s government will represent and remain accountable to its own citizens.

The Original Constitution

Get the New Book Today!

“As Madison expressed it: ‘The local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere’ The Federalist No. 39 at 245.

“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty”

In an era of increasing political divisiveness, perhaps citizens embracing widely varied political ideologies can find a rallying spot and common ground around the Constitution, the 10th Amendment and the political processes brilliantly devised by our founders. Perhaps a rediscovery of the constitutional principles envisioned by our founders can serve as a bridge spanning different ideologies. While we may disagree on the role of government in various aspects of our lives, surely we can agree on working out those differences within a system designed to protect the freedom’s and liberties of every citizen.

About Mike Maharrey

Michael Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He proudly resides in the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky. See his blog archive here and his article archive here. He also maintains the blog, Tenther Gleanings.

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?

, ,

14 comments
Allen
Allen

In response, this is what we have signed on to, as a Government and as a people:
MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS:
MDGs and what some of the world thinks of Obama: http://blogs.america.gov/obama/2010/09/24/preside...
US EPA http://www.epa.gov/ncer/biodiversity/gsn.html
USAID-MDGs http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/mdg/
American support for MDGs: http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/Se... http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/0... http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/14879... http://www.state.gov/s/gwi/rls/rem/2010/146926.ht... http://www.mcc.gov/pages/activities/activity/mdgs http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/content-0831... http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/2010/147211.htm http://geneva.usmission.gov/2010/08/02/mdgs-us-st... http://www.un.org/partnerships/Docs/BCLC_Agenda.p... http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/ecosoc...
The question which must be asked now is, What are MDGs and where did they originate?
In September 2000, the United States committed to the United Nations Millennium Declaration, which contains goals for reducing poverty and hunger, strengthening access to education, and improving health, including combating major diseases, by 2015. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ http://www.un.org/esa/desa/desaNews/v13n03/global... http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/julyhls/pdf/philanthr... http://www.un.org/en/ga/second/64/1210summary.pdf
Lets not forget the Sec Gen Ban Ki-Moon:
“I had an opportunity of meeting Senator John Kerry yesterday in Poznan and I was very much encouraged by meeting him. He is going to be the next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate and he assured me that, as next Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he will fully cooperate with the United Nations. And also it is my expectation that, again, the new Administration will be much more actively engaged with the United Nations, on climate change, the Millennium Development Goals, and many other major United Nations issues” http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1235
Healthcare MDGs:
Our laws don’t apply:
“US Healthcare Laws 2010: The UN healthcare plans are not subject to US Healthcare Laws. Therefore the UN is not changing the maximum age for covered dependents. However, this request will be brought to the attention of the Health and Life Insurance Committee in preparation for July 2011 renewals. Currently, the UNHQ plans cover children until 31 December of the year they reach 25. We are working with our carriers to ensure that their customer service representatives are providing our staff members and retirees with the correct information.”
From this: http://www.un.org/Depts/oppba/accounts/insurance/ http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/chronicle/cach...
“USA: The commitments detailed in this document build on important recent efforts,
notably President Obama’s Global Health Initiative (GHI), a $63 billion initiative to
help partner countries save lives and achieve sustainable health outcomes.”
P12 from this report: http://www.un.org/sg/hf/global_strategy_commitmen...

Davy Crockett
Davy Crockett

Despite the massive evidence of history, liberal-socialist-'progressives' think that government experts will make wiser decisions than will individuals who have freedom to make their own decisions. They don't see the inherent tendency of governments to become more corrupt and tyrannical over time, if unchecked. It may stem from the wrong notion that mankind is inherently good, contrary to history and Bible doctrine.

Nostril
Nostril

Despite the massive evidence of history, liberal-socialist-'progressives' think that government experts will make wiser decisions than will individuals who have freedom to make their own decisions. They don't see the inherent tendency of governments to become more corrupt and tyrannical over time, if unchecked. It may stem from the wrong notion that mankind is inherently good, contrary to history and Bible doctrine.
While we shouldn't spend a lot of effort courting liberals, 'big government' conservatives are much more winnable due to their understanding that power corrupts human nature.

Stormytime
Stormytime

Yes, nice thoughts in this article, but that would mean the end of our national food fights! Its so much more fun to have our local issues get debated in congress and on prime time cable television! I jokes!! I jokes!! Frankly, I don't know why we continue to bother with state government. All they do is get in the way of national unity. Oh, sorry, I was reminising about the good 'ol days in Russia.

KY10th
KY10th

Fair-weather Tenther. Can I steal that? I love it!

George Hall
George Hall

One problem that some liberals have with federalism is their perception of "unfairness" in local laws. They can't understand why if a law is good why it wouldn't apply to everyone in the country. Likewise they think it’s very unfair that someone can use medical marijuana in California but not in Tennessee. Their solution is to operate at the national level. If local laws are being forced upon people then I can understand their "unfair" perception. But they miss the key concepts of more responsive local government and the ability of states to experiment with new laws, like medical marijuana, or learn from their neighbor's mistakes, like medical marijuana (?). We need to remind the liberal proponents of centralized power that Federalism results in a much more responsive union of 50 separate legal test tubes, in which progressive laws can be tested more quickly and effectively than at the national level.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I think most liberals operate with the idea of what they think is universally true so if a law is good for them then it must be good for everyone. The problem with that is that not everyone knows what is 'perfect' so who has the right to impose their opinion of the perfect law onto another?

I think we tried that argument of allowing states and locals to be testtubes and it doesn't get us anywhere. I think it would be better to remind them that their freedom to do things in their own local is in jeapordy when they are not allowed to live by the laws they want. I think the argument should always should be about freedom and not outcome because you can disagree about outcome but you can't disagree about freedom. Its easier to measure because you simply have to point out that people in such and such state don't face legal repercussions for doing XYZ. They are immune from the restrictions another state may apply on its own citizens.

Roger Prather
Roger Prather

Well said, although I would expand that to say that both establishment liberals and establishment conservatives operate with the idea of what they think is universally true.

I absolutely agree that the argument should always be about freedom and liberty. The people of each state are free to govern themselves as they see fit, without fear of reprisal from someone in some distant place that has no clue. The problem, of course, is human nature, particularly applied to politics, to control and influence everything.

That being said, "Tenther" philosophy is the most coherent way to transcend party politics by focusing on individual liberty within the constitutional context.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Exactly. Everyone has different opinions of what is freedom and the best laws they should live under. Why jam everyone into a single container where we might not all fit. Some people are squares and they fit in square holes while other people are circles and fit in circular holes. You can't jam any of them into hole they ain't meant to fit in.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I would like to add that this can be the long sought after libertarian 'third way'.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

The psychological element of localism can't be ignored either. Once people see their own local or state authorities as supreme then they cease to care what other people in other locals do since they can't exert any political authority over it. Its the the true route to individual freedom.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Very well-said! Most people who espouse the "Tenther" philosophy do so thinking it furthers party agendas. Most definitely, it does not. When, as now, we have laws in place at the federal level which Unconstitutionally promote the conservative agenda, you invariably see so-called "Tenthers" could care less to criticize it or worry about them. I suppose you could call them "fair weather Tenthers."

KY10th
KY10th

Fair-weather Tenther. Can I steal that? I love it!

Trackbacks

  1. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by inferiae4542, Ron Paul. Ron Paul said: Bridging the Political Chasm http://bit.ly/cmtDhZ #tlot #tcot #RonPaul [...]

  2. [...] article by Michael Maharrey on TenthAmendmentCenter.com. … True advocates of the Tenth Amendment don’t necessarily oppose government health care [...]

  3. [...] government and do all they can to keep it in check. And because I am one of those people, a Tenther, a Constitutionalist, and a lover of liberty, I cannot help but support the mission of WikiLeaks, [...]

  4. [...] I, and other “radical tenthers” take another, more principled, reasoned position: Constitutional loyalty. Every issue, every time without regard to political outcome. [...]

  5. [...] government and do all they can to keep it in check. And because I am one of those people, a Tenther, a Constitutionalist, and a lover of liberty, I cannot help but support the mission of WikiLeaks, [...]

  6. [...] the TenthAmendmentCenter.com by Michael [...]