What America Wants

by Mike Maharrey

They deride us as “Tenthers.”

They paint us as radicals. Extremists. Racists.

But our message continues to go mainstream.

Viewers had the opportunity to submit video questions for the Fox News Republican presidential debate on Sept. 22. Brandy and Michael from Spencer, Ind. asked the question receiving the most votes, and it related to the Tenth Amendment. (see it here)

“There’s growing concern among Americans about the size and scope of the federal government and its infringement upon state and individual rights. If you’re elected president, how do you plan to restore the 10th Amendment, hold the federal government only to those enumerated powers in the Constitution, and allow states to govern themselves.”

Stop and let it sink in. That was the question the majority of debate viewers wanted answered.

Badged federal agents grope us at the airport. Congress insists it has the power to demand Americans purchase health insurance on its terms. Our nation engages in seemingly endless warfare. Federal agents raid businesses; their heinous crime: selling unpasteurized whole milk. And the federal government pokes its nose into more and more of the nooks and crannies of everyday life. Americans want answers, and increasingly they realize the solutions won’t come from Washington D.C.

The problem IS Washington D.C.

The fact that more people voted for a question relating to the Tenth Amendment indicates people are beginning to understand that federal power has limits and the Constitution prescribes those limits. They realize that the framers created a federal government with defined, enumerated powers, leaving all other authority to the states respectively, or to the people. And they realize that insisting the government operate in the way the founders intended does not quite qualify as radical, unless by radical you simply mean not the way we’ve done things for the last 75 years.

Some will retort, “Well, that’s Fox viewers for you.” But the overwhelming support for the debate question does not stand alone as evidence of the mainstreaming of Tenther thinking.

A Rasmussen poll released in August reveals that 54 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that states should have the right to opt out of federal programs they don’t agree with. In other words, more than half of Americans now embrace the Constitutional concept of state sovereignty.

More telling than the majority support for state power was the much smaller minority opposed to it. Only 31 percent of those polled disagreed and said states should not enjoy the ability to opt out of these required federal programs.

Think about that for a moment, because it is significant. Less than one-third of the country opposes our basic principle: that each state can and should remain free to pursue a unique approach to handling various political issues.

Throw in unfunded mandates and the support for state empowerment reaches even further into the electorate.

“Support for states’ rights jumps higher when the question involves federally mandated programs with no checks attached. Sixty-three percent of voters think states should have the right to opt out of such programs if the federal government doesn’t help pay for them. Twenty-one percent disagree,”according to the Rasmussen report.

Perhaps we should place the radical extremist label on the political pundits and mainstream media talking heads who insist opposition to expansive federal power somehow counts as a loony, radical notion.

Stop and consider; a majority of Americans accept the basic principle of state sovereignty. The majority of Americans believe in the fundamental premise of the Tenth Amendment. And a majority of Americans apparently don’t approve of a federal government wielding nearly unlimited power.

Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!

This makes sense, really. Americans have always distrusted concentrated power. Don’t believe it? Do a simple experiment. Go out and ask 10 random people if they trust corporate monopolies to look out for the public’s best interest. I would be shocked if even one person expressed faith in a monopolistic business.

Why should we trust a monopoly on political power any further?

So let the statists keep on with the slurs and invectives. Let them keep insisting we represent a wacky minority. Let them continue with their wild-eyed rants. We’ll just go right on fighting for the constitutional system our founders created.

It is, after all, what Americans want.

VIDEO FROM THE FOX/GOOGLE REPUBLICAN DEBATE

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?
22 comments
williamschooler
williamschooler

Ken and M.D. I will second these ideas but the real missing link is A Foundation also known as what I base my decisions on. This has everything to do with a direction, determination and the decision to go this way. What we truly lack is a good sound foundation although I am confused as to why. It is not our Constitution because our Constitution was intended to be Liberty by constricting government to limitations. This was purely done as part of the Declaration of Independence to free ourselves from bad Government and to assure we did not raise another bad Government. The very reason of this failure is not the bankers or the Government but rather the lack of foundation by the people, the public within A Republic which really means Life in support of life by the recognition of our skills and abilities should we investigate and make our determinations on such a solid ground.

Do to opposition in our Declaration of Independence even this was obscured and documented truths removed from focus which would have gave us a much clearer picture, a more defined foundation in which to decide from. Surely our main principals reside there as well many of the documented truths that were not removed or altered from their original intent.

Today we still don't get it, We the People stands for the people, the public who decide to live as A Republic shall use these principals and these warnings and these instructions to wart off the enemy. Since we have not applied any of these we are left with our mirrors and have no one but ourselves to blame. Not because we are not capable but rather easily swayed by acceptance and what is popular as to not stick out amongst the crowd. This is also cowardly and highly dishonest to ourselves and only hidden from our own lack of review.

No one and I mean not one of us can get off by the blame for we are responsible human beings capable of performing that which we decide by putting our minds to work and our focus on and our determination to move forward. Educating each other about what we learn about ourselves becomes the biggest teacher and lesson of all and we can find the best answers to fit such a need. We don't even have to go discover it again because it resided still today in the Declaration of Independence and the finest document ever printed but better yet the original draft does as well and we are capable of putting two and two together. I dare anyone of you to really research this document and dare see what I see. When I located it I could not believe my eyes and still today I am totally blown away by the wealth of information it has given me.

Remember this little truth; that no idea existing around you does so without the decision by all those who manifest it, not one. This means we are far more powerful than you think today but if you actually knew with certainty this course would change period.

M.D.
M.D.

I can't help but wonder after reading these comments if the disease has been misdiagnosed. With so much attention being put on government as the cause of this or that pain, it seems to be getting lost that government is just a tool in the hands of specific interests. The right analogy is that of a sock puppet.

Congresspeople don't sit around thinking up laws they'd like to write. "Gee, I think I'll rewrite the 1935 Telecommunications Act today." Rather, a company seeking to do some new thing, which the law currently does not permit, comes to his office with a bag of cash and says, "If you can get the telecom laws changed for us, we'll make sure you get re-elected." That's what government is.

Now, suppose you simply move that legislator's desk and chair from Washington DC to your state capital. Do you seriously think the businessman can't find him, and again buy the favor he needs? Why does anyone believe that changing the venue changes the form? And even if the business has to go to 50 capitals, so what? They do that all the time. That's what lobbying is all about.

The general reaction here is to rebel against the pain of laws acting as intrusions into your life. That's a well understood symptom. But the disease is an infestation of corporate corruption into the public policy making machinery. It will not matter one bit where you physically locate the levers of that machinery. The infestation will simply follow.

This whole Tenth Amendment business suffers from a lack of clarity about cause and effect. What I have noticed in so many writings here, is that there is an assumption that life runs according to political theories. Change the theory, and life will change. This is not reality. It is an artificial, abstract construct which is existing only in the minds of the faithful here. In short, it is a fantasy. But, don't accept that critique, instead look at actual evidence, just as you would as a jurist.

Go examine how the Telecommunications Act of 1996, or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 came into existence. I do not mean the political process, I mean the private interest process which drives and controls and manages the political process. Here's a hint: There were over 1,500 corporations lobbying Congress specifically over the health care bill. They spent over $1B, and used more than 5,400 personnel to assault the Congress. And, that's just the public information. Try to imagine if you will the back-room, undisclosed totals.

There is no political theory in operation in US governments. There is only competing interests, and private morality. And that's how it always is. Nothing new has happened, except that the tools used by those private interests have become sharper and more effective. If you want to change the outcomes of this, you have to attack the actual disease, and that is not a theory of any kind. It is not any part of the Constitution, or any one of it's amendments.

The obvious reality of our system is that the Constitution is toothless and ignored and has no intrinsic force beyond mere symbolism. And while so many groups are worshiping this symbolic abstraction, the business at hand of interests seeking favor is running full bore, full speed ahead and running your life.

Any person can awake from this dreaming of theoretical operation. They can spend a few months at the library examining actual evidence of how things work in the USA. When they have been fully awakened, they can then change their behaviors to match the actual conditions as the really exist.

Ken Creamer
Ken Creamer

First I’m compelled to point out that there is a terrific amount of non-knowledge with respect to the sovereignty of the Union states. First and foremost, the Union states haven’t been sovereign for over 60 years. Secondly, only a sovereign can undertake nullification and it would be intuitively obvious that a subject has no power or authority to nullify anything without an out and out revolt. Thirdly, when Thomas Jefferson, etal, called for nullification, they knew absolutely that the Union States were Sovereign at that point in our history. So to use history in that vain to support nullification is unfounded and ill advised.__There’s a lot of talk, there days, on the blogs and submitted comments about the Bill of Rights as if it or they actually gave us any rights. The Bill of Rights, I’m afraid, has absolutely nothing to do with Rights and everything to do with prohibitions

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey

Actually, the people are the sovereign. They grant powers to states and through the states, power to the federal government. The states retain sovereignty within the sphere of powers granted, as does the federal government. The point of nullification is that the people, through the states, must reassert the proper flow of power. The states haven't given up their sovereignty, they've simply not asserted it. Nothing has fundamentally changed the structure of the republic in the last 60 years. The structure remains what it was when Jefferson and Madison were advocating nullification, so to argue for nullification from a historical standpoint makes perfect sense...unless you can establish where the flow of power was rightfully altered. In my view the changes in our system are the result of usurpation. It's time to un-usurp.

Re: you observation on the Bill of Rights is correct. It simple was intended to prohibit the federal government from infringing on the rights specified. It doesn't grant rights. We already possess them.

Linda
Linda

I had a DREAM - Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, WOW

Linda
Linda

Ron Paul is not a quitter. He has wisedom, knowledge/experience, honor and cares about the people. Who could ask for more? I am tired of the lies and bickering among the polititions. As a republic of Texas citizen, my family and I are suffering with Legal Abuse Syndrome (LAS). I have asked for help and the only response I have gotten is that "it is not my Department". It was not Ron Pauls Department but he directed me to the right Department for assistance during his busy schedule! I have asked him for help again because my Governor has not responded to my plea for help. My Land Patent is being violated by Public Officials. This Land Patent originates from a Treaty and is a Federal Contract with the U.S. - The Governor's Office and the Commissioner of the General Land Office have both signed this Patent and placed their Seal upon it. It has been brought forward and current! Do you want someone that will take responsibility and follow the LAW or pass the buck (Department)? prairiecreekranch1@yahoo.com

Mike Knight
Mike Knight

Just vetoing bills won't do anything. Congress will still pass it anyway. I think he's being careful to not reveal what he'll really do so the establishment doesn't go overboard to stop his election. As President he can reverse decades of unconstitutional Executive Orders, and issue his own directing the agencies and departments of the Executive branch to operate in a more Constitutional manner. He could end Barry Obama's wars, and eradicate the Homeland Security police state. The President and Executive bureaucracy have done so much without Congress so surely Ron Paul could reverse it without them.

JEANNIEMAC
JEANNIEMAC

"Birthers", Tenthers", are terms of ridicule aimed at the opposition by radicals. I The use of ridicule is a dead giveaway of Alinskyites.

David Welsh
David Welsh

Barry, if you want to use the "two-edged sword" analogy, then let's go there: this sword has two sharp edges: one that which protects states rights and clearly and cleanly cuts through the social fog to the meat of our Republic to reveal those rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The other edge just as cleanly cuts through the same fog to the same source to guarantee peoples' rights. So, if one state government wants to become a dictatorship, then the people of that state have recourse by wielding the same sword. Both edges are really of the same purpose. It is one sword.

Barry Bright
Barry Bright

The 10th Amendment issue is a two edged sword. Do we want Commiefornia to go more commie? Do we want Chicago to force the entire state of Illinois to set up checkpoints on their borders to make sure no one crosses with an 'unlicensed' gun? Do we want New Yawk City to continue to forbid it's citizens to exercise their most basic right? The evil ones in these evil places cannot be allowed to continue with their evil... to do so is to allow them to spit on the Bill of Rights.

Don't understand? Start here: http://willowtown.com/promo/quotes.htm

ArizonaTenther
ArizonaTenther

Sure Barry! Stop and think about it, with Liberty those people can leave those tyrannical states and take their efforts, money, ect. to a Liberty Loving State. We are to be a group of petri dishes to let the experiment grow. The good will flourish the tyrannical states and cities will die!

M.D.
M.D.

So the assumption is that any state which doesn't embrace your values is tyrannical? How about the idea that some states may simply be more liberty loving and more liberal? Suppose a state like California were to eventually decriminalize marijuana. Does that make it tyrannical?

Some of these comments don't actually support the ideas behind the Tenth Amendment. They are simply reactionary far right politics.

Mike Maharrey
Mike Maharrey

Is there risk in allowing the states to make decisions within the realm the framers intended? In other words, does risk exist if the powers of the federal government remain few and defined and the powers of the state government remain numerous and indefinite. Sure. Any government at any level has the potential to become tyrannical. So the question becomes, which government can the people - the who are ultimately the boss, have the best chance to control? Smaller, less centralized power is clearly less dangerous. To argue that we should make the bigger federal government even more powerful so it can control the states and protect the people from evil is sheer lunacy. It's like creating a super-wolf to control an overpopulation of deer.

The people have some responsibility here. They have to take control of their state governments and ensure THOSE folks protect the rights guaranteed in their state constitutions. The Illinois Constitution has a Bill of Rights. It's up to the people of Illinois to defend their own liberty - and as my cohort said, if they find the Illinois government tyrannical, the can vote with their feet.

CDriver
CDriver

Ron Paul is spot-on with Americans who support the 10th Amendment. The question is, is he electable? Will a majority of citizens support him, and will the Electoral College do likewise? It is unfortunate the news media ultimately chooses who will be nominated to either political party. It proves most Americans believe the media to their detriment.

monorprise
monorprise

Lets be frank Ron Paul is not helping himself. He has run quite a number of times and lost, each time he has lost he has lost creditability.

Also if he wants the republican nomination he need to at least moderate on his foreign policy and defense credentials. Yes I know that's not what his followers want, but its what the majority of the Republican party needs if hes going to win their support.

Being a purist is generally anther way of saying being a loser in a large Federation.

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

I would rather not be involved in presidential politics at all, but to say that each time he runs he loses credibility - is completely absurd. 1% to 5% to 10% is gaining, not losing. Don\'t expect much more talk from me about the presidential race, though - I think garbage and theater best describe it.

monorprise
monorprise

Well now that you have written an article on the matter. Let me point out that your right he has gained significant support in recent years. (but apparently not yet enough)

But let me also point out that very few people believe he can win precisely because he has lost so many times and his positions on policy questions are so at odds many of the historic positions and sentiment of the existing republican alliance to say nothing of the general American electorate.

Given time both facts could (in principle) be changed, but it seems unlikely that there is enough time to make up the difference before the 2012 primaries.

Never-mind the Constitutional question which I was not intentionally referring to, or do you reject the notion that it is possible for congress & the president to carry out a non-isolationist foreign policy under the Federal Constitution of 1787?
I do standby my generalization that being a purist is another way of saying being a loser in a large Federation. I make this statement on the ground that the larger the Federation the more potently diverse and thus divisible on any given matter.
Therefore any man who has a set of policy’s on every area of government is bound to upset the majority on one or two of them. (Hence the need for a more limited domain government the larger group of the governed.)
Ron Paul seems to doggedly sticks to his strict ideology as it applies to all aspects of all policy’s. Thus I call him a Purist, and in a certain light this is respectable. But in the light of a large (thus inertly diverse) Federation it is most likely a defeatist attitude. Particularly when some of them Policy positions are at odds with the core believes of certain key factions.

As I said if Ron Paul wants the republican nomination he would be well advice to moderate on some of them POLICY credentials, NOT constitutional credential to be more palatable to the whole Republican base.
I’m not sure how Paul can do that now given he has run so many time firmly establishing these principles, which of course brings us both back to my original sentiment about him not helping himself and having run(in lost) too many times.

Stalwart oppossition
Stalwart oppossition

If you know voting for him is the right thing to do than face up and have the courage of your convictions. It is complacency of free people that allows subjugation. Give your time or money and help wake up as many sheep as you can. This is not a popularity contest. It is a fight for our freedom.

msbetz
msbetz

Majority of Americans agree with Ron Paul...but not the media that continues to pretend and report that he's not a viable candidate.

Mike88
Mike88

That was a very good question and Ron Paul gave a superb answer. I don't think any of the other candidates could of answered the question any better.

Bob Greenslade
Bob Greenslade

The federal government is using perversions of the delegated powers to nullify the 10th Amendment. Until that is addressed and reversed the 10th Amendment will remain words rather than substance.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] What America Wants [...]

  2. [...] and the results of other polls also reveal an increasing distrust of Washington D.C. It appears Americans want a more limited general [...]