Thousands of discontented Georgians lined the streets around our state Capitol on April 15 to protest excessive Washington spending and an increasingly burdensome tax code. In response to a federal government that thinks it knows how to spend your money better than you do, and continues to grow nearly unchecked, the Georgia Senate voted to reaffirm our rights as a sovereign state to prevent the federal government from continuing to expand.

As a country governed by a written Constitution, the right to keep government in check is vested in “we the people.” That means that we, the people of this country, cannot be forced to accept an oppressive and intrusive federal government. Under Senate Resolution 632, the Georgia Senate expressed bipartisan support for the principles of Jeffersonian democracy.

This resolution has been severely misrepresented in the media. In his opinion column in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (“Georgia Senate endorses radical idea,” @issue, April 16, 2009), Jay Bookman tries to play constitutionalist by expressing views that are disingenuous for the sole purpose of provoking fear.

He argues that the resolution will likely lead Georgia to secede from and disband the United States. This extreme view is a loose interpretation of the measure’s language. Most of the text of the resolution is based on the words of those two well-known “extremists,” Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798.

The idea of limited government and state sovereignty is far from a radical idea —- it is common sense and the basis of our Constitution. The assumption that dangerous criminals would be set free under this resolution is utterly false.

The language in the resolution related to crimes, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was written well before subsequent amendments to the Constitution expanding Congress’ authority in certain areas. This resolution is designed to reinforce the principle of limited government that protects all of us from an ever-expanding federal government.

Under the Constitution, the federal government is given a clear purpose: to protect the safety and rights of its people.

When that government oversteps its bounds, citizens have every responsibility to bring the federal government back to its foundation principles. This can occur through elections and judicial opinions.

But the Georgia Senate decided to weigh in on a national movement to return to the original meaning of the Tenth Amendment, which states, “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.”

Our Founding Fathers included this constitutional guarantee because they knew only too well that a small, limited government works best. These principles affirm that states did not unite under the practice of unlimited submission to their federal government.

The resolution includes a list of items that demonstrate what the Senate considers federal overreaching. Most Georgians would agree with most of the list, which includes the federal government establishing martial law, limiting political speech or the press, or limiting the right to keep and bear arms.

Georgia is just one of many states involved in a movement to limit the continuing growth of the federal government. Over 30 other states are introducing sovereignty resolutions of their own, many with bipartisan support, and our Georgia congressional delegation has also done an excellent job of working to limit the growth of federal spending and taxes.

Additionally, such nationally known groups as the Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council support these principles.

We must ensure that government continues to work for the people, not the other way around. Americans are not willing to let their government dictate every area of their lives, a fact made evident by the thousands who gathered in Atlanta for one of the biggest anti-tax rallies this country has seen since the Boston Tea Party more than 235 years ago.

As Washington continues to add to the more than $11 trillion our country already owes, it is apparent that the federal government is having a hard enough time managing its own affairs and should not meddle in that of the states. It is time to bring back common sense and put an end to the runaway growth of government. SR 632 is a reaffirmation of the principles of our nation’s founders.

Sen. Chip Pearson (R-Dawsonville) represents Georgia’s 51st state Senate District.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is at it again. Recently, an editorial by Jay Bookman, Georgia Senate endorses radical idea, was published in response to the state senate passing SR 632. Bookman’s commentary is full of slander, not only of the resolution, but of our senate itself. In short, he equates this resolution to nearly firing on Fort Sumter!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bookman questions the resolution’s intent of the Federal government defining laws. According to the resolution, the Federal government can only punish treason, piracy, and slavery, but Bookman questions the validity of this claim. He really should read our Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ability to define and punish piracy and counterfeiting money. Article III Section 3 gives Congress the power to declare the punishment for treason. And, the ratification of the 13^th Amendment banned slavery. So, the resolution is correct by stating that these are the only crimes mentioned in the Constitution.

What the resolution is saying by this is the state governments are responsible for all other crimes. So, contrary to his belief, Madoff should be under the jurisdiction of New York, Michael Vick should be under the jurisdiction of Virginia, and the same applies to the inmates in the Atlanta Federal Penitentiary.

The editor then turns to the nullification clause and its role in the Civil War and Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s-60’s. While it may have had a role in the Civil War, the debate of Civil Rights in the 50’s and 60’s didn’t include nullification, but instead the theory of Interposition, which claimed that a state has the right to interpose its sovereignty against the encroachment upon the reserved powers of the state.

Nullification, on the other hand, is the legal theory that states have the right to invalidate any federal law it deems unconstitutional – this is done to keep Congress in line with its enumerated power.

Bookman then goes on to question the part of the resolution which states that if the Federal government oversteps its bounds, the Constitution is null and void. Since we are governed by law, who is to make sure that the ones we elect obey the Constitution?

The Constitution does not grant the power of judicial review to the Supreme Court, that power was assumed with the Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803. Thomas Jefferson was greatly disturbed by this decision because it placed so much power in the hands of the Courts.

It does seem a bit foolish to believe the Federal government can be trusted to keep itself in check. Remember, it is made up of humans and humans are so easily corruptible, especially those in the pursuit of power.

The question becomes this: Who is to protect the people from the Federal government?. If this duty is placed in the hands of the people, riots and violence may occur, resulting in a further infringement of liberties. If placed in the hands of the people’s agents in the state governments, it can provide a means of peaceful debate over these infringements.

Moving forward, Mr. Bookman then makes the absurd claim that, in his opinion, the only reason this resolution passed was because no one had time to read it. Actually, the resolution is only 4 1/2 pages and took me about 10 minutes to read. (click here to read it yourself)

To say that no one had time to read it is very humorous as I suppose we are to drop to our knees and thank God Almighty for the wisdom of our Federal government for passing a “stimulus” bill that no one was allowed to read. He shows great logic in that assessment, doesn’t he?

But this resolution wasn’t “snuck” in, it was read twice, referred to committee, read again, and then adopted by the senate with a vote of 43-1. In my opinion, that’s the fact that shocks him the most.

It appears to shock him so much that he slanders the Senators that sponsored the resolution by saying they used “deception.” He then equates this to being part of a radical right wing conspiracy, because no one in their right mind could possibly condone such a stand against actions of the Federal government. You would have to be crazy to question this government, right?

I honestly wasn’t aware that believing in our founding principles was so radical. I find great logic in listening to the wise words of Great Americans that risked everything to establish our republic. Why should they be vilified and slandered in such a way?

I believe its is the better patriot who questions and demands the best out of his government than the one is blindly loyal and assumes the government is looking out for his best interest.

The editor then goes to declare this resolution legally meaningless. This is something else that I wasn’t aware of, resolutions in the Georgia Senate can now be nullified by a newspaper editor…talk about the Power of the Press!

Bookman finishes his rant by claiming that we “have to question the judgment of those who would have any truck whatsoever with such nonsense…”

But, in reality, his editorial proves one thing that the rest of Georgia has known for decades – that the AJC, as well as much of Atlanta itself, has lost touch with the rest of Georgia. Seems to me that its quest to be the New York of the South is nearly complete.

Justin D. Lowry [send him email] is editor of Georgia Conservative Weekly.