It’s been over 200 years since the signing of the Bill of Rights yet our freedoms and our sovereignty are once again misunderstood by the people who are supposed to champion the cause. The federal government for years has been asserting authority over the individual states passing sweeping nation wide legislation as it sees fit; well no more several states have said by passing their own legislation to thwart the federal governments’ unfounded authority over their sovereignty.
Over 20 states including Montana South Carolina, and many other Republican leaning states have moved on legislation calling for more individual control over their own states.These states want the right to ignore laws they believe to be unconstitutional based on the Tenth Amendment.
Governor Brad Henry - Oklahoma
Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon, a Republican, was the first to forge this kind of legislation in 2008 after President Georg W. Bush and Congress overstepped their bounds with the passing of the Real ID Act, a law which imposes certain security standards for the state driver’s licenses and state IDs.
Brogdons’ bill passed through Oklahomas’ state Congressional Chamber So if Governor Brad Henry were to sign it into law, it would in theory let the state of Oklahoma ignore laws passed by the federal government that are not permitted by the Constitution as interpreted by the State itself.
The state of Montana is trying to exempt itself from federal regulation of firearms, and Missouri wants the authority to pass its’ own legislation in regard to abortion. The South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright has pushed for similar law because he thinks the federal government is acting beyond the scope of the Constituion on the new stimulus bill passed in January of 2009.
All of the bills mentioned use the Tenth Amendment for presidence; which reads as such:
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.
In short it means that authorities not given to the feds by the Constitution or disallowed by the states is left up to the states to decide on.
Numerous other states have set out to pass similar bills in response to the broad sweeping power of the $800 billion stimulus package. Many state legislators want portions of the money but disagree with the action as a whole; believing they should be able to accept the money on their own terms. While they are criticized by Washington for wanting to have their cake and eat it too, they maintain that this is allowed by the Tenth Amendment and that state sovereignty is at stake.
They walk on shaky ground with such creative legislation, think of the messes that could be created by egos in Washington who never seem to know where to draw the line on anything. In fact if Congress and or the White House had a clue as to when enough was enough we wouldn’t be having this discussion at all.
It has always been my understanding that the founding fathers who penned the Bill of Rights and the Constitution wanted the states to govern themselves with the federal body being there only to serve as the glue to bind the states together on more general and broad sweeping issues. That being said the federal government has been living beyond its means for decades if not an entire century.
Here are the questions that come to my mind:
- Should such actions be allowed by individual states?
- Should the federal government moderate what states are allowed to decide for themselves?
- Should the Supreme Court needs to rule on such issues? It is their job to interpret the meaning of The Constitution.
Now would be a good time for that Department of Common Sense, I have previously spoken of, to be formed. Because these people, on both sides of the issue know not what they do.
This is a prime example of the Cracked World.
