Remember the 10th Amendment?
In case you forgot, this is the 10th amendment:
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.
This amendment summarizes the stuff and substance of the federalist/anti-federalist debates of yore: the balance of power between the new federal government and the states.
In the wake of Stimulus Rex, several state governments are re-asserting their sovereignty that is protected by this amendment. I haven’t heard boo about this in the MSM, probably because constitutional issues are beyond the grasp of most journalists – at least while they’re still recovering from their Obama hangovers. From HumanEvents.com:
In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states — “Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, [Minnesota]…Georgia,” South Carolina, and Texas — “have all introduced bills and resolutions” reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.
Though I think much merit lies in the question, I think it’s an insufficent query.
We need to ask, “Remember the Constitution?”
Of course, we know that the answer is a resounding “No.” Or, more likely, “What’s that?”
Then again, I’ve reached the point at which I suspect the internal workings of the Constitution, notwithstanding the purported checks and balances, separation of powers, and federalism, were intended, by Mr. Hamilton, eventually to eviscerate any remnant of states’ rights or government not dominated by the executive.
nathancontramundi
March 6, 2009 at 7:20 am
Spot on, Nathan.
In a follow-up article noting that 5 more states joined the cause, A.W.R. Hawkins notes that Indiana’s own resolution invokes Hamilton’s words.
There’s more than a hint of irony whenever the states’ rights camp channels “PUBLIUS” (Jay/Madison/Hamilton): they were the apologists for federalism. Whether or not Hamilton or the others intended to eviscerate states’ rights, history has shown that the protections they claimed are failing, whether by design or by mistake. With no offense meant to the fine state of Indiana or its legislature, I wonder if they might rather have picked the words of another founding father.
I’d really like to research Hamilton’s writings in greater depth. Was he the archetype of those modern-day “conservatives” who preach limited government and practice collectivism?
If the anti-federalists could see us now….
whereslumpy
March 6, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Daniel Larison on Federalists, Anti-Federalists, and modern conservatism and libertarianism: http://larison.org/2006/07/19/onwards-jeffersonian-jacobites/
I’m inclined to agree with what he says on the matter of our Founding Fathers.
nathancontramundi
March 6, 2009 at 5:12 pm