A battle is brewing. A majority of the states have passed symbolic resolutions reclaiming their sovereignty
from the federal government. The reason they have done this is because
many Americans, including many state legislators, feel the federal
government has overstepped its proper, limited role.
The health
care initiative currently in Congress is merely the latest example.
With the debate on health care reform we see an obvious Socialist
agenda at work, accompanied by numerous and incredible denials that it
is Socialism. And so, with a federal agenda at work to nationalize many
aspects of American life (health care on the way, but we already have
nationalized banks, an automaker, education and retirement) on the one
hand, and states beginning to fight for their constitutional rights to
run their own affairs as they see fit (as is stated in the 10th
Amendment) on the other hand, we the have makings of a fight.
Though
I support the states in this battle, I fear I have chosen the losing
side. You see, at issue here is the fact that the federal government is
going beyond its constitutional authority. This very fact is what
caused this new revolution in the first place, and yet there is a
popular assumption that by simply asserting their constitutional right
to govern themselves the states can take back the authority usurped by
the federal government. But with the Fed already ignoring the 10th
Amendment, thereby establishing a long tradition of ignoring states
rights, I have to wonder why would the federal government start
recognizing its constitutional boundaries now?
Even now, with
the growing movement to reclaim state sovereignty, the U.S. Congress
and President Obama are still pushing hard to nationalize America's
health care as if there were no reason to reconsider or even to slow
down what they are doing. So far, the constitutionally sound new
revolution is proving ineffective. The Fed is still ignoring the fact
it is ignoring the 10th Amendment.
A showdown is imminent.
States are increasingly insistent the 10th Amendment should be
respected. The Socialist movement dominating our federal government
leads it to interpret the "general welfare" clause in as broad a way as
possible; this time, rather than ignoring constitutional language, it
is a phrase of the constitution taken literally, ignoring the numerous
clarifications written by our founders.
* James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded
them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take
them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the
Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not
contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place
in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in
their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long
a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the
words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had
the former meaning taken for granted.
* In 1794, when Congress
appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from
insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James
Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot
undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which
granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence,
the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)
* "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817
What
we have here is a modern tradition in the federal government of
ignoring original understandings of and original language in the
constitution. This is done not by accident, but for the purpose of
achieving particular agendas. In this climate, with blatant disregard
for the constitution, why would the federal government allow the states
to reclaim their sovereignty?
The tools of semantic acrobatics
and historical ignorance have played a major role in creating the
current attitude among so many politicians elected to federal office.
This government-dependent mindset permeates our culture as well, and so
Socialist sentiments from the people fuel Socialist agendas in
Washington. The fact this federal takeover has lasted and grown more
bold over several generations speaks to the high degree of damage
already done to our republic and to the American appreciation of
federalism.
Even now we have evidence indicating what the
federal reaction will be to the new revolution: branding anyone who
disagrees with the Socialist agenda as extremist.
At Politico.com, in Town halls gone wild
Alex Isenstadt evidently takes sides in the growing controversy. In
this article, Isenstadt is sure to let us know protesters to this
Socialist agenda are angry. He even interviews several Democrats to let
us know how afraid they are for their safety.
Screaming
constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful
for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the
once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for
members of Congress.
On the eve of the August recess, members
are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry,
sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a
congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation
has spiraled so far out of control.
You see, letting
the government go wild is perfectly okay, because it's largely done
with civility (for now). But the protesters are showing their anger and
appear rude, and that's just not acceptable to the elitist. The fact
that federal politicians are acting unconstitutionally and depriving
the states and the people of their constitutional freedoms by taking
over aspects of American life it should never be involved with are
immaterial. Showing anger is interpreted as being extremist, and
therefore dangerous. And what is the career politician to do with this?
“I
had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told
POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his
Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my
constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if
what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent
conversation.”
And Rep. Bishop isn't the only one who feels this way:
Bishop
isn’t the only one confronted by boiling anger and rising incivility.
At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., earlier this month,
police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was
taken away by local police. Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters
greeted Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) at a late June community college
small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla. Last week,
Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were “refused
an opportunity” to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.) a question at a
town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to
leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.
The
elitist reaction to this genuine and sincere dissent is to ignore it,
because they deem it "unruly". It apparently doesn't occur to these
Democrats that they are doing something inappropriate in supporting
federal overgrowth.
Democrats, acknowledging the
increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button
issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.
Ah
yes, it's the "hot-button issues" that cause this outrage, not the fact
that government has grown beyond it's constitutional limits. At least
these politicians acknowledge the problem is not that people disagree,
it's that people are angry, but they have to change their attitude
about it before discourse can continue.
Bishop continues in his
self delusion that growing government and diminishing individual
freedom are not the cause of the protests:
“I think
in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been
ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of
people,” said Bishop, a four-term congressman. “We are trying, one by
one, to deal with a set of issues that can’t be ignored, and I think
that’s unsettling to a lot of people.”
Thankfully
there are some reasonable reactions in Washington to these protests. I
don't know if they are any less self delusional, but at least these
Democrats are willing to listen to their upset constituents. Isenstadt
continues:
“Town halls are a favorite part of my
job,” said Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), a third-term congressman from
St. Louis who noted that a “handful” of disruptions had taken place at
his meetings. “It’s what I do. It’s what I will continue to do.”
“People
have gotten fired up and all that, but I think that’s what makes town
halls fun,” said Perriello, a freshman who is among the most vulnerable
Democrats in 2010. “I think that most of the time when we get out
there, it’s a good chance for people to vent and offer their thoughts.
It’s been good.”
“I enjoy it, and people have a chance to speak their mind,” he said.
I'm
glad to see there is no monolithic government reaction in this case.
There is more than a simple party-line divide, even on the Democrat
side there are reasonable politicians and elitists. But which group
rules in Congress?
I think many people believe the reasonable
politicians outnumber the elitists. If they are right, most politicians
will acknowledge the fact their jobs depend on the approval of their
constituents. But the elites have figured out they can bribe many of
their constituents with promises of government hand outs, which makes
it easier for them to bully the dissenters into silence (such as by
treating dissent, angry or not, as extremist).
Political
precedent shows us the louder voice tends to win. In the recent past
the Socialist agenda has won a great deal of political ground and still
has tremendous momentum. With the political game played as it is I fear
the American people will suffer much more damage and lose far more
freedom before any real progress is made to push back against federal
overgrowth. By then will it be too late?
I think the political
game will continue to drag this country to the left as long as the
political rules remain unchanged. No amount of symbolic gestures and
resolutions will accomplish any real goal. And the further left we go,
the fewer rights the people and the states will retain. It's time to
fight for real change, something that proved its immeasurable value for
more than a century: allowing the states to have representation in
Congress. If you want to restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment.