The United States Constitution was written to limit the powers of the federal government. Protecting the rights of the sovereign states was a primary goal of the founders when they wrote the document. They plainly intended to strictly limit the prerogatives of the federal government to those powers explicitly assigned to it in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, while reserving to the states all other powers not explicitly forbidden them in Section 10 of Article I.
History is filled with controversy over the concept of state's rights. Prior to the American Civil War one of the arguments in support of the sovereignty of the states was that a state could legally refuse to carry out federal enactments that they regarded as unconstitutional encroachments on their sovereignty, and there was nothing the federal government could do about it.
Constitutional Originalists of today still follow that line of thought.
Opponents of state's rights argue that the U.S. Constitution is more of a set of guidelines that can be liberally interpreted, asserting that the federal government has "implied" powers that are not necessarily explicitly stated, but are in accord with general powers given by certain statements within the U.S. Constitution, such as the duty of the government to "provide for the general welfare."
Approaching the War Between the States, the sovereignty of the states became the primary issue that eventually led to the bloody civil war. Slavery was but a minor ingredient at that point, and was not considered a major issue regarding the war until the Emancipation Proclamation was read by President Abraham Lincoln. The Emancipation Proclamation, while holding no legal powers, was actually a politically motivated move intended to back Britain off from supporting the Confederate States. By making the Civil War a noble war of the abolition of slavery, rather than simply a war over state's rights, Great Britain, who had outlawed slavery long before, bowed out quickly for fear of being criticized for siding with the slave states in a war now labeled as a war to free the slaves.
Abraham Lincoln used strategies that were not constitutional to hold together the union, and he encroached on the rights of the southern states, which resulted in the ultimate move to ensure the sovereignty of the states, secession. He was willing to circumvent the rule of law to achieve victory, which is why among many conservative historians Lincoln is referred to as the "Benevolent Dictator."
Many would argue Lincoln, and the presidents before him, brought on the American Civil War by not abiding by the Constitutional concept of state's rights. After all, an abolition movement had already begun in the southern states, and though it may take an extra decade or so, slavery would have been abolished, most likely, without a shot ever being fired. Following this line of thinking, one could say that the American Civil War was avoidable, from a slavery viewpoint, had the federal government decided not to step on state's rights, and force the hand of the southern states into declaring independence.
Nonetheless, the federal government exercised unconstitutional control over the states, and the American Civil War broke out. During the war it looked as if the Confederacy had a chance to win, though many historians point out that even if the southern states had succeeded in becoming a separate nation, ultimately the United States would have rejoined into a single entity eventually, most probably due to the need to unite for the cause of protecting the states from foreign enemies.
The war, however, after the British blockade was broken through the underhanded political strategy of the Emancipation Proclamation, progressed to its conclusion, ending in the defeat of the Confederacy. This defeat of the southern states in the Civil War was the end of the final attempt, and any future attempts, of states to use their sovereignty to keep the federal government under control. As the twentieth century approached, states seemed to accept the death of their power to veto or otherwise contravene enactments and policies of the federal government.
In 1913 the Federal Reserve Act, implementation of the Federal Income Tax (16th Amendment), and the elimination of state representation in U.S. Congress with the passage of the 17th Amendment (which changed the vote for the U.S. Senate from that of the State Legislators, to a direct vote by the people) represents, according to Constitutionalists, the year the federal government jumped the divide, and moved away from the Constitution's original intent more so than anytime in previous history. With the removal of the state's representation in the U.S. Government via the U.S. Senate, it seemed the only recourse states would have there on out would be an Article V Convention, or a direct declaration of sovereignty.
With the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, the central bankers of Europe realized that, after looking back on their own 220 years of experience with the Bank of England and other European central banks prior, American indebtedness would eventually grow so large that the central bankers would eventually own the American nation, and the federal government would be able to seize control of the populace under the guiding hand of the bankers.
During the first three decades of the 1900s it was difficult to determine if it was the Republicans or the Democrats that were more in favor of a strong, central federal government. Once Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, however, it became apparent that the ownership of a policy supporting an intrusive big federal government belonged to the Democrats. During his presidency, FDR extended federal powers far beyond what was granted to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution, and these dangerous policies were routinely denounced by conservative opponents of socialist legislation. Roosevelt's policies were seen as intrusive on the American People, and as obvious abridgments of states' rights.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's successor, Harry S. Truman, continued the policy of expanding the prerogatives of the central government, ignoring the demand of a strict protection of state's rights by many in his own party. The "Dixie-crats," southern Democrats that supported state's rights, left the Democratic Party and joined the Republicans. The Dixie-crats would later demand compromises in the Civil Right's legislation that the Democratic Party was strongly against as well. While the Republican Party was firmly in support of Civil Rights legislation, the newest members of the party, the former Dixie-crats, demanded that such federal legislation not be used to compromise state's rights in the matter of civil rights. Democrats, meanwhile, filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (after also opposing similar bills in 1957 and 1960), and to appease both the Democrats, and the newly Republican Dixie-crats, the bill was adjusted, and then was passed into law on July 2, 1964. In the end, it was the Republicans that were largely responsible for the enactment of Civil Rights Laws, but it was the Dixie-crats in the party that ensured the laws were written in such a way that federal intrusion on state's rights were at a minimum.
Republicans have since reversed much of the federal entitlement programs, which is also an issue that encroaches on state's rights, by implementing a system of block grants to the states. This conservative approach underlay the landmark welfare legislation of 1996 by the Republican-led Congress. After balking the legislation twice, Democratic President reluctantly signed the Welfare Reform bill in August, 1996.
Now, with the Barack Obama Administration enacting socialist legislation that even Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not foolhardy enough to enact (or maybe he simply ran out of time and support), the issue of state's rights has arisen again. Lawmakers in various states have now introduced resolutions declaring state sovereignty under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution States.
Montana and Tennessee (and possibly Utah to soon follow) have passed laws designed to get the federal government out of their business regarding firearms. In Tennessee, General Assembly Bill 1796 (Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act) states that "any firearms or ammunition manufactured within the state and legally owned and kept within the state by citizens are not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration due to provisions in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States Constitution." The intention of the legislation is to run and end-around pass the Commerce Clause, of which the federal government constantly uses, against the original intention of the clause, to poke its nose into state issues.
The federal government, completely ignoring the U.S. Constitution, has responded in writing telling Tennessee that the state law, despite the wording of their state law, is not legal. Specifically, the letter stated, "As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines."
The U.S. Constitution dictates that the federal government cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms (Second Amendment), and that the issue is up to the states to pass laws regarding. Also, it is illegal for the federal government to overturn or overrule state laws if the state law does not violate Article I, Sections 8 and 10.
In other words, the federal government's position regarding Tennessee's new law is unconstitutional.
Governor Perry of Texas has also raised the possibility of a state's rights showdown over Obama's health care plan, indicating that states and governors need to stand up and say "no" to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care.
What we are seeing, as the federal government under the control of the liberal Democrats, and Barack Obama, makes moves to trample on state's rights, is an increased demand for states to exercise their rights, and to resist the continued federal encroachment on state and local authority.
Many Constitutional Originalists I have spoken to see this as an issue that is destined to explode, and one that will result in a showdown between state sovereignty and federal control over the states.
Some would call that the next American Civil War.
--
Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
By Douglas V. Gibbs
United States Constitution - Cornell University Law School
Washington drops hammer on state gun plan - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Lawmakers in 20 states move to reclaim sovereignty - World Net Daily, Jerome R. Corsi
States Rebellion Pending - Townhall, Walter E. Williams
Credit Where Credit Is Due: The Republicans Passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act - Michael Zak, GOP USA
Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare - Star-Telegram, Dave Montgomery
.jpg)
(1).jpg)
.jpg)
