An Oklahoma legislator has proposed the creation of a state militia to “counter the encroachments of the federal government”. A candidate for governor in Texas has suggested that his state “secede from the union”. Fifteen states have filed suit to nullify a new federal health care reform act. These ideas and propositions sound eerily similar to the rhetoric of 1860 America—a time when our nation was on the verge of Civil War. However these suggestions are coming from politicians in the year 2010. Since the election of Obama in 2008, we have witnessed a resurgence of anti-government factions like the “Tea Party Movement “and “Tenthers”. One theme is consistent with both groups—Obama is creating a socialist government intent on taking away the rights of individual and states that have been guaranteed by the Constitution. Are these movements right? Has the power of government shifted away from the people and states towards the federal government? Let’s look at the Constitution for the answer.
We in Civics learned that our “founding fathers” established a federal system of government. The Constitution identified powers that belong to the federal government (enumerated powers, implied powers), powers set aside for the states (reserved powers), and powers that were shared (concurrent powers). During the ratification debate of the 1780’s Federalists and Anti-Federalists argued over the balance of that power. Federalists feared a weak central government—such as the one created by the Articles of Confederation. Therefore, to insure more order in our society, the Constitution provided for Article VI, which was called the “supremacy clause”. This clause provided that the Constitution was the “supreme law of the land” and “states were bound to federal laws made pursuant to the Constitution.” In other words a state law, in conflict with a valid federal statute, was null and void. Sounds pretty clear cut. In the minds of our “founding fathers” the federal government appeared to hold the “upper hand” in terms of the “balance of power”.
Anti-Federalists, fearing a tyrannical central government, wanted assurances that their rights and the rights of the individual states would not be abused. They pushed for and won a “Bill of Rights” that accomplished both objectives. The tenth amendment asserts that “the powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states.” The “Tenther” movement, with followers like Tim Pawlenty, Republican governor of Minnesota and 2021 GOP Presidential hopeful, believes this amendment allows states to nullify federal laws—like the new Health Care Reform Act. It has been used by others to justify secession.
Which is it? Does our Constitution provide for a federal system of government whereby state and national government share power equally, or did the “founding fathers” create a federal system that placed the federal government supreme? I believe it is the latter. Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion, when farmers tried to avoid paying a federal excise tax—a tax they believed was unconstitutional. Lincoln did not allow the Confederacy to secede and fought a Civil War to prove once and for all that federal law was supreme—states cannot nullify federal statutes; nor can a state secede from the union. Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson used federal authority to force Southern states to accept federal civil rights laws. Few claimed these actions, taken by a variety of Presidents, were unconstitutional. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that secession is illegal or equal protection of the law means that schools have to be integrated. However, by holding up the Preamble or using Article I, Section 8, Clause 18—the elastic clause—of the Constitution, the federal government can legally expand the “supremacy clause” to include enumerated AND implied powers; powers that can be used to justify most federal actions that are promoting the public good for all Americans. We are not fifty separate nations—we are one nation of fifty states all committed to “liberty and justice for all”. There can only be one “supreme” power. That power best resides in the hands of the federal government. It is, therefore, the federal government’s primary responsibility to preserve the fundamental principles of American democracy—liberty and justice. Our “founding fathers” understood that. Why don’t the Tea Party Express and the “Tenthers”?
21 comments:
While I do agree with the Tea Party protesters that the government should probably be smaller in certain areas and that it should have less influence on our lives, "states' rights" is, in my opinion, not the way to go about it. Nay, we should demand that the federal government should recognize that everyone in our nation should have access to the individual right to do what we'd like to do as long as it doesn't hurt others and to recognize that businesses should have more autonomy over how they run it (and what I mean by that is to cut down on unnecessary laws, like the recently passed law that bans smoking from public places, rather than stopping businesses from being responsible for how they treat their employees and having less product standrards like what the conservatives and libertarian propose) as opposed to leaving it to individual states, each with different demographics and dispositions, to recognize these rights...
it is true that all 50 states are 1 nation. although under the downfall of current times some states are questioning this unity & not wanting to go down with the sinking ship so to say. the federal government is supposed to have the higher authority to balance the power. the founding fathers were trying to make it so that the highest powers were given to the broadest branch. it may seem that the states are losing power but are they really? is it really true that some people believe that the federal governments intention is to take away states individual rights? you could say who could blame them in times like these. but heres the thing, in times like these is when unity is the most important. people are scared & want to separate but isnt it better to stick together?
I think so, but fear sometimes brings about extreme reactions.
Dolphin is right, as one nation we should stick together, even in times like these or even worse. But everything isn't at a complete loss when it comes to the states powers. Things like the Arizona immigration law that was signed last week shows that even though the federal government does look over the states and is the Supreme law, it still has powers to better the state and protect its people. Arizona thought it was up to them to make that law, not the federal government, and used their power to do it. Sure these times are rough and looks like democracy isn't working as it should, but working together on the common cause should be the most important thing. While I don't agree with Texas when it comes to seceding, it does show the negatives of our economic and political issues. If one whole state is willing to leave based on something so tedious, then what else could come from these things?
The Arizona law was unnecessary. There was a federal law already in place. Once again, this is a state trying to assume the authority of the federal government. There can only be one "boss"--should it be the states or the national government? If we are to be a nation and not a "confederation" (like we had from 1781-1787), that boss has to be the federal government.
I agree but the "boss" should give some of the rights to the people under them.It may be unnecessary about things like the immigration law, but I believe in things like this the federal government should be more of a overseer then a boss because telling Arizona to change or abolish the law wouldn't help the nation as a whole.Things like seceding, while it sounds serious, makes me think that the states don't want to govern themselves alone, but just to show the federal government that they don't feel comfortable with whats going on.I think its about trust for the states,and I think that Texas and Arizona now don't sense that they can trust the government for some reason, so they either talk the action or do it. In the end I agree that the "boss" should be the federal government because I believe that if our country is more united like dolphin mentioned, we can get out of the tough times and possibly gain back the trust amongst federal and state levels to be more like the "founding fathers" hoped for.
I'd have to agree with Mosleyv on this one. Maybe states like Texas have tried to get governmental attention in the past and failed on issues they believed were fundamental, so they feel the only way to make a change is to do it themselves by making a public show of wanting to secede. After the Civil War was won, it was agreed upon that no state was allowed to secede, so they are conflicting with the supremacy clause... on the other hand, with the health care bill, things like that aren't defined in the Constitution, so it's very debatable whether they should be allowed to apply to the nation or if each state should determine the rules for themselves. In my opinion, the idea of the health care system is wonderful, however the "boss" of the national government should provide the broader standards and allow the states to decide individual things like the money required for health care taxes, because the country doesn't know as much about the people as the local states do. Our Constitution -should- provide a federal system of government where the government guides but doesn't rule with an iron fist.
Claire,
The Preamble to the US Constitution states that our national government was created to "promote the general welfare" of America. Take that along with the "elastic clause" and could you not make a case if states aren't "promoting the general welfare"--i.e., millions don't have health coverage--that our federal government can mandate health coverage? Seems consisten to the principles of our Constitution to me. If we allow states to pick and choose what part of the Constitution that they are going to follow, we don't have much of a country.
Yes, they could mandate general welfare, since the lack thereof could interfere with the "life" aspect of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, they shouldn't waste a ton of time writing down every little detail of how it needs to be done, because some details will apply less in one state than another, they should mandate it and set general guidelines for everyone to follow - for example, even those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes receive health care - leaving it up to the states to decide what facilities take care of what type of patients, etc. The federal government tends to stray more towards the possibility of becoming corrupt than state or local governments do, and individuals have less ability to sway the motion of the national government than the state government, so if something is wrong with a national law a state can't change or fix it.
that all may be true but it would be doing more harm if you let the fear take over. it is easily understandable that people do risky things in bad situations but you have to evaluate all aspects of the choice. if one state leaves the union then it completely destroys the unity of us being "one country". after this action takes place it could influence other states to take sides or they may even decide to leave themselves. it may be crazy to say this could lead to a civil war, but you never know. it may seem that the states do not have as much individual power that they would like, but maybe the stronger power is where it is supposed to be. there is no need to make irrational actions in a situation that is the way the founding fathers intended.
Our economy is in bad state, and issues are flourishing. I believe that states like Texas are seeking to do what is best for them and their people, ignoring the "power" of the federal government. But, the federal government does have higher authority than the state government and they need to understand that. Like in a job, there can only be one boss. States shouldn't decide which part of the Constitution they want to follow. We should all follow the same rules, for we are ONE country.The state goverment has their specific powers, and so does the federal governemnt. States don't need to test their power. After all, in our constitution, it does state that the national government should promote "general welfare" for our people.
I understand how we as a country need to be all one in the same, but the issue that concerns me is succession. Although states should probably should stay together under the Federal Government, why shouldn't the states be allowed to form their own opinions about the issues at hand? From my perspective, it seems that with the states attempting to make laws that try to override federal laws, is that maybe the states feel they are not being heard. So, i believe that if the states were being heard on their issues that need to be dealt, maybe there wouldn't be this whole discussion on succession from the nation.
Shermanator,
But if the states are being heard and don't get their way--we have to do what is right for everyone--does a state then have a riht to go"over teh federal government like Arizona has done? I don't think so.
I agree wit the first comment. People should have their individual right with minimal government interferance as long as it does not harm others. States rights as they are though, are fair. Such as the oklahoman case trying to get a state militia. I know this sounds extreme but having a militia could lead to more violence or even an atempt to suceed from the US.There are some things that require mandates such as welfare. Without mandating these programs they could crash and this would hurt millions of americans.
Well, I think your closing question can best be answered by a little piece of my own personal philosophy: "Never underestimate the human being's capacity for stupidity."
Not that the Tea Partiers and "Tenthers" are being stupid, they're just not thinking. They're acting like ants, or termites, following a really stupid queen unquestioningly. Of course, in this metaphor, the queen would be the small group of politicians who's actions I cannot logically justify, save by attribution to one of two factors: rascism, or stupidity.
In mentioning stupidity, I am referring to either misinformation or poor choices of actions; or, more commonly, a combination of the two.
In any case, I think the Constitution's time of writing should be factored into decisions based upon it. The founding fathers did not have the internet. Indeed, we were hardly a nation back then, and it took weeks to get information even one hundred miles. The system of state legislatures was designed to provide outposts of legislation which could govern their states without having to wait weeks to recieve approval for everything. Times have definitely changed, and in my mind the necessity for state legislature has literally disappeared. In the current age, the existance of seperate states serves to breed nothing but prejudice, generality, and conflicting opinions and interests. Best done away with, in my opinion, along with the whole idea of seperate states.
Coach B,
In most cases i agree with you. No, the states should not have more power than the Federal Government. But, in certain cases like the Arizona one, they have the rights to protect their citizens as well as the national government has the rights to protect the nation's citizens.
I agree with what Emily said. I think that our country is in a bad position. So people are starting to worry making radical decisions such as Texas. I also think it goes back to people only be concerned about themselves and what it best for them. Unlike doing things together as ONE. States shouldn't be allowed to only follow ceartin parts of the constitution like Emily said.
Shermanator and CoachB. State issues are heard in both house and in senate and it is the federal governmant's job to make,review, and enforce laws.In The senate each state is allowed their own opinion and has equal representation, but still the majority must agree.If it werent so we would work as a nation. As for the Arizona SB law on immigration the constitution states that foreign policy is the federal gonernments responsibility article one section 8 clause 4 and the supremacay clause really comes in to play. cool stuff Zshermanator
I feel that the national government and individual states need to work together and collaborate to determine how major issues, even within a single state, should be addressed. If states attempt to alleviate problems that will spark controversy across the country, tension will erupt between state and national governments. What political leaders of states need to realize is that they are one of many. They belong to a single nation; as long as the nation's leaders are properly doing their duties and not engaging in unconstitutional acts, they should not make decisions that will ultimately cause an uneasy balance between the national and state level of governments.
The Tenth amendment asserts that "the powers not delegated to the U.S. by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states." The federal government should always be supreme over the states in order to create peace, to control the society, to avoid chaos. If states are supreme over the Federal government there will be chaos. The Constitution safeguards every American of life, liberty, and property, so from these 3 principal rights the government should abuse its power and states should abide, follow the Federal government.
i agree with cvargas... there is a reason why the federal government is above the state government. if the states were to be above it then each state would have its own laws and this nation would not be united. This is why the consitution was created and states should respect that.
Post a Comment