Some people claim that the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights ensures state sovereignty -- that is, that the states are fundamentally independent little countries that have voluntarily opted to join the US for the sake of convenience, and that they can opt out at any time.
Nullification is a similar issue. That means the states simply refuse to enforce a federal law or policy. The states often do this, simply by ignoring a federal mandate or not actively implementing it, but they are liable to be sued in the Supreme Court for it, and they may be fined or otherwise "punished." Or the feds might simply storm into a state and take over enforcement of a particular law -- like Civil Rights laws in some states in the 1960s.
So here's the 10th Amendment in its entirety:
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.
Please note how even in this statement, which supposedly guarantees states' rights, the states are held to be distinctly subordinate to the federal government and the Constitution. And also -- very important -- the amendment says the "powers" delegated to the states, not the "rights." No government has rights under the US Constitution; only citizens have rights. Rights come from God or nature; powers are allocated to a government by its citizens.
On top of that, the US did suffer through a civil war, and the results of that, as well as judicial decisions and legislation since then, make arbitrary, self-proclaimed state secession less and less possible.
That's not to say that no other -- and perhaps better -- means exist for the states to exert authority against the federal government. This is an article in the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124044199838345461.html
The article details how, according to the US Constitution, the states can meet in convention on their own and propose constitutional amendments. The author offers as an example a repeal of the 16th Amendment, which enabled the federal income tax. The states could propose and pass amongst themselves an amendment repealing the 16th Amendment, and this would invalidate the federal income tax.
To pass an amendment, they'd need a 3/4 majority of all the states, determined by the state legislatures or conventional caucuses, and the federal government would have to comply.
As an example of this type of action, the article notes that the US Constitution itself was created by a convention of state representatives who met to propose improvements of the Articles of Confederation, which were then in effect. At the time, the states decided to scrap the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constitution to replace it.
So it works. And it's legal -- no cause for civil war. In addition, in at least one case where the states undertook this kind of action, the federal government and congress acted to legislate the desired policies before the states could act. Very interesting..... Apparently under this Constitutional authority, the states can do anything to the federal government they want, can make any changes they want. But all of this does have to be approved by a majority of the states, and that's no easy process. It usually takes years.
So, something to think about. This is a way for the states to limit intrusive federal policy and spending mandates. And it is these mandates that caused a few states recently to refuse to accept at least portions of the largesse the feds were trying to pass out via the Stimulus package. By taking the money, the states agree to spend it as the feds want them to. And when the federal money runs out, the states are stuck maintaining the programs on their own.
Amending the US Constitution at the state level sounds like a good idea, but it requires a lot of organization and effective leadership. And probably much funding to keep it going.
Any volunteers?
No comments:
Post a Comment