States rebel against Washington

[curtalus]

Christian Science Monitor
States rebel against Washington



The pushback against federal power began under Bush, but may now be accelerating.
Temp Headline Image
(SOURCES: News reports; tenthamendmentcenter.com/Rich Clabaugh/STAFF)

By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
posted March 27, 2009 at 12:00 am EDT
Atlanta —

There's an old joke in South Carolina: Confederate President Jefferson Davis may have surrendered at the Burt-Stark mansion in Abbeville, S.C., in 1865, but the people of state Rep. Michael Pitts's district never did.

With revolutionary die-hards behind him, Mr. Pitts has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Washington establishment. As the writer of one of 28 state "sovereignty bills" – one even calls for outright dissolution of the Union if Washington doesn't rein itself in – Pitts is at the forefront of a states' rights revival, reasserting their say on everything from stem cell research to the Second Amendment.

"Washington can be a bully, but there's evidence right now that there are people willing to resist our bully," said Pitts, by phone from the state capitol of Columbia.

Just as California under President Bush asserted itself on issues ranging from gun control to medical marijuana, a motley cohort of states – from South Carolina to New Hampshire, from Washington State to Oklahoma – are presenting a foil for President Obama's national ambitions. And they're laying the groundwork for a political standoff over the 10th Amendment, which cedes all power not granted to Washington to the people.

The movement's success will largely depend on whether Washington sees these legislative insurgents as serious – or, as Pitts puts it, as just "a bunch of rednecks."

"There's a lot of frustration when someone quite distant from you forces you to do something you don't want to do," says Steve Smith, director of the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government and Public Policy at Washington University in D.C. "That's the root cause, and it ends up being rationalized in constitutional terms."

Resurgent states

The reversal of the federal stem cell research ban, a stimulus package widely seen as a backdoor grasp for more federal power, and fears about gun control have accelerated a state sovereignty movement that began taking shape under the Bush administration. In the past, both liberals and conservatives have used states' rights arguments for political expedience. That may be the case now as ousted conservatives try to force issues out of Washington and into states, where they have a better chance of winning them.

"Where power resides and who gets to do what – there's been an ongoing interpretation of that through our history," says Idaho State Rep. George Sayler of Coeur d'Alene, who voted against a states' rights bill that passed recently in the Gem State. "Sometimes the federal government asserts a stronger role, and it looks now like we might be getting into a period where the states" push for more power.

Some examples:

•The Idaho House began considering Wednesday a law against introducing "vicious animals" into the state – a direct rebuttal of the federal wolf reintroduction program.

•Montana and Tennessee have introduced proposals to expand gun rights. Tennessee State Sen. Doug Jackson says his bill to ban proposed federal "microstamping" of ammunition could spark a movement. "The trampling on our rights to possess firearms is symbolic of a power grab by the federal government on a much larger scale," said Senator Jackson, by phone from Nashville.

•Oklahoma and Georgia are both considering limits on stem cell research in response to Mr. Obama's reversal of the federal stem cell ban. It's the flip side of the Bush era when several Northeastern states allowed such research despite the federal ban.

The status of "state sovereignty" resolutions are largely up in the air, with a few passed, some moving through committee, and some voted down. New Hampshire's resolution, the only one with a "nullification" of the Union clause, was voted down largely along partisan lines.

A response to federal expansion

Although the idea of states' rights took hold in the run-up to the Civil War in order for the South to preserve, among other things, the institution of slavery, today's debates are really about whether there's any power left for the states to carve out of the Constitution.

"If you set up the principle where the federal government can do everything, then, yes, eventually they will do everything. If not, where's the line they can't cross?" says Michael Boldin, president of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. "That's the Constitution, I believe."

The courts mainly stood by as federal power expanded by great leaps in the 1930s and the 1960s. There's been another burst of federal expansion in the 2000s, including Mr. Bush's USA Patriot Act and Obama's proposed overhaul of banking regulations.

The fact is, "there's no longer any effective limitations on federal power," says Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who argued for California's medical marijuana law in front of the Supreme Court.

Yet the state sovereignty movement is by no means frivolous and could have significant political firepower. The medical marijuana case in California, for instance, showed that Washington can be forced to scale back its ambitions in the face of populist sentiment.

And although Pitts hails from Abbeville, the place where the South's first secession votes were cast, he insists that today's efforts to check federal power aren't limited to regional pockets or even political affiliation. "The mainstream media would portray some of us as rednecks, whether we're from Pennsylvania, Oregon, or South Carolina," says Pitts. "But this is a wake-up call. And if Washington doesn't heed that wake-up call, revolution is on the horizon."

This last power grab was the one too many I think.

[Petr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2F-drjUwNU 

[VONBLUVENS]

Originally Posted by Petr

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2F-drjUwNU 

I love the Bonnie Blue Flag song.

[Graves]

Originally Posted by curtalus

This last power grab was the one too many I think.

Power house states (California, New York, Virginia) have yet to move. Health care bill may change that.

[KerguelenExileDissident]

It wont be long, prepare for the collapse, a repeat of 1989.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="640" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bd1oA47Ti0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bd1oA47Ti0I&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="505"></embed></object> 

What we are waiting on is some kind of massive economic problem or political reform that will start carving this old crooked fake experiment began in 1776.

[Fredo Mantacular]

I think they will move....I'm sure medicaid costs in those states are quite high (unaffordable and unsustainable) and are about to get higher.

[VONBLUVENS]

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=60574

[Graves]

Originally Posted by Fredo Mantacular

I think they will move....I'm sure medicaid costs in those states are quite high (unaffordable and unsustainable) and are about to get higher.

That is exactly what Ah'm a thinkin. When the big dogs decide they don't want to play, get that fan out of the way. It's going to get messy.

I hope Driehaus isn't planning to visit his neighborhood. Feces and urine make a real mess on a nice wool suit.

[Jake Featherston]

You guys are lame. Ain't shit gonna happen. Grow the fuck up!

South Dakota and Oklahoma may have passed so-called "sovereignty resolutions," but they are still complying with every single Federal statute & regulation imaginable.

[curtalus]

Virginia Law Allows Opt Out For Individual Health Insurance Mandate


Virginia State Capitol

RICHMOND, VA – Virginia state law makers passed laws earlier this month that are intended to nullify proposed health-care legislation that carries with it mandates for individuals to purchase health insurance.

Virginia is the first state to pass a law that would allow its residents to opt out of the proposed federal requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance, which is one of the elements of the proposed health care bill currently pending in Congress. State legislatures in Idaho and Utah also approved similar measures this month that would limit the scope of the proposed legislation. Several other state legislatures also are considering similar laws and are promoting constitutional amendments that would limit federal requirements. Most are following Virginia’s lead in nullifying the mandate on health insurance.

Will laws pass by states that would exempt their citizens from a federal law requiring all individuals to carry health insurance be able to stand up constitutionally?

Proponents of the new Virginia law cite the tenth amendment plus existing case law, but others have serious doubts that states can override Federal law. States have tried to resist federal laws before. For example, southern states tried this approach in the 1950s as a way avoid school integration.

The problem lies in the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause which essentially says that federal laws reign supreme.

The state bills are prone to be challenged in court. This would setup new legal battles over whether federal law can trump state laws.

The issue is heating up and is being debated all over the blogs. For example, in a recent article on the USA website, Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center, a non-partisan think tank in Los Angeles raises the question, “If there are enough states or people refusing to comply … what’s the federal government going to do?” The Tenth Amendment Center is an advocate for individual and states’ rights.

The Tenth Amendment Center website for the state of Colorado also discusses this issue. In an article written by Geoff Broughton, he asks a couple of important questions:

This leaves you with two very important questions you should answer before you make up your mind. First, does the Constitution allow congress to mandate health insurance be purchased by every citizen simply for being alive? Second, if the answer is no, what can be done if the Congress passes a law it is not legally allowed to pass?

The Arizona state Legislature passed a ballot measure in June that that will be put to the voters to decide. The issue is scheduled to go to Arizona voters in November, when they will be asked to amend the state’s constitution. If passed, the amendment would say that no “person or employer” could be compelled to participate in a health care system or insurance plan or pay a penalty for not participating.

Arizona Republican Rep. Nancy Barto sponsored the bill against the federal mandate in the state House. The USA Today article goes on to say that Barto expects the ballot initiative to pass but she also expects a legal challenge. “We are ready to fight that battle for the sake of all the states that are doing this,” Barto says.

At least four other states are also working on legislation or constitutional amendments – Utah, Idaho, Florida and Louisiana.