Yesterday, hundreds of conservative protesters rallied at the Harrisburg, PA state capitol demanding an end to the federal government's usurpation of states' rights (pictured). Called a "Tenth Amendment Rally," it mirrored similar Tenth Amendment-centered protests in New Hampshire and Oklahoma earlier this month. The resolution of the Pennsylvania rally, and the resolution that was introduced into the Pennsylvania legislature, read in part:
When our country was founded, our Fathers envisioned a form of government in which the federal government served as an agent of the states—not the states serving as an agent of the federal government...This rally seeks to remind federal officials of their constitutional limitations while affirming Pennsylvania's 10th Amendment Rights.
Similar resolutions passed in the Oklahoma legislature and failed in the New Hampshire legislature. 17 other states have introduced resolutions like these.
For those who may not remember, the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
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.
States' rights advocates are against the encroachment of the federal government on what should be powers delegated to the states; their recent aggravation is with Obama's financial stimulus package. Although I side with Obama on the stimulus package, in many other regards I agree with these protesters.
When Congress passes a law that infringes on states' rights, they have to make it optional for the states to comply. The catch is that if a state does not comply, it will typically lose massive amounts of federal government. For example, although each state may set its drinking age however it wants, the federal government mandates that each state set its drinking age to 21 or higher. Any state with a drinking age lower than 21 loses funding for highways, and of course, all states have their drinking age at 21. In effect, the states are financially blackmailed.
Another hideous example is the No Child Left Behind Act, which encroaches on a state's right to set its own standards regarding education.
However, it is important to not forget the importance of the 14th Amendment, which, ratified in 1868 just after the Civil War, dramatically altered the relationship between the states and the federal government. Citing only the relevant sections, it reads:
Section 1. ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Thus it is worth noting that not every issue is a states' rights issue. Civil liberties cannot be curbed by any state, so those who think that civil rights issues like abortion and gay equality should be decided by the states are in the wrong, in my opinion.
There should be a more perfect balance between state power and federal power. The smaller the body of government, the more direct influence each constituent has on it. Because the federal level of government, serving hundreds of millions of people over a wide variety of landscapes (urban, suburban, rural, industrial, etc.) cannot please everyone with one sweeping bill, state-level governments that better know the political and physical climate of their individual states can pass their own laws that better serve their own people, in most regards anyway.
Resources:
Very interesting blog...keep the new content coming and maybe add a little multimedia to this.
ReplyDelete