Renewed Interest In A Forgotten Amendment

One of the encouraging things to have come out of the Obama Administration so far has to be the trend among states suddenly to remember their rights under the 10th Amendment. For those that have forgotten, the 10th Amendment reads as follows:

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.

Short, sweet and to the point! That which the Constitution does not expressly give to the Federal government is reserved for the states and for the people. It is a simple enough precept but one that has been ignored by the state and federal governments for decades. For the last 60-80 years the states have been ceding more and more of their Constitutional rights to the federal government....mostly for expedience sake - but there have been times where the Federal Government has wrested the rights away from the states.

As many as 30 states have gone on the record in their Legislative sessions this year reclaiming their 10th Amendment rights. One wonders why the renewed interest in this inconvenient Amendment all of a sudden....

On February 26, the South Carolina House adopted and sent to the Senate a bill to "affirm the rights of all states including South Carolina based on the provisions of the U.S. Constitution's Ninth and Tenth Amendments, etc."

In part it reads, "Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled; ..."

This excerpt is according to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Why are more than 30 states rushing to slam through this reaffirmation of their own constitutions and restating what already exists in the U.S. Constitution? The Washington Dragon is breathing down states' necks — states are being forced to accept so-called "stimulus" monies which threatens to tighten Washington's power and control over the states.

Utah, while not on this list, has taken a look at the strings attached to certain stimulus monies and said "Thanks but no thanks...."

Utah lawmakers are turning their backs -- at least for now -- on more than $61 million in federal stimulus money targeted at helping the state's surging unemployed ranks.

To snag the money, the Legislature would have had to change state law, extending benefits to about 4,200 jobless Utahns -- part-time workers, those who quit jobs to accompany a spouse who is changing employment, or others -- who don't qualify now.

But Utah legislators, pinched for time in the 2009 session, balked at changing the law, fearing that employers, already grappling with a poor economy, would get hit with more unemployment taxes to cover the costs.

"Any time you have to run legislation and change your state policy and code for one-time money, that doesn't make a lot of sense," said Senate Majority Leader Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse. Lawmakers have to either kill the program when the money is gone or find a way to fund a benefit "you don't want in the first place."

Many of the bills that are going through the current Congress are partly or fully unconstitutional. Whether it is granting a States rights to a non-state (representation in Congress to Washington DC) or mandating that states change their laws in order to accept these stimulus funds, Congress is trying to bypass the Constitution in order to push through wholesale changes to the country. My thought is if these are such great ideas, let's put them to the people individually - so that we may argue the pros and cons in a direct fashion. Hiding them in omnibus bills and "must pass" stimulus legislation when they are not discussed makes people think that maybe these bills are not as beneficial as their supporters say they are.

Let's shine the light of day on these bills so that the merits of each idea can be discussed on it's own. Or are you afraid that they people will not accept the "Change" that you are proposing?