Day: January 11, 2010

A resurgence of number 10 in ’10?

One of my favorite amendments to the Constitution is having a good year, and now I’ve finally become aware that it has its own advocacy group.

In 2009, seven states passed sovereignty resolutions under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Two states passed laws nullifying some federal firearms laws and regulations. States with Medical Marijuana laws in direct opposition to federal laws reached thirteen. In 2010, some expect the ante to be raised significantly.

“Already, over a dozen states are considering laws or state constitutional amendments that would effectively ban, or nullify, any proposed national health care plan in their state, and we expect that number to reach at least twenty in 2010,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.  “In conjunction with 20+ states that have already said “No” to the Bush-era Real ID act, another dozen or more considering state laws to nullify federal gun laws, and the steady growth of states refusing to comply with federal marijuana laws, some might consider what we see today to be an unprecedented state-level rebellion to the federal government.” 

The principle behind such legislation is nullification, which has a long history in the American tradition. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.

“Nullification has been used to stand up for free speech, resist the fugitive slave laws, reduce tariffs and more.  It’s a peaceful and effective way to resist the federal government, and might be our only hope for moving towards the constitution.  Legislators drawing this kind of line in the stand should be commended,” said Boldin.

Grassroots activists around the country are looking to the Tenth Amendment and nullification to bolster their efforts too.  Tenth Amendment rallies are planned in at least 10 states before the end of January, including Virginia, Washington, Alabama and Texas.  “These aren’t tea party protests, or tax protests, or any of the other topics that were popular last year,” said Boldin.  “These are rallies solely in support of the 10th Amendment, State Sovereignty or Nullification – something that indicates a major shift from the grassroots, and shows potential for the growth of a popular mass movement in support of the Tenth.”

A recent article in the New York Times included “Tenther” as a top buzzword for 2009. In response, Boldin said, “With people looking to resist D.C. through state laws on everything from national health care to medical marijuana, the 10th Amendment appears ready to be front and center in the national debate once again this year.”

Personally, I don’t see why there’s a national debate on the Tenth Amendment because it’s not debatable, the amendment exists. Just as a reminder, the Tenth Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This was inserted by the Founding Fathers in order to limit the power of the federal government. While tyranny at the time was embodied by the British Crown, the tyranny of our time comes in the form of an overreaching government, and states are reacting to the usurpation of their local powers by faceless bureaucrats and overly zealous members of Congress in Washington.

A longtime complaint of mine has been those situations where Congress passes laws to withhold funding from states unless they adopt laws in line with the vision Washington has. Nanny state laws (like seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet restrictions, and blood alcohol levels) tend to come from these ideas at the federal level and put the state in such a position where they have little choice to adopt the law and keep the federal funding spigot open. As the states fall more and more into this trap, Congress exerts more and more power over their affairs – and by extension ours.

Yet while “Tenthers” are thought of as strictly conservative, items associated with the liberal side of the spectrum such as medical marijuana (along with possibly euthanasia and gay marriage) could also be beneficiaries of “nullification.” Truly, this isn’t a partisan issue but one of state’s rights, and with all the other claims for “rights” being bandied about these are cases where those seeking their rights have a legal leg to stand on.

Yet another call for transparency

It’s not just groups like the Sunlight Foundation (which I included as part of FNV 18 last week) that demand transparency. Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government are clamoring for it as well, at least when it comes to health care.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today called upon leaders of the Senate and House to “implement real transparency” and to “post the final version of the health care takeover on the Internet for 14 days prior to any votes.”

“In the age of the Internet, Congress should be able to get the final bill up on government websites for a legitimate public review and comment period lasting two weeks, where constituent comments would be directly forwarded to the people’s Senators and Representatives,” Wilson said.

“There is too much at stake,” Wilson said, adding, “this is a bill that will nationalize one-sixth of the American economy, downgrade research and development in the medical sciences, take private options away from patients forcing them onto a government-run plan, ration health care away from seniors, and bankrupt the Treasury.”

(snip)

Wilson said that “with real transparency, such an unseemly deal would never be allowed to occur,” and today along with 23 other free market and limited government leaders called on Senate and House leaders to take up C-SPAN’s offer to televise negotiations reconciling both versions of the legislation, fulfilling a campaign promise made by Barack Obama.

(snip) 

The 24 leaders noted that Obama “made such a promise at least eight times, yet it was reported last Tuesday that the Democrat congressional leadership will bypass the traditional conference committee process.”

Wilson said the broken C-SPAN pledge was “just the tip of the iceberg,” and that “the American people need the time to weigh in on what is actually the eighth version of the government health care takeover.”

Wilson said the eight versions of what he dubbed “ObamaCare” were: 1-3) three House committee versions; 4) HR 3200, the House passed version of “public option”; 5) Baucus co-ops, the Senate Finance Committee version; 6) the Senate “public option,” which Senator Joe Lieberman and other lawmakers objected to; 7) the Reid substitute that the Senate passed, and 8 ) the current House-Senate version that Congressional Democrats are now meeting on to discuss.

“This is too much for the American people to keep up with,” Wilson explained.  “The biggest advantage this bill presently has is its intentional ambiguity.  Every time they create a new bill with new provisions, once the details get out, it proves unpopular, and so they go back to the drawing board with yet another bill.”

That is why Wilson said the final version should be posted on the Internet for two weeks prior to any votes.  “With a sufficient period for comment by the American people, there will be no question as to where they stand on a bill that threatens to take over one-sixth of the American economy by government.”

“National polls have shown overwhelming opposition to this legislation for months on end,” Wilson noted.  “A major reason for that has been the lack of transparency: the secret deals for Nebraska and Louisiana; the fuzzy numbers used to manipulate CBO budget scoring to achieve a ‘deficit-neutral’ score; the use of the Medicare Independent ‘Advisory’ Board for health care rationing away from seniors; and the upward pressure the bill will place on health premiums that Congress does not want you to know about.”

“Overall, the public is getting the sense that Congress is trying to pull a fast one on the American people,” Wilson said, concluding, “Instead, here’s a novel idea: why not be transparent about what’s actually in the bill and let it pass or fail on its merits?”

To answer Bill’s last question, there are no merits to the health care bill so they can’t be transparent.

Have you ever noticed that things which Congress isn’t required to do, such as pass this Obamacare monstrosity, they try to rush through – but those tasks which they are supposed to do (like pass a budget) take forever? Remember, we were supposed to have this passed last summer but the outcry was so great that we’ve gone back to the drawing board. Too bad the bill is about the same even after all this time.

I was grousing to a friend of mine earlier this morning about the state of politics in Washington.

Perhaps it is “all politics” because this is an election year. But every year is an election year somewhere and frankly I’m sick of politicians catering to special interests and their craving for power rather than helping out Americans by getting out of the way.

I guess the true problem is that people like me who have such an attitude are also the ones who have no interest in directly solving the problem. Now if you could get 534 others who share my attitude into Congress I might be persuaded to step into the cesspool – but I don’t foresee that anytime soon.

With all that was promised about “transparency” it’s disappointing that Washington feels the need to hide and obfuscate those items they pass and regulations they come up with. Sure, there is often a public comment period for new regulations but there’s only so many hours in the day to attempt to catch up with everything offered from inside the Beltway. So comment usually falls to those lobbyists who specialize in the subject and wish to fix things more to the liking of their backers.

In short, government at all levels has simply become too big for its britches and, like many others at this time of year, it’s time for them to go on a crash diet and get into better shape. Talk about your biggest loser – if the government could somehow enter the competition and take slimming down seriously it would win hands down.

And so would we.