Representative Julie Fisher is carrying another states’ rights bill. As she presented to the Government Operations committee this morning, she pointed to several of the states rights bills that are moving their way through the state legislature – the gun bill, the health care opt-out bill, the land use bill and more. “It is time to re-assert our sovereign rights”, she said, echoing many of the talking points we have heard over the last year from conservative grassroots organizations. Utah will join a number of other states passing similar legislation.
It is curious to me that we have multiple resolutions this year all saying the same thing. Senator Stephenson presented his version of a states’ rights bill last week.
Nonetheless, Utah is making it clear this year that they are tired of federal encroachment and want the federal government to just back off. Congressman Chaffetz recently asked Justice Scalia on how to get some real federal recognition of states’ rights. The answer? Stop taking their money. Good luck with that.
February 16, 2010 at 2:12 pm
The resolution Senator Stephenson introduced was created by a group of citizens. There were many of us who worked long and hard to craft a resolution that would carry a foundation of education with it. When looking for legislators to back it last spring there were none to found, no one seemed to want to be around states’ rights. Then Sen. Howard Stephenson looked it over and agreed to carry it to the hill. This year there are many slapping together resolutions and running around like they’re driving the wagon but only one, SJR-6, was written by citizens of Utah for the citizens of Utah. We appreciate Sen. Stephenson and all the legislators who have supported this humble effort. Where Rep. Fisher was last year I do not know.
As for Justice Scalia’s comments they prompted me to write an article on what citizens must truly be prepared to do if we are to restore Constitutional order and states’ duties of checks and balances under the 10th Amendment. We will have to stand together and turn back the federal flow inbound before we can shut down the flow outbound. Most supporting states’ rights don’t understand that aspect of it. Once they realize it, as you stated, ‘Good luck with that.’
February 16, 2010 at 3:58 pm
The recent Salt Lake Tribune editorial said it better than I could: “If you want send a message, use Twitter.”
February 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm
KSL reported that the Utah State attorney’s office believes that fighting for these states rights bills will cost over $3,000,000 dollars and that the state has an 80% chance of loosing the court battle.
Yea thanks, for wasting tax payers money. We would be much better putting that money into education.
February 16, 2010 at 5:44 pm
I am asking the conservative readers of this blog to share with myself and others specific examples of how the federal government has encroached upon their rights as an individual.
Remember the operative words here are “SPECIFIC” and “INDIVIDUAL”. Vague and generalized statements are not on topic and don’t belong in this discussion.
February 18, 2010 at 9:08 am
I would say the silence is deafening.
February 18, 2010 at 10:39 am
It is quiet, I would venture to say most conservative readers are not willing to invest time and energy to once again attempt to explain why our country was built, successfully, on the notion of personal responsibility and self-government at the lowest level. Also, it would appear many are weary of those who embrace more federal authority over local authority; those who believe states are more vicious than D.C.; those who believe our lives are better when entitlement is mandated from the highest level instead of under the designs of the U.S. Constitution. It may simply be there are so many more important things to invest time in than a question on specifics, with a caveat on ‘their’ when it is all citizens, since there are too many tangled ways mandating from the highest to the lowest has drained resources and impacted lives. However, this would constitute vague, generalized statements I suppose so let us turn to a more specific.
Education is in the local news as we are once again short of money and cutting education as a means to balance the budget. 500 jobs lost in a school system that has a growing demand for teachers based on population growth. Since federal intervention began in the late 1940s and the Department of Education was given to us under Pres. Carter in the 70′s, spending on education has drastically increased while scholastic success has decreased. (Let us not bother with the vague fact education is not a federal duty but a state duty or, depending on each states’ constitution, perhaps an individual duty according the federal rules under the Constitution and 10th Amendment, that will simply muddy the reply. Also, we won’t bother splitting hairs between rights and privileges, that would not fit within the replies rules. ) Since schools were still struggling while students’ scholastic scores steadily declined, and there was far more money being spent it would seem likely someone might consider the size and cost of the now ever-growing federal bureaucracy wasting dollars our teachers and students could be using for education as a potential problem but that was not the answer federal level politicians embraced.
Pres. Bush had a much better idea, more federal interference with the ‘No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA)’ added on top of the already over expanded list of ‘programs’ that would benefit my grand children’s education. (Of course this additional multi-billion dollar program has some good ideas in it (along with bad), the problem with these federal programs is not that some ideas are not good it is they are too expensive, too poorly managed, and too generalized which is precisely why education would be better served at the lowest level where the resources are obtained anyway. )
One key area created was the funding gap between what the act promises to pay and what is budgeted to be paid, a gap that leaves states with the tab on yet another program federally mandated (I have no idea why we are once again cutting education, do you?) Whoops, still this is generalized because it impacts all children subjected to federal oversight of the NEA whose motto is “Great Public Schools for Every Child,” and every is general.
Let’s get more individual and specific. Teaching is a passion for people, our daughter shared the passion, loving the children as they grow and learn in her classes. NCLBA requires a tremendous amount of paperwork (among other things) so to fulfill the federal reporting requirements it was decided, at her school, teachers would teach one less class period so they could stay on top of the administration of NCLBA (as the district cannot afford to hire more administrators since there are already too many of them trying to keep up with DOE and state demands as it is) and other paperwork requirements. Class size at the time was roughly 1 to 18 in her classes. Since one less class was being taught and there were no additional teachers (couldn’t afford that with the dag~nab pesky funding gap) class sizes had to be increased to nearly 1 to 30. Students get less attention but are tested more often on the knowledge they should (according to our fed) be learning in the now larger sizes. Classroom management challenges naturally increase with the additional students. Less classes taught mean less time spent where her heart is and more time spent pushing additional paperwork (not working on lesson plans and fun things that benefit the learning environment) which means less incentive to stay in a profession she is very good in and loved at one time so deeply. Students, in the meantime, have less personal attention and when struggling are not afforded the necessary time they were use to previously.
I know, it didn’t impact me directly…just my children and grandchildren, but I served this country to protect their future life, liberty and ability to pursue happiness. The federal mandates, with their demands and funding gaps, drain state, local, and personal resources. Even though our children are grown and gone from our home we pay more than ever in taxes to fund schools that still don’t have enough funding. It is not that you and I cannot afford to give our children quality education with wonderful teachers. It is that the money we should be using for that is being sucked to the highest, least competent (Constitutionally) level of government and we lose though you will no doubt believe we somehow gain and would be somehow worse off if the federal encroachment were not a part of our daily education.
I for one wish the states would have stood in the way of the federal encroachments of the 1940s, 60s, 70s, and 2000s but they failed in their 10th Amendment duties then. Our education system would be flourishing under local, parental competency because we would control it as we were to do under the concept of a Federalist Republic. If it were not flourishing we would be able to see more clearly where the challenges were instead of looking through tangles of federal bureaucratic growth. (Oh my gosh, I think you are smart enough to help?? Yes, I do.) I, for one, will demand today we dutifully stand for all efforts surrounding the restoration of a localized, personal responsibility based system of government. Nationalized programs don’t work. The war on poverty has failed. The war on drugs has failed. Federal mandates have not improved states but have drained them of resources we need. But, those are vague, generalized statements and I have invested far too much time with this reply.
February 18, 2010 at 11:21 am
[...] local (really good) blog, Holly on the Hill, ran a piece two days ago about Utah’s 10th Amendment rights. Among the replies were some progressive thinkers not entirely enthusiastic about the efforts [...]
February 18, 2010 at 11:28 am
Here’s one example:
Uniform federal health codes classified my employees break room as a “food preparation area” which caused the County Health Department to classify my business as a “food service establishment” which meant we needed to conform to many of the same health and sanitation requirements as a McDonalds which forced us to spend roughly $5,000 dollars additional in construction costs including six separate sinks within a 20 foot radius in our building.
So, the federal government (specifically) caused me (an individual) to purchase three redundant sinks.
Yes, it did effectively facilitate the spread of my wealth, but I consider it government overreach.
February 18, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I would also like to point out that many of us are forced under the threat of violence to work for more than a quarter of the year to feed the federal beast. Think I’m being dramatic? Try not paying your taxes and not consenting to go to jail and see what type of violence is inflicted upon you. Sure I do get some beneficial services from this, but I can’t help but feel that the majority of my tax dollars are utterly wasted. Even if it weren’t for this waste, I should be the one to decide where my money goes NOT the federal government. Instead we get the one size fits all approach. If I dont’ want to send my child to a local public school (which I don’t) then I’m free to send her elsewhere, but I still am forced to pay for that public school whose services I have no interest in. All of this amounts to involuntary servitude.
Another way that the federal government encroaches upon my liberty as an individual is through the FDA. The FDA has been given the authority to decide FOR ME what scientific information I can have access to, what food they will allow me to consume, what treatments they will allow me to recieve … etc. As an example the FDA prohibited consumers from learning how folic acid reduces the risk of neural tube defects for four years after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended every woman of childbearing age take folic acid supplements to reduce neural tube defects. This FDA action contributed to an estimated 10,000 cases of preventable neural tube defects! All apparently to protect me from my own stupidity. Thanks but no thanks. I already have a mommy thank you very much.
Then there is health insurance. The federal government, again to protect me from my own stupidity, has mandated what an insurance policy must and must not cover. Again, the one size fits all approach has severely limited my ability to find a policy that I THINK fits my needs and instead forces me to either not have insurance ( a choice which may soon be taken from me) or to purchase a policy which our wise rulers have decided is appropriate for me. Thanks again.
I could go on and on but I unfortunately have to go back to work. Only a few more months and I will actually working for money that I get to spend. How exciting!
February 18, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Gary covered a lot in his first paragraph. I fail to understand why the tax dollars sent to Washington to support programs (public education, for example) where decisions about those programs should be in the hands of local voters, does not qualify as specific and individual. I sure notice it in my wallet! Many supporters of the tenth amendment movement don’t necessarily believe public education is not an appropriate government function but rather it is not an appropriate FEDERAL government function.
I don’t have time for more now, but I have a lot more to say.
February 19, 2010 at 10:55 am
Gary, so you believe that there is a Constitutional right to education? You realize that none is found explicitly in the Constitution, right? Do you also believe, then, in a right to privacy, a right to health care, and other rights that are inferred from the text of the Constitution but not stated explicitly?
February 19, 2010 at 10:57 am
Sivgart, I agree that this is probably a case of government overreach, but I hardly think that it rises to the level of an invasion of your Constitutional rights. The law is likely in place to protect human health and limit the spread of infectious diseases. I think we would all agree that this is an area where we want the government involved. It may be wise to tweak the regulation to exclude cases like yours, but it is not justification, in my mind, for overreaction in the other direction.
February 19, 2010 at 11:09 am
Jeff, the Constitution requires that you pay taxes, which can be levied for defense and the general welfare of the nation. You do not have a Constitutional right to avoid taxes. You may disagree with how they are spent, we all do, but the recourse is political, not Constitutional. I hated that my money was spent on the Iraq War, and therefore I voted for candidates who opposed the war. I did not claim that such spending was unconstitutional, because it was not.
I know of very few people who oppose the FDA. This is an agency that was created to protect Americans from phony and harmful drugs, food, etc. It is perfectly Constitutional in every way (welfare clause), therefore its functioning in no way limits your Constitutional rights.
I agree that some functions are better left to the states. But where the states fail to meet a minimum level of performance the federal government in many cases has the Constitutional right to step in. For example, if Utah fails at protecting its air and water, the EPA can take over.
February 19, 2010 at 11:33 am
Jacob, I think that you don’t understand the libertarian objections to the current governmental system and our constitutional objections to it. Your statements about the constitutionality of levying taxes, restricting free speech (the FDA example) … or whatever else the federales decide is for our “general welfare” is LEGALLY correct according to supreme court case law. But that is my objection. The “commerce clause” and the “general welfare” clause have been given such a broad interpretation (which is clearly contrary to what the original intent of these statements were. For example read http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods33.html) that NOTHING is unconstitutional, which means that the constitution is MEANINGLESS in our current system. Granted, our politicians still pay lip service to the document, but they know that it no longer places any real limitation on their power. I reject this unrestrained power regardless of how it is used. History has shown over and over again that anytime a government is given unrestricted power it ends very very badly, regardless of its initially perceived benefits. Even Mussolini made the trains run on time. I believe that the federal government should be trimmed back to the enumerated and limited powers that our founders intended. THAT is what we as a union of states agreed upon, and that is what the tenth amendment movement is all about as I see it.
February 19, 2010 at 11:40 am
Here’s another great (and terrible) example of just how irrelevant the constitution or any sort of rule of law is. The president can now assasinate US citizens who the executive branch, and the executive branch alone deem to be terrorists. So much for checks and balances.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/02/04/assassinations/print.html
February 19, 2010 at 4:23 pm
Jacob, please read what I wrote and you will see the answer to your question on whether I believe there is a right to education. I know it was a long post but reading it before asking your question would have saved you asking the question.
February 20, 2010 at 11:46 am
We cannot expect Washington to quit spending our posteritys future to non existence and terminable debt, until we’re ready to accept personal accountability. Can you imagine Utah as a country unto itself? Does this thought and the hardships that go with it scare you? Are you willing to sacrrifice all personal comforts and in some cases actually may have to sacrifice life or limb for the liberty of our posterity? Our fore fathers did! They had just come from a state of oppression, and realized seeing us in the future, that there was no other option. Death, oppression without freedom, or liberty for generations to come. What will you choose? How will you answer when asked about your stance on the ever so pressing currant issues? We are in the right! We must take a stance, and serve with boldness. It is not by chance that we are here at this most sacred time. Let us not shurk the duties that will forever remain ours. The time has come for us to defend that which was passed to us. The torch is in our hands. Will we let it burn out? I pray no.
February 20, 2010 at 1:06 pm
‘I am asking the conservative readers of this blog to share with myself and others specific examples of how the federal government has encroached upon their rights as an individual.
Remember the operative words here are “SPECIFIC” and “INDIVIDUAL”. Vague and generalized statements are not on topic and don’t belong in this discussion’
I’m going to give you a list and if you feel the need to argue to the contrary, please be specific regarding the authority delegated to the federal government in the Constitution to act.
Education
Social Security
Medicare
Title to land beyond what is provided in the Constitution
Any laws governing marriage, abortion, and individual health and welfare
February 20, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Jacob, nobody here argues that the Constitution requires us pay taxes, but that in itself can be validly viewed as a specific, individual encroachment because it is an amendment to the Constitution, not part of the original framework. Any results of one encroachment can also be seen as an encroachment. To say that our recourse is not Constitutional is false, because a repeal of this amendment is possible by means of another amendment. Just as the 18th amendment was an encroachment upon all individuals, and rightly repealed by the 21st amendment.
I’m sure nobody here has a problem assisting the (legitimately) disabled citizens, but James Madison had a lot to say about use of the “general welfare” clause, and the context they provide flies very contrary to Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare, TANF, ect… “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” & “Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” – Both by the man who wrote the Constitution, James Madison
Generally speaking, I doubt many here oppose the FDA, however, an honest argument could be made that it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to place mandates or restrictions or anything else outside of educating and advising the general public. “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” – Patrick Henry
As for the EPA, yes, you’re right that it can “protect us” from toxic poisoning of public utilities, and to some degree, air quality. The EPA should not be allowed to do anything more than educate those who choose to supply their own water by means of private wells or rainwater catchment systems. And the EPA has caused thousands of Americans specific, direct, individual harm by restricting and mandating our activities based on the protection of insects and fish, costing many their homes and businesses (i.e. – California farming).
The Constitution also provides for the feds to assume ownership of lands, but provides the specific use of national defense for those lands. The “Antiquities Act” that is used to allow fed takeover of lands can be seen as a specific encroachment on any individual who must pay higher taxes due to lost revenue from these lands. And, by reading the 10th amendment, since the Constitution doesn’t grant any other use of land to the fed, nor restricts the use of land by the states, this could easily be viewed as unconstitutional.
February 27, 2010 at 10:54 am
[...] local (really good) blog, Holly on the Hill, ran a piece two days ago about Utah’s 10th Amendment rights. Among the replies were some progressive thinkers not entirely enthusiastic about the efforts [...]
March 11, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Would it be possible through legislation to limit the amount of money a state sends to Washington? If that is possible then we could keep the difference and not be beholding to the federal government to give our money back.
It almost feels like begging, but it is our money in the first place, so who is begging. We are legally held up without recourse!