The Constitution’s 10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment is being revitalized; concepts such as state’s rights and sovereignty are catching on across America, a natural by-product of the federal government governing beyond constitutional authority. As Washington continues down a path of reckless policies and an increasingly corrupt means of implementing them, state governments are stepping up to intercede on behalf of the rights of their citizens as a result.

Have you ever wondered what makes the United States so unique? Why aren't we Haiti? We are only 230 years old, yet we are a larger economy than all of the European powers, from whence we sprung, combined. We are the most powerful military presence in the history of the planet, and at the same time the most benevolent. How did we get from there to here?

The answer is the Constitution; the most ingenious governmental construct in civilized history by which a society can govern itself. It is the invention of self-rule. It offers the maximum amount of freedom to each individual while ensuring that one citizen’s freedoms won't trample another’s. It enshrines the right to property as well as the rule of law. It offers every citizen an equal opportunity to achieve, excel and grow, to live simply, unfettered by government meddling.

Our constitution was intended to limit the federal government to fixed and enumerated powers. All other powers are reserved to the people and the states via the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

For an explanation of “natural law” and where our constitutionally guaranteed rights come from see our exclusive video of Judge Andrew Napolitano speaking at the 10th Amendment Townhall in Plano, Texas here:

Judge Napolitano on States' Rights from Bargain Citizen on Vimeo.

The stage has been set and we now appear to be in the early phases of epic long-term political battles; major change is on the horizon. This shift will find state governments increasingly involved in issues on the national stage.

Citizens are beginning to recognize that restoring our government to a proper footing requires a balance which, in part, must be achieved by states boldly asserting their sovereignty. After all, it was the states that created the federal government. They breathed life into it by delegating limited powers deemed best suited to a central government.

See NRN Director George Scaggs’ recent speech defending The 10th Amendment and sharing his views on the shifting political current here:

Is The Federal Government Destroying America?

Throughout our nation’s history, states and citizens have experienced an incremental erosion of their sovereignty, their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. Among the more significant incidents in our history is the force wielded during The Civil War, the addition of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, and a federal judiciary routinely chipping away at the Bill of Rights; repeatedly misinterpreting the supremacy, general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution. The collective impact on personal freedoms and economic liberty has been devastating.

Time and again history has proven that when the federal government abandons constitutional mandates and limitations, bad policy is the result; policy which either creates or contributes to widespread problems for both the individual and for society-at-large. The failure to secure our nation’s borders is a recent hot-button issue that illustrates this truth.

Currently, American society’s largest problem is the federal government's outrageous runaway growth, resulting in ever increasing demands for the wealth of the citizenry and the dampening of prosperity for future generations. Spiraling annual budget deficits and a grotesque national debt which now grows at $4 billion a day are harbingers of serious danger ahead. Yet, our government thumbs its nose at demand for responsible fiscal behavior. Ultimately, the federal government can be the undoing of America if it is not returned to the constitutional constraints under which it was born.

Now more than ever, an increasing number of citizens are learning that they must educate themselves and remain ever vigilant if we are to maintain our rights. We can no longer depend on the federal government to restrain its self. Left to their own devices, our representatives in Washington have repeatedly refused to do so. Righting the relationship between the people and central government will depend upon citizens utilizing state government to reign in the powers that be in Washington.

So, how to assert state sovereignty? Once we understand that the federal government was never intended to determine their own limitations of power, we must reason that state governments, as well as “the people”, possess legitimate tools to effectively assert or re-claim their rights when necessary.

For more on this issue, see our exclusive video of “A Matter of Principle”, a forum on sovereignty and state’s rights featuring Sheriff Richard Mack here:

The States Fight Back

There are countless recent examples for us to learn from and continue to build upon. In the last two years, thirty-seven states have either passed or are currently working on resolutions or declarations of sovereignty (the Texas House passed HCR-50 in the most recent legislative session).

To date, the Commonwealth of Virginia has already passed legislation to repeal the recent federal health care law, while twenty states have joined in a lawsuit charging that the law is unconstitutional. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is among the bipartisan group of thirteen AGs who filed the original suit the same day that President Obama signed “health care” into law. Perhaps the most obvious affront in the law is that the federal government obviously lacks any authority to coerce citizens to purchase health care insurance, or any other good or service for that matter.

See our exclusive video of AG Abbott speaking on the states’ lawsuit filed against federal health care here:

Though government health-care is the most popular catalyst, there are a host of other battle grounds as well. In late February AG Abbott filed the first state lawsuit challenging “global warming” claims by the federal government, charging, “The EPA improperly relied on the scientific conclusions of other groups, particularly the IPCC, to make the endangerment finding on heat-trapping gases.”

States are also acting proactively. Recent state gun laws are an excellent example; this March, Utah followed the lead of Montana and Tennessee in adopting a law that sends a message to the feds that they have no business regulating weapons or ammo which are manufactured and strictly used within their own state borders. Most recently, Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070, has set off a fire-storm that is sweeping the nation, with more states sure to follow their lead.

Predictably, the federal government has threatened to sue over these bills. This is often by design and a positive development for proponents of state sovereignty. The more issues and different angles states get into the federal courts challenging federal authority, the better.

Actually, the resurgence of states asserting their rights began a number of years ago; medical marijuana is a widespread case of states operating contradictory to federal law, as is defiance of the Real ID Act of 2005. As of October 2009, twenty-five states have passed resolutions or binding legislation to effectively nullify Real ID.

This brings us to another tool in the state’s rights arsenal, the concept of nullification. Given the on-going developments in how the federal government routinely conducts its business, nullification has been recently revived as a valid idea. Though it is not specifically designated in the language of the Constitution, the intent for a proper separation of powers, and designated authority for the powers between state and central government could not be clearer. They are inherent in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, as well as in the 10th Amendment.

It is important to note that there is a rich history of states nullifying federal law, or “interposing” themselves on behalf of their citizens, rendering void federal law which the state determines to be a usurpation of constitutional authority. This history goes well beyond the instances that are popularly trumpeted by leftists and the media; such as southern states defending the practice of slavery or resistance of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

In fact, nullification was originally conceived by the author of The Declaration of Independence and the man known as the “Father of our Constitution”. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively wrote The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 in response to The Alien and Sedition Act enacted during the John Adams Administration. These Resolutions asserted the states’ rights to effectively nullify unconstitutional federal law.

Establishing Legitimate Authority

So, how did we get so far from our government operating as it was designed? How has the federal government continually managed to overstep its proper authority? As previously mentioned, in large part a succession of activist interpretations by the judiciary including the Supreme Court lies at the root of the problem

The second paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution reads, “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land…” Today, the U. S. Government would have us believe that this “supremacy clause” establishes that any federal law is supreme in its own right. This would mean that our central government is the sole and final arbiter in determining the limitations of its own power, it can grant its own authority.

Indeed, the proponents of big government mistakenly read this clause as, “The laws of the United States (federal law) shall be the supreme law of the land.” Yet, clearly, the supremacy clause says no such thing. Rather, it dictates that the Constitution (and subsequent laws which are consistent with it) is the supreme law of the land.

In resolving disputes of proper authority between the states and the central government, a proper reading of the supremacy clause would merely point us back to the 10th Amendment along with Article I, Section 8. Read improperly, as has too often been the case in the last century, the 10th Amendment is essentially rendered meaningless.

Consider this; as the framework of The Constitution was ratified in 1789 and The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) was ratified over two years later, how could it be that the supremacy clause, commerce clause, or anything else contained in the original body of The Constitution was intended to trump the clear limitations of federal authority reiterated in the 10th Amendment? Clearly, they were not.

Therefore, we must depend upon the states to re-claim our rights and assert their guaranteed sovereignty. To accomplish this, it becomes incumbent upon citizens to insist that their state officials strictly abide by a proper interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and exercise their authority on behalf of those who they represent.

The Path Forward

In sum, a viable framework to restoring limited federal government is beginning to take shape. In coming years, we may learn the rather popular notion that a federal official is somehow more important than a state official is patently false. The U.S. Congressman may wield more power (at least for the time being), make more money and garner more attention but the state rep is likely to be more critical to America’s salvation. As citizens of a sovereign state, we cannot directly control a power hungry member of the U.S. Congress from another state. We can, however, directly control our state representative whenever a majority of over-zealous U. S. Congressmen attempt to create their own authority.

In truth, elected officials in Texas take an oath to uphold and defend not only our state’s constitution but the U.S. Constitution as well. Why must state and local officials swear allegiance to the US Constitution? Again, this is a clear indicator that state officials were provided a role in protecting the integrity of the Constitution. Who are they intended to protect it from? Primarily, our federal government!

In Texas, we have a foundation to build our defenses upon. In addition to our attorney general taking aggressive steps to curtail over-reaching by the federal government, we also have a formidable caucus of state legislators who are prepared to defend Texans.

The Texas Conservative Coalition consists of over 70 members of the Texas House and Senate. Along with a new sister organization, Independent Conservative Republicans of Texas, they are out front on defending the 10th Amendment and the rights of Texans.

Yes, there is much work to be done in getting the right people in Washington but strengthening the ranks of state officials who will defend the rights of Texas has never been more critical. This is our task, one that can be achieved right here at home.

New Revolution Now salutes Attorney General Abbott and the TXCC for exhibiting real leadership. We strongly urge all Texans to support their efforts in building a solid majority of 10th Amendment advocates in the Texas Legislature.

For an overview of this battle, see our exclusive interview with TXCC Chairman, Representative Wayne Christian here:

Interview with Wayne Christian, TCC President from Bargain Citizen on Vimeo.