Texas’ Tenth Amendment Resolution
Governor Rick Perry of Texas is getting some nice national press for endorsing a state “Tenth Amendment” resolution stating, among other things, that “That the 81st Legislature of the State of Texas hereby claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.”
Everyone seems to have forgotten that we went down this road not too long ago, and it didn’t lead anywhere. In the early and mid-1990s, many states (including Montana) passed similar resolutions. In fact, the Texas resolution is almost a word-for-word duplication of those passed in the 1990s – including even the gross historical error that “the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states.”
The resolutions of the ’90s had little long-term effect. One reason was the non-binding effect of mere resolutions. Another was that you can say the states have all powers not delegated to the federal government, but that means nothing unless you define the powers of the federal government more narrowly than they are currently being defined.
At a time when states have become deeply dependent on federal revenue, state officials have strong incentives to cooperate with the source of that revenue. So when state legislatures did follow up in the ’90s with more substantive legislation, governors and attorneys general often ignored it. A case in point was Governor Marc Racicot’s failure to enforce the Montana Mandates Act.
Perry may be more serious than most: He was willing to turn down part of the Congressional stimulus plan. If he is really serious, he’ll oppose any state budget that includes spending for other constitutionally-suspect programs.
If tea party advocates want anything more than resolutions, the way to start is to ensure that between now and the next election, they swarm all over our state and federal elected officials, giving them no peace until those officials begin to respect the Constitution’s limits on federal power.
Are we repeating the 90’s road to nowhere with HB246, signed lately by the Gov?
Your last paragraph summed it up nicely..thanks.
Hopefully, Governor Perry will stick to his pro-10th Amendment rhetoric.
However, some consider him to be a “subshine” Consitutionalist; for, they
remember his active endorsement of a candidate to run against incumbent,
Ron Paul, a few years back. That was the only time he had ever promotoed
a GOP challenger over an incumbent Congressman.
I meant to write “sunshine” instead of “subshine” in my last post; however,
upon reflection, “subshine” may be most appropriate.
Big Swede: It depends on whether the Montana A-G takes seriously his responsibility to vigorously defend the law. A law like this can serve as a basis for important constitutional litigation. My guess is that Montana would lose such a case right now, but might not in the future. The more often overreaching federal claims get challenged in state court, the more pressure we bring to bear. As I understand it, that is one reason for HB 246.
Part of our job in “swarming” over our elected officials will be to make clear that to the A-G that his political future depends on his not merely “blowing off” legislation like this.
[...] Cross-posted from Electric City Weblog [...]
We’re prisoners of the corrupt “two party” duopoly that desperatley wants to maintain business as usual: http://www.rangevote.net/
A change in the voting system would allow principled advocates(instead of the usual cynical pols) of state sovereignty to create a presence in state government. Electing one house of the state legislature by statewide Proportional Representation would create a permanent bloc of pro-Tenth Amendment legislators. Incredibly, when you actually have elected officials the general public takes you more seriously and even the MSM can’t entirely dismiss you.
http://www.proportional-representation.org/
You can be certain that almost all the incumbent politicians are simply posturing on this issue and looking for a chance to back down.
States like Montana that allow constitutional amendments through initiative and referendum can bypass the politicians and enact reforms like PR and Range Voting.
http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html