Omaha, NE
H: 56°
L: 43°
33°
Omaha, NE
H: 56°
L: 43°
33°
November 21, 2009
LOGIN | SIGNUP
Today’s e-Edition |
|
|
|
LINCOLN — At least three Nebraska lawmakers want to send a message to the federal government:
Butt out of state business.
Next year they will see if a majority of their colleagues agrees.
The senators are working on resolutions asserting Nebraska's sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
Nebraska wouldn't try to secede from the union under their proposals but would go on record objecting to federal laws that they say go beyond constitutional authority.
“My goal here is to shine light on the fact that the federal government is overstepping its bounds,” said State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln. “We would be making a statement on behalf of Nebraska.”
The tension between states' rights and federal authority has been a repeated theme in U.S. history, starting with arguments among the founding fathers.
The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued.
Critics say the current measures amount to little more than political posturing — passing resolutions doesn't mean that states refuse to comply with federal law or send back federal funds that come with mandates.
State Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln said the proposals sound disturbingly similar to the states' rights arguments made in defense of racial segregation and laws blocking blacks from voting.
“The history of this movement is rife with racism in the name of states' rights,” he said. “I'm not saying that the people making the case now are racist, but I don't think Nebraska needs to be getting in bed with these kinds of resolutions.”
Colleagues denied links to that history. Fulton, an Asian-American, said he has no intention of promoting racism or segregation.
Interest in states' rights is spreading as the federal government has taken over businesses, mandated driver's license security measures and proposed a public health care program.
Seven states passed resolutions this year affirming their sovereignty, and resolutions were introduced in 30 others. Some states have filed lawsuits or taken legislative action to challenge federal laws.
In Iowa, State Senate Republican leader Paul McKinley of Chariton offered a resolution this year calling on the federal government to “cease and desist” in issuing mandates that go beyond what the 10th Amendment allows. The body's Democratic majority has kept the resolution alive but bottled up in committee.
The movement's rise followed the election of President Barack Obama. Most of its supporters, though not all, can be found in conservative camps, such as libertarian talk-show host Glenn Beck and his conservative Web site. The states passing resolutions all voted Republican in the 2008 presidential election.
Online petitions urge Nebraska's state lawmakers to act.
“Either states can use the Constitution to maintain the power they have always had, or they can give it up,” said Gregory Boyle of Omaha, who started one online petition this spring.
A constitutional scholar questions the effectiveness of legislative resolutions and legal challenges.
“This is an outlet for those who are worried that the federal government will take over everything,” said Mark Kende, director of the Drake University Constitutional Law Center in Des Moines.
Richard Duncan, a constitutional law professor at the University of Nebraska College of Law, said legislative resolutions send valuable political messages even with no legal weight.
“It's kind of a nice warning that people are growing tired of the size of the federal government,” he said.
Under the 10th Amendment, states and citizens retain all powers not specifically given to the federal government.
Sovereignty supporters argue that the federal government has overstepped those bounds on matters such as endangered species protection and seat belt laws. Others say the Constitution, as interpreted by courts from the 1800s on, gives the federal government broad authority.
Fulton and Sens. Mark Christensen of Imperial and Ken Schilz of Ogallala are researching possible resolutions.
“I absolutely don't like where our government is going right now,” Christensen said.
Among his complaints are the mandates attached to federal stimulus funds and the new national health care proposals.
Fulton listed federal control of General Motors and mandates imposed on schools under the 2001 No Child Left Behind law.
“I'm not saying that every interaction with the federal government is bad,” he said. “I'm saying that some are over the line.”
Schilz's concerns include a proposal to extend the Clean Water Act to all bodies of water.
None of the three Nebraska lawmakers is ready to advocate giving up most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates, although Christensen supported the governor's decision to reject some unemployment stimulus money because of the strings attached.
Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature Mike Flood of Norfolk said he wasn't sure whether he would back a resolution, though he supports states' rights.
“Every day in the Legislature,” Flood said, “it seems we deal with issues where the federal government has its tentacles, either on the policy or the money or both.”
South Dakota's GOP whip, State Rep. Manny Steele, introduced his state's successful resolution. Steele said change will occur if enough states follow sovereignty measures with legal challenges to federal authority.
Some challenges have already popped up, on both conservative and liberal issues.
Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made, sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The law's chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle.
Arizona lawmakers put a measure on the 2010 ballot that would exempt residents from a federal health care plan.
On the liberal front, Massachusetts cited the 10th Amendment in filing suit against a federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages.
And six states sided with a California woman who argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that states had the power to legalize medical marijuana. The court ruled for the federal government in the 2005 case.
Kende questioned the states' chances of prevailing, saying the federal government won all cases from 1937 to 1995, although its record has been mixed since.
Courts already have upheld the practice of attaching strings to federal funds, Duncan said.
No matter the result of the court cases, states can make a difference through political pressure, said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center in Los Angeles. The howls that greeted a George W. Bush-era law increasing driver's license requirements, for example, forced the federal government to rethink that law.
“With each state,” Steele said, “we gain power.”
Contact the writer:
402-473-9583, martha.stoddard@owh.com
Please note by clicking on "Post" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
©2009 The Omaha World Herald. All rights reserved.
RSS Feeds |
News Alerts |
About Us |
Write a Letter to the Editor |
Submit a Calendar Event|
Order Photos or Reprints
Questions? Comments? Suggestions? webmaster@omaha.com
Digg
Newsvine
del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
94 Comments
Posted by: Victor on 07/27/09 @ 12:22 am:
Three state senators? Whoopie-do! Now our legislature has its own little Confederacy.
Posted by: Istaraen on 07/27/09 @ 1:02 am:
I'd almost be willing to bet that there are campaign donations linking the three Nebraska state senators talking about a worthless "sovereignty" resolution in our state and those who introduced them in other states: the World-Herald should really look into possible connections with national interest groups.
Ultimately, though, all of these sorts of proposals are missing the sort of reforms the country actually needs, whether implemented at the state or federal level, which includes health care. If they want to go after unnecessary government interference with the states, why not start with laws like the Real ID program or the USA Patriot Act instead? Those aren't desperately needed by most citizens, and those really are the federal government overstepping its Constitutional authority.
Posted by: WWTOD on 07/27/09 @ 5:46 am:
You may be right, Istaraen, but could you just for a moment entertain the possiblity that these senators are exhibiting a little leadership and probably represent the opinion of a majority of people in this state? (I know that's a lot to expect from the folks in Lincoln, but there are actually a few good ones down there.)
Thirty-eight other states have passed or are considering similar resolutions... that's a LOT of people who are growing concerned that the federal government is overstepping its bounds. This nation was formed as an organization of states with the federal goverment granted specific, not ALL, powers because our founders were worried about too much power centered in one place. For many of us, it seems their concerns were justified as the federal government seems to worm its way into every aspect of our daily life. Is all government bad? Of course not, but can anyone really argue that we have not created a monarchy, or at least an oligarcy in DC?
As to your comments regarding the Patriot Act and the Real ID program... first, the question this resolution asks isn't whether they are "unnecessary," but rather whether they are LEGAL under the 10th Amendment. And, if states had the level of power the backers of this resolution seek, you'd have a better chance of overturning federal mandates such as these. That's the whole point. If enough states send the message, it reminds our Dear Leaders in DC know, in a non-violent way, that the basis for their power still resides with us.
Posted by: Cyclone42 on 07/27/09 @ 6:03 am:
It is interesting that movements such as these become especially evident under a Democrat president, even though his Republican predecessor did as much or more to trample on "state's rights".
Posted by: CJTMW on 07/27/09 @ 6:24 am:
Hopefully this passes, and moreso hopefully it's enforced and backed by some sort of law. Then we can say bye-bye Patriot Act, Real ID, Federal Health Care, etc.
It's important for us to remember that each state should be deciding, in the vast majority of cases, what is good for that state. In time, good ideas should spread without being forced by the Fed.
Posted by: Jon Quixote on 07/27/09 @ 6:28 am:
It's so interesting how the only issue that ever prompts Americans to question anything is money. When bailouts, taxes and a bad economy have people worried, they'll speak up about the Constitution. Meanwhile, the US has not declared a single war since WWII, but has sent troops all over the planet. We have military troops or "advisors" in over half the nations of the Earth. Where is the Constitutional authority to do that?
Posted by: scarborough on 07/27/09 @ 7:17 am:
It seems to be forgotten in this rhetoric that the federal government acts to protect the body of the country as a whole, and does so specifically to avoid local influences like constituent-specific interests as well as politicians who want to keep their comfortable jobs and get re-elected as many times as possible. As Steele said in the last comment, "With each state, we gain power." The operative word is POWER. I would prefer federal oversight/assistance versus pushy and self-serving local influence and attention mongers. I love Nebraska, no question (I have been here my entire life and I intend to remain here for the duration) but the chest thumping of the "independence" crowd is so funny to contemplate..."no big government!" is their battle cry, all the while receiving their crop insurance, unemployment, Medicaid, emergency services, stimulus, clean water, rural electrification, social security, student loans, etc from those "evil" institutions. So it can be safely argued that the "sovereignty" call is selective at best. This can easily become a lot of posturing and posing and offers no true solution, except to show a curled lip and a "nyah nyah nyah" attitude that not only does not play well in Washington, but it speaks badly of Nebraska as a whole if it is passed.
Posted by: Byron on 07/27/09 @ 7:39 am:
An action a long time in coming. For too long the feds have been usurping states rights.
Posted by: Fullerton Flash on 07/27/09 @ 7:41 am:
So we have some state senators wishing to rely on Glen Beck on matters pertaining to federal and state constitutional rights. What's next, Rush Limbaugh giving us a hand on policies to fight drug abuse? Or Senator John Ensign helping us with policies that promote "family values"? Is this a great country or what?
Posted by: Aaron on 07/27/09 @ 7:44 am:
What's wrong with trying to tell the Feds that enough is enough? Passing the resolution seems to me the best non-violent reminder that the Fed Govt serves States' interests and not the other way around.
Posted by: Rooster on 07/27/09 @ 7:46 am:
I love this country! Because we have the right to seek sovereignty as states. That is very cool in it's self.
Posted by: clamcake on 07/27/09 @ 7:49 am:
nothing of substance here.
A few state senators from Nebraska might whine and stomp their feet at some point next year. I want those two minutes back where I read this looking for something interesting
Posted by: ztraveler on 07/27/09 @ 7:55 am:
Martha.. the states rights article was very good... however, I would like to
call your attention to the fact that the "Civil War" was not started because of
slavery. It was about "States Rights"... the right to sell cotton.. check it
out.. years into the was, Lincoln freeded the Southern Slaves... not the
Northern Slaves... his idea was that the Rebels would have another people to
fight. The North was against slavery, because the South was getting cheaper
labor that the Northern companies. Two years after Lincoln freeded the Southern
Slaves....he fried the Northern Slaves..
Posted by: scared barakless on 07/27/09 @ 7:58 am:
Go Nebraska!
Posted by: braves1995 on 07/27/09 @ 8:00 am:
"The struggle turned bloody when Southern states seceded, citing states' rights on the question of slavery, and the Civil War ensued."
It would be nice for our public education system to stop teaching that the Civil War was about slavery! Please, please read actual truthful history especially the 30 year history leading from Andrew Jackson's presidency up until the first shots at Fort Sumter. The federal government dominated by the larger northern states basically gave the South no choice but to secede through import tariffs which crippled the South's cotton export business to France and Britain, spending money on internal improvements that really only benefitted the North, and the list goes on. It is NO different from today where the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority.
But for the sake of sounding intelligent, stop saying that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Was it a component, sure. Was it the main reason, hardly!
Posted by: fries on 07/27/09 @ 8:01 am:
This new federal government is "way" out of control in many way, so the states should do what ever it takes to standup to the BIG bully and protect our Congressional rights... GO FOR it
Posted by: Go Go Huskers on 07/27/09 @ 8:03 am:
It's about time somebody has some sense around the crumbling republic.
Posted by: fries on 07/27/09 @ 8:03 am:
This new federal government is "way" out of control in many way, so the states should do what ever it takes to standup to the BIG bully and protect our Congressional rights... GO FOR it
Posted by: JBnID on 07/27/09 @ 8:05 am:
It's good to see more states deciding to follow the Constitution. A resolution or a declaration, or even a 'notice' that is given by the States to the US government carries a lot of weight.....especially when it's CONSTITUTIONAL.
Read "American Lion"(Andrew Jackson bio) to see how the Tenth Amendment was defined, but it took the Civil War to make the definition stick.
Jackson was the first Democrat....and the only one I'd ever be associated with.
Posted by: mb on 07/27/09 @ 8:07 am:
First, the Civil War was not about slavery. It was about the northern states putting unfair taxes on southern agriculture products. The slavery issue did not come about until Lincoln saw the north was loosing, and the possibility that Britian might enter the war on the side of the south. Lincoln then 'freed' the slaves knowing that Britain would not enter the war if slavery was an issue. The worthless emancipation document only freed the slaves in the southern states that were in revolution - not the border states. Lincoln had no jurisdiction in the southern states, at that time they were a separate nation. With the feds ruining this country, taking away personal freedoms at an alarming rate, perhaps it is time to assert state rights, to the point of leaving the union. The union was never founded nor meant to be a centrally controlled state.
Posted by: scot on 07/27/09 @ 8:07 am:
Difference is the Patriot act falls under defense of the country. A very explicit authority of the Federal Government. Health care, Safety Mandates and the like are all extreme interferences in the State level government. No where does the Constitution give the Federal Government the right or authority to force states to comply with such laws.
We need to get back to the state level of government. Give the power back to the people and away from people in Washington. Back to the way the founders intended. How or why these people are influenced to do that is irrelevant.
Posted by: Freedom Needed on 07/27/09 @ 8:10 am:
This is a start. The next step would be for the State to close, condem, evict, or take over any property where any Federal programs that are not Constitutionally mandated occur...This would send pretty clear message!
Posted by: DianaP on 07/27/09 @ 8:11 am:
The long history of the battle over states rights did indeed start with the first American politicians hammering out the Constitution and it had nothing to do with racism. I think the first time it sparked violence was in the "Whiskey Rebellion" which took place in Pennsylvania. Per Wiki: The new Federal government, at the urging of the first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, assumed the states' debt from the American Revolutionary War. In 1791 Hamilton convinced Congress to approve taxes on alcohol and carriages. Hamilton's principal reason for the tax was that he wanted to pay down the national debt, but he justified the tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue."[1] But most importantly, Hamilton "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government
Posted by: peter kuck on 07/27/09 @ 8:12 am:
The constitution is a contract between the people and the government. The Federal Government is currently in breach of contract. There is a process for changing the constitutional contract but our politicians are too lazy or afraid that their proposed changes will fail if they need to follow the process set down in the constitution. These legislators are standing up for what they believe to be right and only a fool or a poltroon will denigrate their actions.
Posted by: blacknblue on 07/27/09 @ 8:13 am:
For you to even say this "worthless "sovereignty" resolution" shows how well you have given up on the idea of a Republic. My I call you comrade?
Posted by: Marcellus on 07/27/09 @ 8:16 am:
States rights, it's the original answer to big government. Seems somewhere along the way we forgot about that. Every state should push back with resolutions and other legislative measures to challenge the federal gov't.
One point of the article needs some correcting. It stated that slavery was the reason for the Civil War. Granted it was a part, but the bigger issue was unfair taxation by the more populous, urban areas of the north. Heavy taxes were imposed on the south's main export, cotton. And then when the taxes were "redistributed" the south was on the short end of receiving them. And just how familiar does this sound today?
Assertion of states rights, and getting back to the sanctioned role of the federal govt' will be the only way of reining in an out-of-control big government mentality.
Posted by: dock on 07/27/09 @ 8:18 am:
I suspect istaraen should be investigated for fund raising connections too. He undercuts his own argument.
The truth is, federal power far exceeds the Framers intent in many, many areas of policy. The states were conceived as sovereign entities, with the People granting limited power to the federal government; they are not political subdivisions of the federal government.
Tenth amendment arguments are inherently principled legal arguments.
Both parties have captured the our governments at all levels and base their decision-making on the acquisition of power rather than objectively correct, rational solutions.
Posted by: Enough Big Government on 07/27/09 @ 8:18 am:
About time!
Posted by: Good on 07/27/09 @ 8:22 am:
This is a good stand against an out of control Federal Government (Both Parties). I do hope that we do this and do it soon! Good Job!
Posted by: mrsuffolk on 07/27/09 @ 8:26 am:
Two comments, if I may. First, the South left the union because of states rights. Slavery was a secondary issue brought up later when northerners began to riot against a draft and the war was becoming increasingly unpopular. Even Lincoln stated that if he could keep the union together without freeing one slave he would do so. Secondly, this country has never had a "civil war". By definition that would be two factions fighting for control of one government. There were two distinct governments at war with each other -- the United States of America and the Confederate States of America.
Posted by: JC on 07/27/09 @ 8:26 am:
This is why we need to http://www.DumpChrisDodd.com
Posted by: wait a second on 07/27/09 @ 8:27 am:
Wait a second. I do not know if the resolutions are necessary, but state officials should know that what WORKS for NEBRASKA is RIGHT for NEBRASKA. Sometimes, the federal government gets ideas that are fashionable that it pushes on the States. This seems to be the case with it's community push for developmental disabilities facilities. More than a decade ago, the Beatrice State Developmental Center (BSDC) was a first rate hospital. It is now has problems after federal pressure. We need to stick to our guns when we know we're right. We should tell the federals to back off when we are right. That's what I got from the news story. It is not a slip side into racism or something like that. When we are right, we are right. Nebraska federal elected officials should convey this to D.C. bureaurats
Posted by: Biggovstinks on 07/27/09 @ 8:31 am:
Good for them.
Posted by: Bulldog on 07/27/09 @ 8:33 am:
The federal government is overstepping its boundaries. They manage to print money when it is time to spend it but leave the states struggling. California is going down the tubes and to accept any federal funds has to accept the strings attached. Sometimes it makes more sense not to take the money. The problem is the federal government has too much influence over how the money is spent and makes it hard for states to use it within the scope of where they need to spend.
I fully support states rights and would like to see more states joining together to make a statement and declare their sovereignty. Obama has good intentions with health care but the plan needs to be affordable rather than taking the country into bankruptcy. What concerns me the most is that on the current path, our deficit spending will soon equal the US GDP. That is just not manageable and reeks of morally unethical. It will force all of us to pay extremely high taxes and at a time when we are in a prolonged depression. At this time it just does not make sense the way it is being written.
I would like to see tax credits to purchase policies at a group rate. With millions of Americans grouped together I think we could get a reasonable rate. Also, doing it this way we do not need a huge new bureaucracy to manage it. We alread have the insurance companies in place. Lets use them and help them keep thier jobs. If the federal government wanted to help, they could contribute to the plan and reducing any amount we would have to contribute to pay for it. I already get taxed for Social Security and Medicare tax. I could afford a little more taken to pay for healthcare. I would only support this if it clearly had cost effective benefit and it kept the federal government out of my health records. I would also like to see Congress and White House officials all on the plan as well. It is the onlly way they will know if it really works or not and what to change based on experience and feedback from the common folks.
There is more than one way to skin a cat as they say. I wish there were multiple options Obama and Congress would consider. Better yet, come up with the plans and have democrats and republicans on stage on national tv and present them to us. Let us have influence about how we want health care implemented. This requires a bi-partisan effort on both sides of the political spectrum.
Posted by: former democrat on 07/27/09 @ 8:36 am:
It is about time State's start standing up and telling the govt they are just supposed to protect the nation as a whole and not run every aspect of our life.
Posted by: Carl Parsons on 07/27/09 @ 8:40 am:
The Federal Government was only supposed to protect the borders ("provide for the national defense") and promote interstate commerce. Everything else practically was to be left up to the states as they were "experiments in democracy." Oh how far we have fallen.
Posted by: jmbreland on 07/27/09 @ 8:45 am:
It's about time. Opponents, of course, will play the race card because the President happens to be Black. But the national government's encroachment into areas where it has no Constitutional business has been going on long before Obama came along. The reason it all is coming to a head now is because Obama (regardless of his race) is trying to wrest control from the states to an extent never dreamed of by his predecessors.
The national government has gotten away with it until now because the average American has lost all understanding of how the federal system is supposed to work. Most people see the states as mere political subdivisions--lowly provinces of a monolithic, overall national government.
The Constitution, in contrast, assumes that the states are the primary governmental units: the federal government is merely a mechanism to tie them together for specified, limited purposes. France is a "state." Russia is a "state." Mississippi is a "state." The "United States of America" is a union of such states.
We went wrong when we started speaking of "the" United States (singular) instead of "these" United States (plural). The resolutions working their way through the various state legislatures is a first step toward re-establishing the intended Constitutional order consisting of 50 sovereign states united for the limited purposes described in the Founding Document.
The critics belittle the legislative resolutions as futile and unenforceable. But you have to start somewhere. It's a better first step than armed revolution.
Posted by: BR on 07/27/09 @ 8:48 am:
I strongly agree that the states need to take a stand and make their voices heard to the federal government. Any kind of opposition on any issue is worth the effort and I applaud that there are representatives willing initiate a move towards sovereignty and state rights. The federal government was established for two primary reasons: to maintain a military and make sure that the states did not infringe upon the Constititional rights of the people. Wow, how much it has grown since then. I feel the resolution should still be passed with or with federal financial aid. I for one, am disgusted with the power of the federal government and would love to see it be brought under scrutiny by the states. I am surprised that not all state officials are up in arms against the federal government for usurping their authority for so many years.
Posted by: larry on 07/27/09 @ 8:48 am:
The Federal government has been over-stepping the powers granted to it under the Constitution. It's about time states started raising a fuss. The arrogant politicians in Washington are under the impression that they can do whatever they want with your money. What part of the Tenth Amendment don't they get?
Posted by: go_figure on 07/27/09 @ 8:49 am:
It may be only three, but its a start. The federal gov't clearly oversteps its constitutional bounds. Health care reform, cap and tax, and untold number of mandates are examples of how this beast consumes all things constitutional. States need to join with like-minded states and tell the feds where to go.
Posted by: GEORGE on 07/27/09 @ 8:49 am:
It is about time.
Posted by: (Anonymous) on 07/27/09 @ 8:50 am:
I strongly agree that the states need to take a stand and make their voices heard to the federal government. Any kind of opposition on any issue is worth the effort and I applaud that there are representatives willing initiate a move towards sovereignty and state rights. The federal government was established for two primary reasons: to maintain a military and make sure that the states did not infringe upon the Constititional rights of the people. Wow, how much it has grown since then. I feel the resolution should still be passed with or with federal financial aid. I for one, am disgusted with the power of the federal government and would love to see it be brought under scrutiny by the states. I am surprised that not all state officials are up in arms against the federal government for usurping their authority for so many years.
Posted by: Glo on 07/27/09 @ 8:51 am:
The less intrusion the Feds can do the better!
Posted by: Hale on 07/27/09 @ 8:51 am:
Clearly the federal government does overstep its bounds and these three are doing the right thing i.e., trying to send a message to Washington. To given an example, Californians tried to pass resolutions to restrict illegal immigrants to state services but the Feds came in and overruled the will of the people but did not mandate this with federal funds. The results are higher taxes and the state of California on the verge of bankruptcy.
Posted by: Ace on 07/27/09 @ 8:55 am:
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates 18 powers granted to the Federal Government. Of those 18 powers, 3 clauses should be noted:
1. Provide for the general welfare clause
2. The commerce clause
3. Make all laws necessary and proper clause
What does "providing for the general welfare of the United States" mean? Does it mean providing a government-run healthcare insurance for all who are uninsured? How about bailing out failed insurance companies, banks, and auto businesses on the taxpayer's dime? Or maybe passing a mega-bill designed to "stimulate" the economy? This is the clause most beloved by our Congress, for it gives them justification for passing bills that don't fall under the other enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government (sort of a catch-all for any special interest cause you might want to enact legislation for).
Take the commerce clause (to regulate commerce with foreign nations). Today, this clause is used by Congress to regulate any activity in the U.S. (guns, toothpaste, hate speech, brakepads, etc.)
And the "necessary and proper" clause...note where the comma is placed after the phrase: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers," The comma denotes that this phrase pertains to all that comes before it. Congress uses case law to defend enacting legislation using this clause.
It's a cesspool and a snarling tangle of legislation that got us into this mess. Unfortunately, people don't recognize or understand how our country's lawmakers have led us down this path. People who care about where our country is going should bone up on the Constitution and their state's constitutions, then become active in groups to learn more ways of how they can hold our government accountable for their power grabs.
Posted by: Michelle on 07/27/09 @ 8:55 am:
I'm guessing State Sen. Avery is a product of government schools. How does the fact that the argument of states' rights was used during the Civil War negate that argument from ever being used again without the taint of racism being applied?
The Federal government IS overstepping its authority. It IS getting too large. At some point, we the people are going to need to remind Washington DC of its appropriate role in the lives of the citizens of the United STATES of America.
Posted by: Hale on 07/27/09 @ 8:58 am:
Clearly the federal government does overstep its bounds and these three are doing the right thing i.e., trying to send a message to Washington. To given an example, Californians tried to pass resolutions to restrict illegal immigrants to State services but the Feds came in and overruled the will of the people but did not mandate this with federal funds. The results are higher taxes and the state of California on the verge of bankruptcy.
Posted by: patriot on 07/27/09 @ 8:58 am:
Wake up,,less government means freedom rings.How can anyone in a right presence of mind want their lives dictated by gov't mandates?
NOT ME!
Posted by: ConcernedCit on 07/27/09 @ 8:59 am:
OK Then lets have change for the sake of change. Take health care. All over the age of 65-no more meds except pain killers, no operations for joint replacements, no heart stints...just off into your room and die. That is the health care bill that the House approved. Read it . That is the change that would be forced on the State(citizenry) if the current administration has its way. Many aspects of health care INSURANCE need to be better,cheaper and making of more coverage, but healthcare medicine doesnot need to be destroyed. Best medicine, best healthcare in the world does not need to be an(unintended OR even an intended) consequence of the HealthCare change legislation. All citizens of this great country can fix health care financing(the real problem) with some directed energy toward what is broken not destroying health care and health insurance all in one swoop.
Posted by: JetBlast on 07/27/09 @ 9:01 am:
Three state senators is a start and momentun will build. The resolution won't have much teeth to it but it WILL send a CLEAR message to Washington that they are, in fact, overstepping their bounds. If DC wants to take over all state' decisions, why even have state reps?
Istaraen: Patriot Act not needed? You live in a very, very closed world. Health Care? We HAVE Health Care...or were you talking about FREE Health Care? News flash..nothing is free! Free for you means that I'm paying your share.
Posted by: Hadrian on 07/27/09 @ 9:02 am:
Why no mention of the Omaha sewer system mandate? Seems applicable here. As a whole states do a pretty good job of handling their affairs. i.e. the Nebraska budget practice of not running a deficit. I see no problem with this proposal since those making the final decisions at the state level are much more accountable to the citizens. After all when something goes wrong at the federal level the blame always goes on the "other guy" and they wash their hands of the problem, leaving the states to clean it up. Why not let the states do it in the first place
Posted by: zadok on 07/27/09 @ 9:02 am:
This movement is also alive in Texas, as our governor spoke last week. I think it is time to assert states rights and halt the overt actions of the feds. Hoorah for freedom.
Posted by: Joseph on 07/27/09 @ 9:04 am:
Either the 10th amendment exists or it doesn't. Problem today is that most people couldn't tell you whether the 10th amendment exists, let alone what the 10th amendment is. With that as the reality, it's no wonder the power of the federal government to affect our lives has continually grown. The 10th amendment LIMITS the powers of the federal government. If the people don't care about that amendment, then the federal government will most certainly grow in its power.
Posted by: Wayne on 07/27/09 @ 9:05 am:
How anyone can miss the toxic affects of an overreaching central government escapes me.
Posted by: mkb741 on 07/27/09 @ 9:06 am:
It's about the Constitution.....Those of us who believe that the Federal Government should be responsible for those things the states cannot provide for --such as interstate highways, a National Park system, national security and large-scale scientific programs, to name a few-- applaud this gesture. Every political movement starts with a seemingly small statement of some sort Think of it as an editorial for the "land of the free...".
Posted by: ldybug on 07/27/09 @ 9:07 am:
Thank you legislators. I wondered when you would follow suit with the other states. I know in the big picture the federal government is going to do what they want but we must begin to take a stand. I would have liked to seen our state not accept the stimulus money as well being that when this money is all gone our state is going to be responsible to continue these programs which will me even higher taxes for Nebraskans. Plus the fact that some of it is not being used to do the most good right here in this city upsets me even more. Street lights for downtown is not what I consider stimulus.
Posted by: restrictfeds on 07/27/09 @ 9:08 am:
Keep up the good work. The founders intended to limit the power of the federal government.
Posted by: conserve56 on 07/27/09 @ 9:10 am:
The move to pass sovereignty resolutions in several states has nothing to do with race. It is because we have the most liberal President ever elected in the history of the U.S. attempting to make the largest federal power grab ever attempted. He just happens to be bi-racial.
To Istaraen, we don't need the types of reforms you are promoting. America works best when individuals have the maximum freedom to live their lives as they please.
We need to return to the concept of individualism where everyone works to achieve his or her goals in life. We need to stop the government dole mentality. It will ultimately result in a lower standard of living and lowered expecations for all.
Posted by: Dale on 07/27/09 @ 9:10 am:
Here's a thought for the 2 previous commentors - go read the Consitution, the Federalist Papers and other documents and books regarding the philosophies of freedom and previous examples of governments which strived to reach the balanced center between individual liberty and rights and the need for governments to protect those rights and liberties. You would come to realize that the founders of this country would not even recognize this Nation as operating under the same Constitution they wrote. Its easy to sit back and crititize the motives of people wanting to stem the progressive tide of socialism that is sweeping this country as extremist or working for political gain. However, from our prespective it is you who are willing wearing the chains of your own making. It is not something to crititize or make fun of. It saddens the heart to see people who give up their freedom through either ignorance or a desire for security as provided by the Governement. Shackling of the human spirit for the perceived good of everyone, where risk is not accepted and failure is not considered a learning experience but a cultural taboo will surely cause the light of America to slowly dim and fade from this world.
Posted by: lewis on 07/27/09 @ 9:17 am:
I am all for state sovereignty. he federal government was never meant o be this big. But, something should have been done to stop this a hundred years ago. Federal intrusion into state matters has been going on a long time. Hopefully it is not to late.
Posted by: jjojj on 07/27/09 @ 9:18 am:
I live in California, a state whose legislature is as dysfunctional as Washington DC.
I would like to "throw out ALL the bums and crooks" and start over. Maybe some day
the cry will be loud enough to be heard. Not so at the present!!
Posted by: D Faust on 07/27/09 @ 9:18 am:
If Nebraska doesn't want federal money from the rest of the country, then don't accept it! No one's forcing you to accept it! Sheesh.
This is just empty posturing by a few whiny, melodramatic legislators.
Posted by: Jim, NE expatriot in Colorado on 07/27/09 @ 9:19 am:
Don't let the naysayers turn the 10th Amendment into a smear by letting the concept "get into bed" with historical connections of states' rights and racism. It is not racist to insist that our federal government confine itself to the specific powers given it in 1787. The Federal goverment cannot be our mother---it want's to be our Lord.
Posted by: rimcountry on 07/27/09 @ 9:20 am:
that's right, fellahs... you'd better wake up... the silent majority is stirring.
Posted by: nvallejo on 07/27/09 @ 9:20 am:
Nebraska needs to send a message to Washington, by assert state sovereignty is just the way to do it! Washington does not need to have their hands in State of Nebraska's business.
Seeking state sovereignty has nothing to do with race! So Sen. Avery get over the race issue!!!! See what the movement is really about, not what you want to make it about!
Istaraen.......If you are concerned about campaign donations linking the senators together..........then I suggest you start worrying about the campaign donations linking the current presidential administration to George Soros!! Get a clue!!
Posted by: Catco on 07/27/09 @ 9:20 am:
Why do people think it is the government's job to make individuals and families more dependant on the government instead of helping people become more self sufficent, strong and prosperous? Start counting how many government programs help people, agencies or even the States in these ways rather than just help them learn how to rely on MORE government funding. It NEVER happens! No matter how nice government intervention in our lives sounds while they're trying to get it ennacted, it always means more taxes, less freedom and less productive outcomes for citizens. It ALWAYS means more money in the hands of government bureaucrats and more people at their mercy. Read the history of every socialist nation. State Sovereignty is a Constitutional right; don't be so quick to laugh it off.
Posted by: Hkl90 on 07/27/09 @ 9:23 am:
Good for Nebraska! The Fed Government has gone too far. If you succeed, I think you will have a lot of new residents, possibly me!
Posted by: jdog on 07/27/09 @ 9:27 am:
Good... when as State doesnt assert their 10th amendment RIGHT and obligation, then it fails to be a State. The comments thus far are a bit disappointing. It seems like these individuals would prefer to have things done for them at the burden and cost of the other 49 States. This defeats the purpose of having States at all. If you want to pool your resources with other States... why dont you do that without forcing other States to participate. This is called tyranny.
Posted by: Jerry on 07/27/09 @ 9:28 am:
I am all for States Rights, being able to decide at the local level is far superior to having a life long politician from Mass. deciding what is best for my state. If health care was the priority that the dems are making it out to be why don't they start with the programs that they already control such as medicare and medicaid and social security. After they fix those as prove that they can effectively manage somethingt then maybe I would be on board to the idea of health care reform but never socialized medicine.
Posted by: jdough on 07/27/09 @ 9:29 am:
If state Legislatures and governors aren't "ready to advocate giving up most federal funds to avoid the accompanying mandates," then this is pointless. That is precisely the apparatus the federal government has consistently used for decades to force states to comply with various mandates. The answer isn't on the back end; to force the federal government to live within its constitutional mandate, states should refrain from sending the federal government state-collected funds in the first place. The real crime here is a federal government that, say, threatens to withhold road and bridge funds unless states pass a law mandating seat belt use. One of the federal government's constitutional requirements is to "post roads," so how is it that the Feds can extort states by withholding funds it is constitutionally required to spend?
Posted by: (Anonymous) on 07/27/09 @ 9:30 am:
As the article points out the issue of decentralized government where the power basically rests in the states verses a centralized power where the Federal Government plays a significant role has always been a contentious issue, and as the article eludes, the legal system has sided with the Federal Government to date.
I believe our current administration is pushing every "red button" to alienate the population from the ever growing Federal Government, the only sector of the economy that is showing steady growth. The bigger this behemoth becomes the more taxes and more legislation where the Federal government intrudes into every aspect of our lives. This is no longer a Republic, it is wilfully being made into a system that is ultra Socialistic, bordering on being outright communist.
Posted by: X on 07/27/09 @ 9:30 am:
I strongly oppose an intrusive federal government and it's refreshing to see the states push back, as they should. The fed wants to ration health care to "save money" HA! When has the federal government ever saved money or done anything within budget?
The more local the government is the more control the people have of it. Remember "government for and by the people"? That's been turned on it's head.
Posted by: Bubba on 07/27/09 @ 9:40 am:
States rights are important and meaningful. The Federal government has been shoving laws and unfunded mandates down to the states for years with threats of withdrawal of federal funds. Just as an example, the now repealed, maximum 55 mph national speed limit law held the states hostage for highway funds. Many states, like Nebraska have long stretches of open highway where that law was not only stupid it was ignorant! Eastern and left coast states where population density dictates a slower speed pushed their agenda upon us. Education, environmental and health care mandates pushed by the feds are a one size fits all agenda that is not good for America. States rights are not about a confederacy or racism. It's about OUR rights as a Free People in a Free State unencumbered by Federal mandates - especially unfunded ones that cost us, the people (at lease people that pay taxes), money.
Posted by: Shades of Gray on 07/27/09 @ 9:45 am:
The federal government has been overstepping its bounds for years. State's need to remind the Federal Government and the American people of the sovereignty of the state granted by the constitution. As far as National Health Care goes, why would anyone want it? It will be a major intrusion into our lives, medical care will be rationed, as in the UK & Canada based on lifestyle & costs. The elderly will be denied care, 22 year old alcoholics will be denied transplants. The obese will be denied life saving surgery. What is in store for the mentally disabled (referred to in this bill as retarded, thought that was politically incorrect) Do you want them telling what you should eat? What medications you are on? Do you really want some government official determining that the quality of your life is not worth preserving. If you prefer alternative health care, you cannot opt out, you will be penalizes $2500 a year. Each state should take on this burden, Check out Utah, they have a health care revamp that looks good & should take effect this fall. Is it perfect? Probably not, at least people will have a choice. If you think the Patriot Act was intrusive, then wait until we have National Health Care & Cap & Trade. Anyone in any state can get emergency care now, even if they can't afford to pay (yes the taxpayers pick up the cost). With National Health care that cost will explode. Your life will be in the hands of a statistician who will determine whether you are worth the cost.
Posted by: conservative-gear on 07/27/09 @ 9:48 am:
you better hope more of you senators are on board with this -
The USA has come further in 250 years than the rest of the world -
There is nothing that separates us from those other human beings in other countries but our founding principals.
Embrace the Constitution to save the country.
Disown it at our peril
Posted by: judyO on 07/27/09 @ 9:53 am:
This government is becoing like "Atlas Shrugged"
Posted by: fishguy on 07/27/09 @ 9:54 am:
If state sovereighty is worthless...why worry. If you think Real ID or the Patriot Act is a problem...maybe reestablishing State's rights is the place to start. I guess some idoits don't think national security isn't need by most citizens?? Nebraska isn't the first state to recently do this. I'd donate for this cause.
Posted by: DonJ on 07/27/09 @ 10:01 am:
It is poignant that 1937 was the year Roosevelt tried expanding the Supreme Court due to its rulings against broad federal expansion through his New Deal programs. At Roosevelt's death in 1945, eight of the nine sitting justices were his appointees, so it is a small wonder the court sided with broad federal powers.
Posted by: houndog on 07/27/09 @ 10:05 am:
I congratulate the three legislators. This is what happens when a belief arises that the Federal government has overstepped its bounds. Dialogue is called for to clarify the issues that are in dispute, and adjustments have to be made. The growing malaise among the States indicates that it is time to step back and examine what is going on.
Posted by: Bortimer on 07/27/09 @ 10:14 am:
States resisting nationalized health care is a good thing. It would be better for states to have their own health plans designed and tailored to the people in that state. This would also foster competition between states which will keep costs down and improve quality. The nationalized health care bill currently in the hopper will put tons of requirements on the states but no funding, leaving the states with an extremely onerous financial burden at a time when no state has spare change to spend. Same happened with No Child Left Behind, etc. The federal govt likes to pass feel-good legislation without thinking about the long term financial consequences. These types of plans should be implemented from the bottom up---by the people, at the most decentralized level possible. Not top-down in in a Soviet-style command & control model. States asserting their 10th amendment rights over these matters is a first step in the right direction. Now if the states could only somehow detach themselves from the federal teat, they could truly get out from so many onerous federal regulations and requirements. While we pay 35% tax to the federal govt. on average, and 5% to our state, on average, it should be the opposite. The federal govt should be providing national defense, national monetary policy, and national treaty negotiations (primarily trade negotiations). The states should be doing EVERYTHING else.
Posted by: Francis Urquhart on 07/27/09 @ 10:15 am:
Gotta love the pun:
"Montana, for example, passed a law this year asserting that guns made, sold and used in the state are exempt from federal laws and taxes. The law's chief backers said they hoped it would trigger a court battle."
Posted by: UyeahU on 07/27/09 @ 10:15 am:
If we don't reign in the Federal Government soon, we will have a true oligarchy, if we don't already. I think regaining state's rights would be a good start.
Posted by: jim9890@wmconnect.com on 07/27/09 @ 10:20 am:
NEBRASKA IS JUST ONE OF THE GROWING NUMBER OF STATES TO INVOKE AMMENDMENT TEN AUTHORITY IN DELCARING STATE SOVEREIGNETY. THIS IS JUST GETTING STARTED. IF THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO FALL APART YOU CAN LOOK FOR STRONGER ACTIONS BY THE STATES. THE CONSITUTION CALLS FOR THE STATES TO APPOINT CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENATIVES. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY THAT CONGRESSMEN WERE BY STATE LAW ELECTED BY POPULAR VOTE. THAT IS WHY CONGRESS PAYS CLOSE ATTENTION TO THESE NOW TOOTHLESS RESOLUTIONS. THEY COULD SOMEDAY DEVELOPE TEETH.
Posted by: Pete on 07/27/09 @ 10:21 am:
I am glad that these law makers are taking this stand, and I hope others will follow suit. For nearly one hundred years our federal government has been gradually overstepping its bounds. With every movement it gets larger and more powerful while the people lose more liberty.
Look at what has been happening in Washington for years. Our politicians ignore us. Proof positive that the federal government is to large and overarching. The only thing we can hope to control is local government.
With this assertion of state sovereignty we make a statement that we are through with this overstepping, that we will lay down now more. This slow incremental destruction of individual liberty and states rights stops now. This is not a democrat or republican issue. This is an issue of liberty. I pray it goes no further.
Posted by: charles on 07/28/09 @ 4:51 pm:
Actually, states have some other rights available NOW that they are not making use of.
Each state has "blue sky laws' which dictate what securities may be sold within the state. This is ironclad and in practice for a long time. The attorney general of the state can prohibit the sale of ANY security deemed unsuitable as a security. Since new york city is functioning as a huge vacuum sucking all money into itself and spitting out nothing more than worthless securities in exchange; along with the friendly club of press apparatus, exchanges, insurance, ratings agencies, non-existent-self-serving regulation and merchant bankers to fluff everything up, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY of each state attorney general to prohibit any securities handled or originated through the NYC system from being traded within their state UNTIL adequate purview is available within the state.
What this means is that to varying degrees, any press apparatus, insurance, exchanges, ratings agencies, regulation and merchant bankers may be required to be resident within the state and subject to the supervisory oversight of THAT STATE's ATTORNEY GENERAL before the security may be traded to anyone or any entity within that state.
That is how things are done for state chartered banks and insurance products. THE PROOF IS ON THE RECORD that the brokerage/securities system from NYC is broken and already PROVEN HARMFUL to the citizens of the states (even new york state).
SO doing this is immediate and does not require a constitutional conflict to implement. The money of the people within the states should be protected from mega ponzi schemes which originate out of one city which has only the interests of itself to look after. And remember, at one time (when exchanges and broker dealers were trustworthy) exchanges and broker/dealers were spread out all over this country. Wouldn't it be nice to have this again. It would almost be like having 50 Switzerlands at work for the US dollar.
Posted by: Atilla on 07/28/09 @ 5:15 pm:
I believe it says "...provide for the common defense and PROMOTE the general welfare..." Not, as stated here, to 'provide welfare' . Big difference--pay for defense but only promote welfare. The Federal Govt. has very very few Constitutional Powers. Most were seized under the 14th and 16th Amendments, and through court cases claiming 'interstate commerce' on things like eggs and milk. Some are foolish enough to think the 14th Amendment had something to do with freedom--it does not--the 14th makes everyone a slave to the Federal State rather than citizens of their respective States. The 16th allows them to take 100% of everything. Those 2 Amendments, along with the 17th, need to be repealed.
Posted by: mbutts on 07/28/09 @ 7:26 pm:
Seems to me that Nebraska has the 2nd lowest unemployment rate in the US, a budget surplus, by poll, the happiest people, and the longest living. Think maybe we are on to something? Perhaps its due to the fact we don't do things like the federal government does.
Posted by: df26 on 07/28/09 @ 7:31 pm:
Maybe a good place to start would be repealing the 17th Amendment. Before this amendment was ratified, senators were appointed by state legislatures. Repealing the 17th not only strengthens the power of states to influence the federal level (as senators would be appointed by their state-level counterparts), but it also might make people give a damn concerning who they elect at the state level.
Besides, if all else fails, it's easier to travel to Lincoln (or whichever state's capital you live in) than it is to travel to DC, right?
Posted by: Tom on 07/29/09 @ 12:40 am:
So are people willing to give up roads, electricity, running water, hospitals, and school systems in an effort to keep the federal government out of it? As appealing as a vision of "Wild Nebraska" would be, I don't think a lot of people here will like that.
Posted by: fedfunder09 on 07/29/09 @ 6:20 am:
Hey Scarborough, THIS IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...WE ARE A GROUP OF FREE AND INDEPENDENT AND UNITED STATES, Hope you are getting the picture. You are way out of line and have NO idea what the framers of our US federal constitution had in mind, which is bottom up governing. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF-GOVERN, IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. The framers did not want power hungry bureaucrats in Washington DC tell farmers in Nebraska how to plant their fields, or fisherman in Maine how to cast their nets, or tell miners in Colorado what to mine for, or tell parents in whatever state that they could not home school thier children, Thats the way it ought to be.YA GET IT. The constitutional role of government is very limited, try reading it.
As far as federal programs, most are unconstitutional....AND ALL ARE TAX PAYER FUNDED...OK....SO...WHATEVER MONIES THE FEDS HANDOUT...THEY TOOK FROM A TAXPAYER
John Adams 1776 " We have the right and ought to be, free and independent states"
Posted by: Arklight99 on 07/30/09 @ 12:08 pm:
Uh-huh. Yeah. Sure. A 'resolution' does not have the structure, force or intent of law; for things like Real ID and Tenth Amendment issues, a 'resolution' is nothing more than a whiny "Please don't hurt me, Mister Bill!". I'm sure that the national weenies laugh themselves silly every time some state legislature excretes one of these worthless things.
Posted by: From the 30's on 07/30/09 @ 12:08 pm:
Go for our Nebraska State Right's. If you think we would can't have roads, electricty and etc. without
the FEDERAL Government, you don't know how the system works. The Fed's take your tax money
and give us back 1/3 for our own use ! How about 1/5 for them and 4/5 for us. See how many programs they could offer. That's 20 %, maybe too much. Let's cut it to 5%. Could that pay for their travel and
salaries? We could have 50 Senators and 50 Rep., one four year term. Let the STATES run their own
affairs.
Posted by: GTFOFeds on 07/31/09 @ 10:02 am:
NE and TX so far in the lower 48. Now, if we could just the rest of the big 12 to do the same that would be awesome.
Go get 'em guys!
Posted by: me on 07/31/09 @ 1:23 pm:
Go Nebraska