States to Fed -- Get off our turf

That's the title of the Politico story by Michael Falcone. He's referring to a movement sweeping across the country where States are passing legislation to reassert their sovereignty in the wake of the stimulus program, and the federal government's attempt to strong-arm the States into doing what they tell them to:

The wave of government bailouts and the Obama administration’s economic stimulus package are reviving interest in an issue that’s largely been dormant since the mid-1990s: states’ rights.

From Idaho to South Carolina and in dozens of other states, Republicans are sponsoring resolutions designed to call attention to what they view as a worrisome expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states.

“What we have is a federal government that is exceeding its authority and blackmailing the states into submission through printed dollars,” said Pennsylvania Republican state Rep. Sam Rohrer. “We are trying to say to the federal government, ‘You have a role, but your role stops not too far outside Washington, D.C.’”

Rohrer has been shepherding a bill that declares sovereignty for Pennsylvania “under the 10th 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.”

He said he was particularly concerned that the federal stimulus package would lead states to become dependent on the federal government.

“This administration has the ability to stick it in the eye of the states and to really pointedly attempt to undo everything that’s been in place,” Rohrer said. “They want to throw Reaganomics out; they want to step in and tell companies what they can or can’t do.” ...

Mike Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, a website that tracks sovereignty legislation, said at least three dozen states have considered states’ rights measures since 2007. Boldin said he hatched the idea for the center during the Bush administration, and he sees proponents of states’ rights — from supporters of gay marriage in Maine to advocates for less restrictive gun laws in Montana — as united by a common belief in the principles of the 10th Amendment.

“All across the board, we’re seeing that people can be totally opposite in their political beliefs, but they are allies,” Boldin said.

Brian Darling, the director of Senate relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, agreed that states’ rights should be a nonpartisan issue but said that the Obama administration had provoked the ire of Republicans.

“It’s an issue where many people just have natural distrust of the federal government,” Darling said. “The actions of President Obama have really inflamed many of the concerns that people have about government being too big.”

Darling said the comments of politicians such as Perry in Texas serve an important purpose: to put the issue of whether the federal government is overreaching in front of the American people.
Mark McKinnon, a Republican strategist, suggested that the states’ rights issue could become “an increasingly powerful political hot button,” especially if the Obama administration continues to expand its control over government and the private sector.

“Rick Perry is already punching the button,” McKinnon said. “It’s clear that people who care about these issues — while perhaps not a majority yet — are passionate and noisy, which means they can be a potent political force.”

State's rights is an issue that could very easily be a powerful political issue, given the overreach of the federal government. For decades the Supreme Court has ridden roughshod over the 10th Amendment. So has the Congress. They don't like the idea that States do have an inherent right to make laws for their citizens, and decide issues for the same citizens, that aren't under the purview of the federal government via the Constitution.

Barry has done a significant amount of damage to the nation and the economy with his runaway agenda, and he's not above "blackmailing" states; threatening to withhold federal funds unless the States cave in to his demands. For example, there was this story yesterday at AoSHQ by Ace talking about ending State welfare in California. Would Barry let them do that? Not bloody likely, and he could very easily blackmail California into not doing that by telling them he's not authorizing any federal money for the state.

This is a pet issue of ours. We firmly believe in the 10th Amendment. In fact, I wrote a piece a long time ago (can't seem to find the bloody thing right now) that is an argument against Roe v. Wade using the 10th Amendment; citing the State's rights, at the time, to make law for their people, and that abortion wasn't under federal purview.

This is something that is still gaining steam just like the Tea Parties gained a lot of notice to the average citizen that was outraged watching their money get pi$$ed away by this amateur. Three dozen states is quite a few; well over half the Union. These States will be the vanguard, hopefully, in a movement that tells DC to get the Hell out of our backyards, and mind its own business.

Publius II