Skip to comments.Rick Perry’s passion for states’ rights [not saying he's George Wallace but....)
Posted on 07/26/2011 1:36:11 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
......The last attempt to campaign on the appeal of the 10th Amendment was made in 1996 by Bob Dole, who carried a well-worn version in his breast pocket. The strategy amounted to unilateral policy disarmament. While Bill Clinton described improvements in education and public safety, Dole talked of procedural limits on federal power. The domestic centerpiece of Doles campaign was a void, a negation.
Given President Obamas record of federal overreach, the 10th Amendment may have more political appeal this time around. But the problem with a sweeping application of the amendment is not merely political.
For the most part, George Washington and Chief Justice John Marshall endorsed Hamiltons more expansive view of federal authority. Even Jefferson and Madison eventually made their own convenient modifications. Jefferson whose theoretical purity often resulted in hypocrisy managed to make the Louisiana Purchase without amending the Constitution to enumerate this massive exercise of federal power. Madison signed legislation establishing the Second Bank of the United States. The new government, as Hamilton foresaw, would need to act in a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.
The Jefferson-Hamilton debate has recurred in American history, often in the context of race. It has not strengthened the Jeffersonian argument that some of its main champions have been John Calhoun and George Wallace. Following the desegregation of schools in 1954, 19 senators and 77 representatives signed a manifesto criticizing Brown v. Board of Education, in part, because the Constitution does not mention education. It is possible, of course, for a sound argument to be pressed into the service of a bad cause. But any Southern politician needs to be careful about historical context.................
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Federalism is a beautiful concept and is excellent in practice, but I do think there are fundamental issues that are beyond the state e.g slavery....issues that can’t be delayed in judgement.
That being said, the left hates a structured government. They want a 51% government ie everything changes each election. There is no foundation in their mind,...well, some of them may be fond of the Bill of Rights in an odd fashion, but they would willingly give up aspects of it, if it suited their ends.
I personally, would rather amend the constitution than throw it away constantly. It means something to me and so does federalism. Our government may obviously need to adjust and change it’s political structure, but I think it needs just as much wisdom as it once started with.
[July 25, 2011]...........Miner said people who know Perry understand that two things he feels strongly about are states’ rights and the institution of traditional marriage.
“Nothing has changed with the governor’s philosophy here,” he said.
Besides confirming Perry’s support of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, Miner pointed to the governor’s state record. Perry supported the Texas Defense of Marriage Act and a state constitutional amendment defining traditional marriage, Miner noted.
That is why the Left is addicted to moral issues and emotional claims. They resist logical discussion and enable the propagandist to crank up his calliope without check.
Just as was done with the slavery issue. The result was war, and the destruction of half the country. Think Obama would do less, to get total power? (Helpful suggestion: No.)
You really want to drag that stuff in here again? Planning to ride the long arm of the sidebar moderator again?
Was it ten, or twelve, impossible things that Alice was supposed to contemplate before breakfast?
Michael Gerson is incredibly deluded if he thinks any of the founding fathers ever, ever imagined federal authority included the rights to tell people what kinds of products they could use, seize their property in order to give it to other private entitites (i.e. non-public uses), force people to buy products (insurance) from private entities, tell them how to run their schools, etc.
Mr. Gerson, I can read the US Constitution for myself and understand its plain meaning. It’s not complex. Most citizens can no doubt do the same as I. Don’t try to tell me George Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton or any of the other founders were statists. That’s pure crap!
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. The Tenth Amendment states the Constitution’s principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the STATES or the PEOPLE.
Most States are sick and tired of an over bearing Federal Government telling them what they can and cannot do. They fear the National Government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.....
If you watched Obama’s class and race warfare whine to the nation last night, you caught his closing comments. For those who didn’t here they are. Not so subtle.
“...... America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. Weve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: Every man cannot have his way in all things — without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.
History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.
Thats who we remember. Thats who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So lets seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth - not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.” [end]
And Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, is telling Americans and the world that those who speak out against overbearing government should be considered terrorists. How convenient for the 2012 presidential race and for MSM and Obama's demagoguery about the Tea Party.
One, there is no "national government" -- there is, however a federal one, and that usage remains accurate.
Standing up to the Feds, though, is a train that left the station about the time people either failed to stand up to Abraham Lincoln, or died trying.
There is now no practical check other than the ballot box, on presidential claims of illimitable federal power.
People have forgotten, and of course the schools don’t teach, that constitutionally each state is sovereign and the federal government is supposed to be small and its powers narrow and limited.
It is interesting to watch the once sovereign nations of Europe being gobbled up and homogenized, with their individuality and sovereignty being destroyed by the European Union, much as the US federal government has done to the individual states in the USA.
I once had hopes that in the US the process could be reversed with the states reaffirming their constitutional rights and authority but now that seems almost impossible.
It is disheartning to see how the federal government and their rumpswabbing trained media have been successful in inculcating acceptance of federalism to the point that the idea of states rights is treated as a radial and antiquated notion, held by a just a few antiprogressive, racist, fringe kooks.
A cry in the black education wilderness - LINKS to articles of education-leftists-race.
As you pointed out, the alternative is death, destruction, defeat, and oblivion. I think he'd enjoy a civil war right about now.
I agree with you.
Everything he does smacks of “in your face” — the Cambridge incident, like the comments of Shelia Jackson Lee — he plays this theme and he knows it’s being heard.
He is the racist and he has driven wedges exactly to dismantle our “coming together as a nation.”
So is Mandating Gardasil by Executive Order
for the Merck and Perry’s Chief of Staff (Was he with
Rove and Gore, too?)
a state’s right issue, too?
Is Perry claiming he has the right to do this everywhere now?
PerryCARE? NO WAY. NO MORE RINOs.
The first sign of a quality consrvative POTUS candidate is that the Left really hates and despises them.
I think this is the first time I’ve read a Gerson article that I agreed with.
The lawmakers wrote Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday to express concern that millions of voters do not have a government-issued ID - particularly older people, racial minorities, low-income voters and students.
..........."The senators are seeking vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and federal civil rights law, which bars different standards from being applied to individuals within a jurisdiction. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act gives the Justice Department significant authority to review laws before they are implemented in states with a history of discriminatory voting practices. Three states subject to Section 5 - Georgia, Texas and South Carolina - require a photo ID in order to vote. Texas and South Carolina enacted their laws last month."
The other point he makes is that you have to be FOR something to win. I suspect Perry knows this. At the moment, it seems to me, he's our best hope. Unless we want Romney.
I don't agree with that at all. The left despises a lot of low-quality candidates too. It may mean they are conservative. Doesn't mean they ought to be president.
Hello Huck. Given your POTUS prognostication skills, I'm glad you don't agree. I'm just sayin'. Call it another 'first' (of many) sign.
Hamilton was the proponent of a strong centralized government and was the father of the excise tax that instigated the unrest. He was also the proponent of calling in the state militias to smash it and in fact led the operation in the field.
I think he wants to shove conservative whites into minority status and then systematically beat us up with discriminatory admin policies and even legislation -- like Woodrow Wilson's Jim Crow regulations, and the laws the Nazis passed against the Jews.
Keep in mind, though, that his coalition would always be essentially and psychologically minoritarian -- and those are the regimes that like to kill people in numbers, in order to keep the restless natives down. Case in point from the headlines: the Assad family of Syria and their Alawite kinsmen's regime. Ditto Robert Mugabe down in Zim, and his tribal homies. The last few white Rhodesian farmers are being driven out or killed now.
Just sayin' ....
Actually, he didn't -- Washington did. It was the first and last time a President of the United States put on his old military uniform, climbed into a saddle, and led troops into the field in person.
The rebellion was quelled more than crushed, certain guilty parties were punished, and Hamilton, who accompanied the Militia Washington had called out, was politically rebuffed. His excise measure was quietly taken down and not reimposed in the form he had intended.
Hamilton's "don't tax you and don't tax me; let's tax that fellow there under that tree" measure was actually an industrialist's tax on agrarian crops, disguised as a tax on distilled spirits, and therefore a foreshadowing of the NewYorky-grabby, chiseling impulses that produced, eventually, the American Civil War.
Having no ready access to markets for their surplus, the trans-Appalachian farmers had taken to distilling their grain into a more-transportable, value-added form and barging it down to the river towns in the Mississippi Valley. It was a good solution for a low-infrastructure situation. Hamilton's tax was an attempt to rob out the fruits of their ingenuity, labor, and risk-taking and appropriate them for his Treasury. Heard anything like that lately?
Federalism is a system of government in which a written constitution divides the powers of government on a territorial basis.
The division is made between a central, or national, government and several regional or local governments.
Each level of government has its own area of powers.
Neither level, acting alone, can change the basic division of powers the constitution makes between them.
Each level operates through its own agencies and acts directly on the people through its own officials and laws.
Since the U.S. Civil War, the powers of the federal government have generally expanded greatly, although there have been periods since that time of legislative branch dominance (e.g., the decades immediately following the Civil War) or when states’ rights proponents have succeeded in limiting federal power through legislative action, executive prerogative or by constitutional interpretation by the courts.
Hence, the national government has the power to make laws over a variety of things but the Constitution (10th amendment) says that state and local governments have power to make laws over everything else that the national government doesn’t make laws about.
Often, they share the power to make laws about certain issues. For example, there are national laws about gun rights and restrictions that all states must follow.
However, Colorado also has laws that are more specific about what rights Colorado residents have concerning guns in Colorado, such as Colorado is the only state that doesn’t require a permit for handgun owners.
“Human flaws for sure (like any of us) but a great American none-the-less.” I agree. I went to high school with both his kids. George Corley Wallace, III (generally known as George Wallace, Jr.)and Peggy Sue Wallace Kennedy. Both were very nice and she was drop dead gorgeous.
Washington left after reveiwing the militia force in Bedford, returning to Phila. and leaving operational command to Hamilton.
Two ironies; the major uprisings were in Washington County where Washington had extensive landholdings; many of the farmers protesting the tax were vets of the Rev. War and had received land grants in return for their service.
Land in Wash. Co. is not necessarily suited to agriculture; its hilly, rocky and heavily forested. Nor is there the deep top soil of the Lebanon or Lehigh valleys to the east.
You are correct about the difficulties of getting agricultural products to market, however, in 1794 there was very little market down river, the markets were over the mountains to the east. Altogether it was a hard scrabble existence and they were taken advantage of by the eastern elites.
Note that the militia force sent out numbered about 13,000 men. That exceeded the county's total population. The suspected perps were rousted out of bed in the middle of the night and thrown into filthy holding pens and kept there. Men that were in anyway involved were force marched over the mountains (in the winter) to Phila. The actual leaders took off down river to Louisiana.
Altogether a very instructive episode of centralized government and also a chrystalizing element in the development of the political parties in America.
What theory is that? The theory that the amendment actually means what it says?