Tenthers?

"… the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General Government" -- Thomas Jefferson:

If you spend a few days listening to left wing commentators on the news you’ll soon come to the conclusion that they hate all conservatives with a passion. We’re usually described as “red necked, mouth breathing, racist, retarded, teabaggers”… and that’s just for starters! I do object to their use of the word “hypocrites” though, as I think that’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Come on guys, you keep preaching that we need a “meaningful dialog”, but rabid name calling isn’t helping that situation very much! Quoting one of the more polite left wing commentators speaking about right wing conservative constitutionalists; “It’s enough to make you think they’re just making it up as they go along. It clearly can’t be the case that every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional. Yet the reality is even worse. When the right’s view of the Constitution was ascendant 75 years ago, basic protections such as a restriction on child labor were declared unconstitutional; laws banning discrimination were unthinkable; and Social Security was widely viewed as next in line for the Supreme Court’s chopping block.”

“… every single law cherished by progressives just happens to be unconstitutional”… Hmm… He’s got a point there, although I would argue that not all of the laws favored by the left are unconstitutional, it’s just that I have a hard time thinking of even one that is legal, or at least that was passed in accordance with the guidelines of our Constitution. Personally I favor a good many of those laws, but the US Congress does not have the authority to pass, or enforce, any kind of nationwide law that might strike their fancy. The several sovereign states do have that right, but congress does not. My much maligned pundit continues with; “These conservatives are over-reading the Tenth Amendment, a provision of the Constitution that provides Congress’s power is not unlimited.” Whoa up there a minute boyo, are you perhaps trying to tell me that the power of Congress should be unlimited!? Certainly I’m no legal eagle, but even a cursory reading if the Constitution most definitely states that federal power is limited to only a very few duties, and nothing more! Jefferson's words are about the simplest explanation available of that. The federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers specifically delegated to it by the constitution, and in no way does it allow the assumption of any other powers or authority. Historically, many people argued against forming a national union, fearing that a federal government would gain too much power over the states, which is exactly the situation that we’re faced with today. Jefferson reassured the states, saying that they, being sovereign and independent, have the “unquestionable right to judge of the infraction.” The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights were devised to protect the citizen’s freedom from encroachment by both state and federal authority, specifically dividing governing power between federal and state authority, and reserving the ultimate governmental authority to the people themselves. The entire idea of “sovereign states” and a limited federal authority was to give us “home rule” in nearly all cases, and I surely don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand that!

We’d have to look long and hard to find anyone who isn’t aware of the “birthers”, who, according to the mainstream media, are a weird fringe group that thinks Obama is a foreign born “Manchurian candidate” of some sort. (A “fringe” consisting of nearly 29% of the American public.) Well, the left likes to call anyone that disagrees with ‘em a fringe group, inferring that all “fringers” (?) are obviously far right wing mental cases of one sort or another. But another quite large “fringe” group that’s been in the news lately are the “tenthers”, that apparently are a very dangerous bunch of people who have the gall to believe that the US Constitution means what it says!

One political writer claims that; “So-called “tenther” conservatives are determined to use their twisted reinterpretation to shrink national leaders’ power to the point where it can be drowned in a bathtub. They must not be allowed to succeed for three reasons: Tentherism is dangerous, Tentherism has no basis in constitutional text or history, Tentherism is authoritarian.” Well, yeah, I can agree with part of that… but not in a way that would make the author very happy! Certainly we should hope to “shrink national leader’s power”, as semi-powerless “leaders” are quite preferential to a flock of petty tyrants sitting in Washington DC, incessantly handing down arbitrary “laws” to control every waking moment of our lives! And yes, “tentherism” is dangerous… in fact it could be downright fatal… to both big government and rampant socialism. Now the part I disagree with, that “tentherism” has no basis in constitutional text or history… Thomas Jefferson and James Madison authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves. Madison argued that “the powers of the general government” result “from the compact to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact,” (our Constitution), and are “no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact….” As such, the States have the authority to “interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them.” Jefferson was somewhat more direct in the Kentucky Resolves. He said that the States “delegated to [the federal] government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force….” So where did he get that from? Well, it was expressly stated in the Tenth Amendment! Finally, we see the “tentherism is authoritarian” claim. Well, yes it is… it certainly does limit federal powers, and in no uncertain terms either, which is what infuriates progressives. Just think, if our elected officials respected and supported the 10th amendment and state sovereignty, all of these overreaching federal social mandates would be null and void… everything that D.C. has done, under “authority” that they are not specifically allowed, by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And that means just about everything congress has done over the last hundred or so years!

At least one good idea (that should be completely unnecessary) came from Congress recently. Rep. John Shadegg of Ariz. introduced H.R. 450, called the “Enumerated Powers Act”, a more or less procedural act that would require all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to include a statement that specifies the Constitutional authority under which it’s proposed. "The founders intended and wrote in the Constitution that the federal government could do certain things but it can't do just anything it feels like," Shadegg said, "And yet, it is doing whatever it feels like." Sen. Tom Coburn of Okla. introduced the companion bill in the Senate (S. 1319), with 24 co-sponsors signing on. But I doubt either bill will be passed by Mr. Obama’s tame Congress.