THE US REPORT

by Kay B. Day

Branded media and blogs are talking about the powers of the federal government in relation to the states, a topic The US Report has covered for months. Fans of Big Government who are equally fond of labels, call those who believe in state sovereignty ‘tenthers.’ To apply labels of our own, we observe neoliberals writing in various statist publications who, perhaps wishfully, call the sovereignty movement a “fringe constitutional theory.” The ‘tenther’ label refers to the Tenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights acknowledging powers “not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” A responsive label for Big Government fans is ‘Bloaters.’ If any entity in the country needs a diet, that would be the federal government whose BMI is flatly off the charts. [Article continues after photo.]

Charles T. Dazey’s play ‘The War of Wealth’ debuted in February, 1895. The New York Times gave it rave reviews, noting “200 people on the stage.” Judging by the review, the production explored good vs. evil described by The Times as an “interesting topic of a war of wealth pitted against wealth…” The play seems appropriate considering various bailouts taxpayers have funded more than a century after the play’s premiere. [Strobridge & Co. Lith., the US Library of Congress. No known restrictions on publication.]There’s ample leeway in the Tenth Amendment to open a door for states to question a federal government that has grown in scope beyond any possible vision the country’s founders may have had, even if they’d had access to the numerous mind-altering prescription drugs handed out generously and legally. But the Tenth Amendment is not the only issue in this political debate. The Constitution offers more than one possibility for conservatives seeking real government reform and less centralization of power. For instance Article I, Section 8 defines the general powers of Congress. There is the seemingly tricky phrase “to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”

Nowhere in this section or anywhere else in the Constitution is power assigned for shaping an individual’s life or health or community art, for that matter. There is ample ground for debate on exactly what the ‘general Welfare’ phrase means in context.

Past and present administrations have taken the phrase to questionable levels. Democrats once again seek to expand funding of healthcare by pursuing legislation that in years to come will of course lead to socialized medicine. That outcome is a no-brainer requiring very little intellect to comprehend.

Beginning with the Democrat Party’s invention of Medicare and Medicaid, government has slowly encroached the private market, resulting in higher costs for those of us relying on private policies because the free market has been downsized.

As a result of both major political parties turning a back on enforcing immigration laws or crafting a sensible migrant worker policy, the American taxpayer funds healthcare for any—this is federal speak—“foreign-born non-citizen.” This has resulted in an open door policy for people from other countries to come here, receive free healthcare, and return to their home country. A terrorist, if he or she sought medical care at a hospital, would receive it automatically.

Somehow I do not believe this is the ‘general Welfare’ the framers had in mind.

State sovereignty movements may be the only answer to a federal government that has grown to levels future generations will not be able to sustain. States are hard-strapped, especially sanctuary states like Florida and California, to render healthcare and education to people who come into the country by breaking the law. Increased law enforcement costs are also a direct result of that policy. Yet the Constitution requires our country defend itself against invasion. The cultural result is an influx of one social group above all others, creating friction for instance between Latino gangs and Black gangs in government-orchestrated slums.

Whatever the U.S. population makeup becomes, it will have been engineered by Washington.

The latest Bloater proposal comes from the US Dept. of Education, a bureaucracy founded by Democrats. The Department suggests extending the school day. That is strictly the business of the states and associated local school boards. As a parent, I would homeschool my child before I permitted a government school to have her for any longer than the current hours. One can imagine teachers, who already do more surrogate parenting that common sense dictates, having to ask themselves ‘Should I serve peanut butter sandwiches for afternoon snacks today?’ Will the teens be required to bring a nap mat to school?

As the Democratic Party focuses on expanding a federal bureaucracy already expanded by President George W. Bush, the debate over federal power is alive and well in the states. Those ‘tenthers’ may well have their day in court and the worst that could happen is an elevated consciousness of the impact of government expansion on personal liberty, with a vision of the damage that expansion will ultimately bring to the Republic.

The New York Times, realizing perhaps that yes, Virginia, there is a Main Street, ran a recent article on state sovereignty. The Christian Science Monitor, easily the best news gatherer among all the Pulitzer Prize holders, covered the topic as well. The Tenth Amendment Center monitors progress and keeps the public informed about the issue on a regular basis.

As the political debate on state sovereignty heats up, the Tenthers may succeed in wiping smirks off the Bloaters’ faces. Americans tend to value their liberty and that cuts across all income quintiles.

In 1986 during Ronald Reagan’s State of the Union Address, he summed up one of the best dividing lines between the two major political parties still relevant today: "Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back -- with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free." By his very words, one of our best presidents would probably be classified as a “right-wing extremist” subject to Department of Homeland Security scrutiny in today’s political climate.

The debate over states’ rights and centralized government will gain traction in years to come, regardless of the party controlling Washington and regardless of the Bloaters’ attempt to squelch it.