State Sovereignty - Now, the Governors are signing the papers.
I received this through the TEA Party movement - it is the Tennessean version of what was NH's HCR 6 that was submitted by Dan Itse in the last session. It will not be the last.
As I have become more politically aware and active over the last few years, I have become convinced of one of the great truths that our Founding Fathers knew - government has to be accountable to those who consent to be governed, and a smaller government is much easier to hold accountable by its citizens.
Why else do Progressives all wish to move all governmental actions to more and more centralized loci? They hate that word which all conservatives should treasure - accountability. They know that the more governmental control is moved up the food chain (from town to county, county to State, State to Feds) and all other levels become mere vassals of the Feds, they will win as it will be all but impossible for ordinary citizens to hold its government accountable.
Obama and his ilk are racing to do just that - and have awakened a lot of people to this danger. Tennesse's Governor and Legislators have recognized this, and are joining in the process:
We send greetings from the Tennessee General Assembly. On June 23, 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution, was signed by Governor Phil Bredesen. The Resolution created a committee which has as its charge to:
- Communicate the resolution to the legislatures of the several states,
- Assure them that this State continues in the same esteem of their friendship,
- Call for a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government, and
- Seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
It is for that purpose that this letter addresses your honorable body.
In 1776, our founding fathers declared our freedom in the magnificent Declaration of Independence; our guide to governance. They established a nation of free and independent states. Declaring that the purpose of our political system is to secure for its citizens' their natural rights. The Constitution authorizes the national government to carry out seventeen enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 and the powers of several of the ensuing amendments.
At the time of the Constitutional ratification process James Madison drafted the "Virginia Plan" to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states' accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
There are clear limits to the power of the federal government and clear realms of power for the states. However, the simple and clear expression of purpose, to secure our natural rights, has evolved into the modern expectation that the national government has an obligation to ensure our life, to create our liberty, and fund our pursuit of happiness.
The national government has become...
...a complex system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit some while others must pay.
Today, the federal government seeks to control the salaries of those employed by private business, to change the provisions of private of contracts, to nationalize banks, insurers and auto manufacturers, and to dictate to every person in the land what his or her medical choices will be.
Forcing property from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution.
The role of our American government has been blurred, bent, and breached. The rights endowed to us by our creator must be restored.
To be sure, the People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
With this in mind, any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty - and unconstitutional.
Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom.
We invite your state to join with us to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of the assumption of powers and the imposed mandates.
In Liberty,
Most sincerely,
Susan Lynn
State Representative
57th District
215 War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243
It is my understanding that the equivalent for New Hampshire will be re-introduced again. When that happens, take a few minutes and read it. Then watch to see who opposes it. I can pretty much foretell who will oppose it - it will be the Progressives (for the most part). Hear their voices, then read their words (find their Op-Eds, YouTubes, et al) and see how their reasoning goes: power to the people by keeping government more and more local, or always saying that Concord or DC based programs are the way to go.
I'm betting, overall, the answer is the latter than the former. Founders' Constitutional viewpoint? Not theirs!
