State or Federal? (Part 1)

Aug 19, 2010 @ 04:34:17

The 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."

My passion for the Tenth Amendment is not new. It first arose when I was a mayor seeing and feeling the extensive burdens placed on city government and local schools by a multitude of unconstitutional federal mandates. Through the course of my campaign to represent Texas House District 7, that passion has not waned. I have made it clear that the Tenth Amendment is not merely a federal issue, but an issue of great consequence for state lawmakers who, among other state officials, are responsible to defend Texas sovereignty and independence.

The U.S. government has grown so large and so powerful and so intrusive, that the States are in very real danger of losing their self-determination and sovereignty. One of the reasons for this growth is the misconception that the federal government itself is the final interpreter or sole arbiter of whether it has exercised "the powers not delegated" to it by the Constitution. It is commonly believed the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say whether the U.S. has exceeded its constitutional bounds or not. If this is the case, we find ourselves in a situation akin to Dr. Frankenstein and his monster, where the creature cannot be checked and can overcome its own creator. As parties to the compact that created and empowered the U.S. government, States have legal standing to check the federal government’s use of powers that the States did not delegate.

Inaction and refusal to comply with an unconstitutional federal mandate is the primary tool States can employ. An example of this peaceful, efficient and effective resistance to federal meddling is the response to The Real ID Act 2005, which requires States to implement certain driver’s license and identification card standards and sharing of the same with other States. Most States simply have done nothing or passed resolutions opposing it. They neither have funded the program nor implemented it. 

The Tenth Amendment is very important for state officials to understand because it authoritatively explains that: (1) the States and the people have kept all powers which they did not specifically delegate or specifically give up to form the union; and (2) the United States authority is limited, defined, and delegated by the States. The first reminds us that Texas is independent and sovereign and has the wherewithal to take care of itself. The second reminds us that the U.S. is not an unlimited and all-powerful master, but a steward charged by the States with certain duties.

The original Constitution was quickly amended with a "Bill of Rights" (the first ten amendments), because there was considerable concern that the original Constitution might later be misconstrued or misunderstood. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, in particular, do not add or subtract anything. They are simply authoritative declarations which, like a monument, mark a boundary for future generations, and like a fence, keep some things on and some things off your property. 

If Texas is to remain sovereign and independent, Texas officeholders must wisely, peacefully, but immediately endeavor to take care of the State’s own affairs and its people and to defend the State and its people against the federal government’s use of "powers not delegated to the United States."

Tags: 10th Amendment, Constitution, Federalism, Individual Rights, Nullification, Real ID, States Rights, Tenth Amendment, Usurpation