On States' Rights & Powers
I am a Constitutionalist. Therefore, I support the 10th amendment. However, I do not support the concept of "State's Rights." If you are a lover of Liberty and the Constitution, you are might be screaming SACRILEGE! Well, before you condemn me, let's take a closer look.
First, many people that assert States' Rights implicitly or explicitly place the "rights" of States ahead of the rights of the people. I must admit that this always bothered me as I thought that individual rights have primacy. This concern caused me to re-read the Constitution more closely. What did I find? The 9th amendment precedes the 10th. The 9th amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Well this addressed my concern as our Founding Fathers clearly stated that individuals (the people) have rights and that not all of them are enumerated in the Constitution but we have those rights nonetheless. I also noted that the 9th amendment does not say:
"... retained by the States or the people."
So, what exactly does the 10th amendment say?
"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."
Immediately, I noticed the key difference between the 9th and 10th amendments. The 9th amendment is about rights. The 10th amendment is about powers. The Constitution delegates certain powers to the Federal government. It does not grant any rights to the Federal government. Rights are retained by the people while powers are reserved to the States or the people.
If rights are individual and not collective and, as the Declaration of Independence states, are unalienable, then they must be retained by the people -- they can not be taken away by the Constitution, the Federal government or the State governments.
However, the people delegate certain powers to the Federal government, those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and to the State governments (the powers enumerated in the respective State Constitutions which were delegated by the people of the State).
Therefore, I must conclude that there is no such thing as States' Rights. There are, however, States' powers, which one can also call responsibilities. So, what is the nature of the States' powers and responsibilities to its citizens? If, as the Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government, the moral reason for its existence, is to secure the rights of its citizens, then the responsibility of a State government is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the context of Federal and State relationships, that means the State is responsible to check and balance the power of the Federal government when the Feds usurp powers that we the people have not delegated to it. When the Federal government usurps powers, it is violating the rights of its citizens. States are morally obligated to act to protect the rights of its citizens. Similarly, if the Federal government abrogates its responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, the State is obligated to morally act to protect its citizen’s rights.
We have a great example of this today. Our Federal government has abrogated its responsibility to enforce immigration law. People are entering the country illegally which means without proper screening to ensure the immigrant is not a threat to the residents of this country. Arizona stepped into the vacuum created by our Federal government. SB 1070 defines state criminal offenses which mirror federal immigration law. Arizona did not exercise any "state right." Arizona acted morally to protect the rights of its citizens because the Federal government failed to do so.
We also have an example of States stepping forward to check and balance the Federal government. ObamaCare requires the Federal government to initiate the use of force against its citizens to force them to purchase health care insurance. We the people never gave the Federal government the power to force us to participate in any commercial activity. Several State Attorneys General have filed suit in court to block implementation of ObamaCare. These State AGs are not an exercising States rights. The State AGs are not arguing that it is the States' rights to compel their citizens. They are arguing that it is the States' responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and they have the power to fight back against a Federal government that has exceeded the powers delegated to it.
I am a Constitutionalist. Therefore, I support the 10th amendment. However, I do not support the concept of "State's Rights." If you are a lover of Liberty and the Constitution, you are might be screaming SACRILEGE! Well, before you condemn me, let's take a closer look.
First, many people that assert States' Rights implicitly or explicitly place the "rights" of States ahead of the rights of the people. I must admit that this always bothered me as I thought that individual rights have primacy. This concern caused me to re-read the Constitution more closely. What did I find? The 9th amendment precedes the 10th. The 9th amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Well this addressed my concern as our Founding Fathers clearly stated that individuals (the people) have rights and that not all of them are enumerated in the Constitution but we have those rights nonetheless. I also noted that the 9th amendment does not say:
"... retained by the States or the people."
So, what exactly does the 10th amendment say?
"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."
Immediately, I noticed the key difference between the 9th and 10th amendments. The 9th amendment is about rights. The 10th amendment is about powers. The Constitution delegates certain powers to the Federal government. It does not grant any rights to the Federal government. Rights are retained by the people while powers are reserved to the States or the people.
If rights are individual and not collective and, as the Declaration of Independence states, are unalienable, then they must be retained by the people -- they can not be taken away by the Constitution, the Federal government or the State governments.
However, the people delegate certain powers to the Federal government, those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and to the State governments (the powers enumerated in the respective State Constitutions which were delegated by the people of the State).
Therefore, I must conclude that there is no such thing as States' Rights. There are, however, States' powers, which one can also call responsibilities. So, what is the nature of the States' powers and responsibilities to its citizens? If, as the Declaration of Independence states, the purpose of government, the moral reason for its existence, is to secure the rights of its citizens, then the responsibility of a State government is to protect the rights of its citizens. In the context of Federal and State relationships, that means the State is responsible to check and balance the power of the Federal government when the Feds usurp powers that we the people have not delegated to it. When the Federal government usurps powers, it is violating the rights of its citizens. States are morally obligated to act to protect the rights of its citizens. Similarly, if the Federal government abrogates its responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens, the State is obligated to morally act to protect its citizen’s rights.
We have a great example of this today. Our Federal government has abrogated its responsibility to enforce immigration law. People are entering the country illegally which means without proper screening to ensure the immigrant is not a threat to the residents of this country. Arizona stepped into the vacuum created by our Federal government. SB 1070 defines state criminal offenses which mirror federal immigration law. Arizona did not exercise any "state right." Arizona acted morally to protect the rights of its citizens because the Federal government failed to do so.
We also have an example of States stepping forward to check and balance the Federal government. ObamaCare requires the Federal government to initiate the use of force against its citizens to force them to purchase health care insurance. We the people never gave the Federal government the power to force us to participate in any commercial activity. Several State Attorneys General have filed suit in court to block implementation of ObamaCare. These State AGs are not an exercising States rights. The State AGs are not arguing that it is the States' rights to compel their citizens. They are arguing that it is the States' responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and they have the power to fight back against a Federal government that has exceeded the powers delegated to it.
VIDEO: Colorado’s 2nd District
Connect with Stephen
Stephen's Schedule
Paid for by Stephen Bailey for Congress
6525 Gunpark Drive - Suite 370-139
Boulder, CO 80301
303.652.1575
