THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE by T. Edwin Perry
“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.” – 10th Amendment to the Constitution (1791)
Today (August 4, 2010), Chief US District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that California’s ban on “Gay Marriage” was Unconstitutional, declaring that California’s State Constitutional Amendment, known at the time of its Statewide Vote as “Proposition 8,” was null & void. With more than 79% of eligible voters participating in the vote, the proposition to revise the State Constitution to express that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California” passed with 52.24% of the vote. Under the California State Constitution, a SIMPLE MAJORITY is all that is required to amend its constitution.
But this post IS NOT about “Gay Marriage.”
On July 28, 2010, US District Judge Susan Bolton ruled to place an injunction on key provisions of the “Arizona Law” on Immigration Enforcement (SB1070), ruling that State Police are NOT PERMITTED to ask individuals detained for OTHER REASONS about their immigration status or legal residency, claiming that this violates the Constitution. Fear of racial profiling or unreasonable detention sparked the debate, though anyone who had actually READ the law would note that, in every section relating to the question of Immigration Status, the law clearly states that it must conform with FEDERAL LAW and “Shall be Implemented in a manner CONSISTENT with all Federal Laws regulating Immigration, Protecting the Civil Rights of All Persons and Respecting the Privileges and Immunities of United States Citizens.”
But this post IS NOT about “Illegal Immigration.”
No, this Post is about the Rights of the States, as defined by the 10th Amendment. Each State is intended to be a “Sovereign Body,” entitled to Govern Itself in all regards that are not SPECIFICALLY delineated in the United States Constitution. Under the 10th Amendment, the Powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are specifically limited. The responsibility of FEDERAL JUDGES in regards to STATE LAWS is to determine 1) if the Statute violates the Authority of the Federal Government as defined by the Constitution; and 2) if the Statute conforms to Federal Law, which must already conform to the Constitution. Beyond that, the States and the People retain the rights CONSTITUTIONALLY to enact their own “Community Standards” in regards to a wide array of issues. Want to gamble? Some states have statewide bans on ALL GAMING, while others allow it either in certain areas or across the entire state. How about wanting to have sex with a prostitute? Head to Nevada, where certain counties have ruled it to be a legal activity. Want to smoke marijuana? Give it a little while longer and you may get your chance in California!
The Federal Government has extended its powers dramatically over the past 150 years. Think I’m exaggerating? In 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President of the United States without winning a single Southern “Slave” State. Though personally opposed to Slavery, he did not campaign on a platform of Abolition, and had no intention of forcing the issue. Within days of the election, South Carolina seceded from the Union, fearing that the 10th Amendment would not be enforced and that its “RIGHT” to maintain Slavery would be challenged. What followed was the Civil War, fought not over Slavery, per se, but to protect the UNION of the United States. Emancipation was not a “Humanitarian” policy. It was a weapon, first used as an enticement to Southern States to rejoin the Union (The first Emancipation Proclamation issued a deadline to rejoin and retain “Slaveholding Rights.), and then to encourage uprisings by Slaves to win the war. (Let me be clear: I do not yearn to go back to the days of Slavery, but the issue is clearly shown by this example. The threat of usurping the Sovereignty of the States is a REAL CONCERN, and has already spawned ONE Civil War.)
The imposition of Federal Power over Sovereign States was a concern dating back to the writing of the Constitution, and the Articles of Confederation before that. The battle between the Federalists (Pro-Constitution) and Anti-Federalists (Pro-Confederation) related directly to the Authority of the States to govern themselves in MOST REGARDS, and the compromise between the two positions was to INTENTIONALLY LIMIT the authority of the Federal Government. Somehow, however, after the Civil War, that power struggle shifted, and the Federal Government has become a growing, power-consuming body that has essentially rendered the States impotent, not to mention the rights of the People to adopt their own Community Standards for conduct and self-preservation.
In both the California and Arizona examples, the Federal Government has clearly acted beyond the scope of its Constitutional Authority, and when it acts outside of the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, as it has in both of these cases, it walks a slippery and dangerous slope. When the Government treats the MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE as the enemy and legislates AGAINST THEIR WILL, there is TYRANNY. It’s what sparked our Revolution, and it’s the fear of that Tyranny that sparked the Civil War.
Hopefully, our Government will learn from history and step back now before it is too late. I hope it is not too late already.
Leave a Reply