Home
 

Too Hot Not to Note: Will - Power without limits

ALG Editor’s Note: In the following featured column from the Washington Post, George Will chronicles the nation’s transformation from a limited constitutional republic to a limitless welfare state:

Will: Power without limits

By George F. Will

Today, as it has been for a century, American politics is an argument between two Princetonians -- James Madison, Class of 1771, and Woodrow Wilson, Class of 1879. Madison was the most profound thinker among the Founders. Wilson, avatar of "progressivism," was the first president critical of the nation's founding. Barack Obama's Wilsonian agenda reflects its namesake's rejection of limited government.

Lack of "a limiting principle" is the essence of progressivism, according to William Voegeli, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, in his new book "Never Enough: America's Limitless Welfare State." The Founders, he writes, believed that free government's purpose, and the threats to it, are found in nature. The threats are desires for untrammeled power, desires which, Madison said, are "sown in the nature of man." Government's limited purpose is to protect the exercise of natural rights that pre-exist government, rights that human reason can ascertain in unchanging principles of conduct and that are essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Wilsonian progressives believe that History is a proper noun, an autonomous thing. It, rather than nature, defines government's ever-evolving and unlimited purposes. Government exists to dispense an ever-expanding menu of rights -- entitlements that serve an open-ended understanding of material and even spiritual well-being.

The name "progressivism" implies criticism of the Founding, which we leave behind as we make progress. And the name is tautological: History is progressive because progress is defined as whatever History produces. History guarantees what the Supreme Court has called "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

The cheerful assumption is that "evolving" must mean "improving." Progressivism's promise is a program for every problem, and progressivism's premise is that every unfulfilled desire is a problem.

Franklin Roosevelt, an alumnus of Wilson's administration, resolved to "resume" Wilson's "march along the path of real progress" by giving government "the vibrant personal character that is the very embodiment of human charity." He repudiated the Founders' idea that government is instituted to protect pre-existing and timeless natural rights, promising "the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order."

He promised "a right to make a comfortable living." Presumably, the judiciary would define and enforce the delivery of comfort. Specifically, there could be no right to "do anything which deprives others" of whatever "elemental rights" the government decides to dispense.

Today, government finds the limitless power of dispensing not in Madison's Constitution of limited government but in Wilson's theory that the Constitution actually frees government from limitations. The liberating -- for government -- idea is that the Constitution is a "living," evolving document. Wilson's Constitution is an emancipation proclamation for government, empowering it to regulate all human activities in order to treat all human desires as needs and hence as rights. Unlimited power is entailed by what Voegeli calls government's "right to discover new rights."

"Liberalism's protean understanding of rights," he says, "complicates and ultimately dooms the idea of a principled refusal to elevate any benefit that we would like people to enjoy to the status of an inviolable right." Needs breed rights to have the needs addressed, to the point that Lyndon Johnson, an FDR protege, promised that government would provide Americans with "purpose" and "meaning."

Although progressivism's ever-lengthening list of rights is as limitless as human needs/desires, one right that never makes the list is the right to keep some inviolable portion of one's private wealth or income, "regardless," Voegeli says, "of the lofty purposes social reformers wish to make of it."

Lacking a limiting principle, progressivism cannot say how big the welfare state should be but must always say that it should be bigger than it currently is. Furthermore, by making a welfare state a fountain of rights requisite for democracy, progressives in effect declare that democratic deliberation about the legitimacy of the welfare state is illegitimate.

"By blackening the skies with crisscrossing dollars," Voegeli says, the welfare state encourages people "to believe an impossibility: that every household can be a net importer of the wealth redistributed by the government." But the welfare state's problem, today becoming vivid, is socialism's problem, as Margaret Thatcher defined it: Socialist governments "always run out of other people's money."

Wilsonian government, meaning (in Wilson's words) government with "unstinted power," is hostile to Madison's Constitution, which, Madison said, obliges government "to control itself." Thus our choice is between government restraint rooted in respect for nature, or government free to follow History wherever government says History marches.

georgewill@washpost.com

When in the course of human events

By Justin Williams

Many historians agree, the United States of American was founded with federalism at its core. This meant that each state would have it’s own jurisdiction to govern its citizens on all accounts that were not granted to the federal government or banned to the states.

A “state” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially: one that is sovereign” [emphasis theirs]. But it is clear that the states that were once near-independent bodies are now nowhere near sovereign.

And increasingly, as the Obama Administration turns the screws on states rights, the sovereign citizens are fighting back.

They understand, as did the founders, that the centralization of power was a bad idea. As Thomas Jefferson put it “The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Federalism, through the competition between states for taxpayers, gave citizens of the United States another mechanism to check their governments -- and that was with their feet. But, like other well-intended programs, it didn’t take long for the federal government to encroach upon this vital principle.

One example of this is the legislation called the No Child Left Behind Act, which brought blankets of red tape into a sector of the government that had historically been reserved for the states. And the usurpacious Interstate Commerce Act has imposed myriad restriction upon the individual states tying funding to meeting dictates.

But, millions of Americans now decided that enough is enough, and Obama’s health care and economic “reforms” have finally triggered a states right revolt. Thirty-seven states have proposed a resolution to exert their state as sovereign. And more are expected to follow.

The Governor of Texas, Rick Perry (R), has been one of the staunchest supporters of reinstitutionalizing state rights ever since legislation was proposed by the federal government to socialize health care. He stated, “that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state...” and suggested the possibility of secession.

In short, the current growth of government under the past two administrations has put the states in a situation where they must threaten to leave the union -- all because the federalism ideal has been forgotten.

While the founders argued that the states needed a central authority to defend themselves against a common enemy, they did not make the argument that the states should give up their sovereignty to achieve that. And, they never even remotely imagined that the “common enemy” would become the federal government itself.

But that is exactly what has happened.

Of course, the Obama Administration and Congress are showing no signs of stopping the fleecing of the American people. So, the states and the people have decided to stand up and take back their state sovereignty before their state citizenship, like private health insurance becomes, a thing of the past.

Soon, the “feds” may be faced with a dire choice: either return to the tenets of federalism or be prepared for today’s “ragtag army” of rebels to echo the actions of the founders and “dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another.”

Mr. Obama, meet Mr. Jefferson.

Justin Williams is the Senior Commentary Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Backlash of the Basics

By William Warren

“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.”
—Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A backlash of prodigious proportions is sweeping the nation, inching ever closer to a White House and Congress, both hell-bent on turning the United States into a dimly lit, dingy shanty on hill.

The backlash is about the basics. And it’s basically about Constitutional safeguards—or, increasingly, the lack thereof.

One of those leading the charge and getting back to the basics—i.e., the fundamental principles of the American Republic itself—is Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK), an individual who has proven himself a fierce advocate for the US Constitution time and time again.

In what might, in a well-ordered world, be perceived as “well, duh” legislation, Senator Coburn recently introduced a bill requesting that Congress do one simple thing and one thing alone: simply explain how any action it undertakes is authorized by the Constitution. As the Senator said:


“A major reason why we are facing tough economic challenges is because Congress has ignored our founding documents which are designed to limit its role. Until we reconnect Congress with its limited and enumerated powers we will never put our nation back on a sustainable fiscal course. This bill is important because too many members of Congress believe they know best and no longer need to consult the document that is their foundational legal authority.”

In other, perhaps more blunt words: “What gives you the right?”

The request is as profound as it should be perfunctory.

Congress’ right to do anything—and government’s as well—is wholly derived from the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, any right not specifically delegated to Congress is reserved “to the States respectively, or the people.” This is known as the “Enumerated Powers Clause” as spelled out clearly by the 10th Amendment.

Nevertheless, it seems those in Washington can’t read—or at least practice what the social scientists call selective perception—when it comes to their occasional perusal of the document each and every one of them once swore to support and defend.

Simply put, their actions go far beyond the limited purview granted in the Constitution. And not just via illegal means, but extralegal means as well.

Whether it’s the creation of Government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…the appointment of countless, unelected czars to do the unchecked bidding of the President…the administering (and dictating) of healthcare…or the swallowing up of private industries like General Motors—the Federal Government has overstepped its Constitutional bounds. The Federal Reserve wields power to make currency expressly granted to Congress under Article I, Section 8. Even such entities like the Department of Education, the FCC, and the various federal alphabet agencies are entities that, Constitutionally-speaking, are specifically “reserved to the States respectfully, or to the people.” (yes, I know I’m repeating myself, but Congress just can’t seem to get it).

Fortunately, Dr. Coburn is not alone in his disgust for the ever-expanding, self-ordained role of the Federal Government—nor is the backlash limited to a few rebellious senators with a penchant for annoying liberals (a practice otherwise known as “supporting and defending the Constitution”).

Dozens of individual states have likewise taken steps to reassert their own 10th Amendment rights and state sovereignty. Among those that have introduced and/or passed resolutions telling the Federal Government to back off and get back to the basics are Massachusetts, North Carolina, Ohio, Minnesota, and Texas, to name a few.

It is essential that this sweeping nationwide backlash is seen for what it is: a unified resistance to the unprecedented expansion of government authority that the Obama Administration and the 111th Congress have ushered in.

It is by no means a sheer coincidence that 2009 has witnessed a shocking number of states—red, blue, and in-between—and countless individuals, rising up to declare their sovereignty as granted by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.

Under normal circumstances, states and individuals wouldn’t feel such a pressing need to reassert this pithy, 28-word paragraph of the U.S. Constitution. The circumstances today, however, are anything but normal. And that’s why, in the eyes of a rapidly growing number of Americans, the collectivist, statist agenda of the Big Government powers in Washington is a real and direct threat to the very essence and mission of the United States—emphasis added.

Government has gotten too big.

Luckily, the backlash promises to be even bigger.

William Warren is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Editorial: Obama Blinks


On April 30th, the Obama Administration sent to the California state government an unmistakably blatant letter threatening to withhold California’s Medicaid “stimulus” money if a home healthcare workers wage cut was not rescinded. That letter came at the behest of SEIU union bosses.

Later, however, an Obama Administration official anonymously claimed the letter was sent out “inadvertently.” Of course, that was after the Administration realized that it was not going to get away with kicking California—and states’ rights—to curb without a fight.

To its credit, California pushed back—hard—stating that the budget cuts were necessary to make up for a $23 billion budget shortfall. The truth is, California had every duty to act in its own interests as a sovereign state to save $74 million on home healthcare workers.

California’s receipt of some $6.8 billion in federal stimulus, supplemental Medicaid money had been conditioned upon rescinding the cut, which reduces the state’s maximum contribution to home health workers’ pay from $12.10 per hour to $10.10 in July. Last week, ALG News and other media had called for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to uphold the principle of federalism, and to rescind the ultimatum.

Fortunately, Obama cowered when the blatantly thuggish Obama-union aggression was exposed. The Obama Administration was finally forced to back off its threat to withhold the supplemental Medicaid funds from California.

But make no mistake, the April 30th letter was no “inadvertent” mistake at all. The facts just do not allow that. SEIU had participated in a conference call with California and Washington officials on April 15th to threaten the state, explicitly making the case that Sacramento had violated the “stimulus” law. Was that “inadvertent,” too?

In short, the Administration lied. The lowly or highly placed official who claimed this was “inadvertent” is just lucky he or she did not give a sourced statement. Because that official should be subpoenaed under penalty of perjury for his or her role in this debacle.

The grimy underbelly of the Obama Administration has been exposed. The good part is that it’s vulnerable and cowardly, and when exposed to sunshine it will backpedal. The bad part is that it then attempts to cover up its role. As the nation has learned more than once, it’s the lying that will take down any Administration.

House and Senate panels should investigate what happened with the April 15th SEIU-California-Washington conference call. They should investigate what happened with the April 30th letter. Who knew what? And when did they know it? What was happening at Health & Human Services before Kathleen Sebelius was confirmed in the midst of the Swine Flu scare?

The fact is, California and the nation’s capital stared eye to eye in a high-stakes game of states’ rights. And the Administration blinked. They won’t admit such, but that is what really happened.

Now, it is up to Congress to make sure that such a blatant abuse of federal purse-strings power is not allowed to occur again.

The United Fiefdoms of America

By Howie Rich

Lost in last week’s barrage of Barack Obama “spending reform” coverage was a USA Today story that should send chills down the spine of any state official – or taxpaying citizen, for that matter.

For the first time ever, federal aid – not property, sales or income tax – is the top revenue source for state budgets, the paper reported.

And not surprisingly, you could probably knit your way from Hyannis Port to Honolulu with all the “strings attached” by federal bureaucrats.

Like the automotive industry, banking business or mortgage market, an unprecedented level of state governmental policy is now controlled out of Washington.

And just as government’s costly intrusion into the free market is eroding our capitalist economy, its escalating incursion into the realm of state sovereignty is encroaching upon our individual liberties.

As Indiana State Sen. Jim Buck told USA Today, “This money isn't manna from heaven. It comes with a price.”

Indeed it does – and that price is our freedom.

Of course, to hear big government apologists tell it, this news is exclusively the result of the current economic crisis and the need for government to “lend a hand.”

"This has more to say about the severity of the recession than anything else," a spokesman for the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said. "Congress stepped in on a temporary basis to help states."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

While Washington’s bailout craze has indeed spawned a sizable increase in federal aid to states, what we have witnessed over the last eighty years is the systematic stripping away of local control – a steady, methodical (and increasingly expensive) obliteration of the sovereignty of state governments.

This marks a complete reversal of the framework of government our founding fathers envisioned, and amounts to a deliberate shredding of the Constitutional compact that states entered into as a prerequisite for joining the Union.

Back in 1929, for example, federal aid comprised just 2% of state consumption expenditures. It rose to 12% under the administrations of Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, but remained at approximately that level until the 1960’s.

Then, according to a 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, state dependency exploded with the introduction of Medicaid.

Comprising just 6% of state budgets in the early Seventies, Medicaid currently accounts for almost a third of all state expenditures – and that number is climbing.

As Congress has expanded eligibility and added services and benefits – all without state approval – Medicaid has grown at a completely unsustainable clip.

In fact, over the last 35 years, Medicaid has grown by $1.64 for every dollar in state spending growth.

Similar increases can be seen in federal education, environmental, social security and welfare programs – with states having to pay ever-escalating tabs across the board.
And with deficit spending adding trillions to a growing national debt, Uncle Sam kept right on pouring cash into these “federal-state” programs.

It made sense to U.S. lawmakers. More federal spending brought more federal control, and in those rare instances when states dared to resist Washington’s will, the feds threatened to cut state bureaucrats out of the gravy train.

Of course that’s just half of the scam.

When tax money wasn’t available to cover the enforcement of new federal edicts, D..C. politicians passed the tab on down to states in the form of unfunded mandates.

As of last March, the “mandate gap” stood at over $130 billion.

Sadly, all that this joint “federal-state” governance has done is to further remove power from the people while “locking in” exorbitant growth rates for government at all levels – a process facilitated by the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by states on taxpayer-funded lobbyists.

Basically, Americans are forced to pay more as they receive less from government – all while having their voice taken from them.

Over the decades to come, our children and grandchildren will be paying off our previous debt as well as the trillions of dollars that government is spending on its various “recovery” efforts.

Let’s hope that as they labor to do so, they will insist not only on dramatic reductions in the size and scope of government, but also the reemergence of a balance of power that gives them a voice in the policies that affect their lives.

Absent that, we will continue to see a nation of fiefdoms drifting further toward servitude.

The author is Chairman of Americans for Limited Government.

Editorial: The States Strike Back

Last week, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX) fired a warning shot across the federal government’s bow with his polite reminder that Texas could always secede from the Union. He also endorsed a resolution affirming the Tenth Amendment that has gained traction in several states, increasing the public momentum in favor of returning power to the states.

And now, one state is offering a bill that would seek to undo an older judicial doctrine dating back to the New Deal—in the case Wickard v. Filburn of 1942—to which constitutional scholars date the modern origin of unlimited government in America. That decision cemented the “intrastate commerce” doctrine that “constitutionalized” any federal law regulating commerce within a state—as opposed to commerce among the several states. In Men in Black, Mark Levin, notes that “for the next fifty years, the Supreme Court used the commerce clause as legal justification to uphold federal intrusion into ‘just about anything.’”

And since then, there has been no limit really to what the federal government has regulated. Guns. Energy. Health Care. And on down the line. Nothing has been spared from the federal onslaught. But that may be coming to an end.

In Montana, Governor Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, recently signed HB 246, a bill that affirms the Tenth, Ninth, and Second Amendments, as well as its own state constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms. It also cites the general understanding of the Second Amendment at the time Montana entered the Union: “The second amendment to the United States constitution reserves to the people the right to keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889, and the guaranty of the right is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889.”

The bill itself exempts any “personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana” from any “federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

This is a courageous act by yet another state to stand against an increasingly oppressive federal regime. It is a legal strategy that ought to be emulated by states across the Union, to undo the critically flawed activist doctrine of “intrastate commerce,” and any others that violate powers otherwise reserved to the states and the people under the Tenth Amendment.

The primacy of states in the federal Union was once a bedrock principle that guided the founding of this nation. It recent years, it has become little more than an arcane theory of government allowed to gather dust for some 67 years. But unless all three branches of the government—including the judiciary—return to federalism, eventually states like Texas may actually invoke their secession clause. And states’ rights will be a good idea whose time has come—again.

Forgetting what the S Stands For

By William Warren

Oftentimes, those high atop the federal monolith forget what the “S” in “USA” stands for. Or perhaps they regard the letter with flippancy or triviality. Or, even disdain.

Fortunately, many across the “fruited plain” are now standing up to defend what is arguably the most important letter of world’s most important acronym.

As ALG News Bureau has previously reported, a growing number of states are raising their voices to reaffirm their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. As the crucial—yet rued and ravaged—amendment reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In the opinion of state residents from Michigan, Washington, New Hampshire, Missouri and others, the powers exercised by the current federal government grossly exceed the powers delegated. And now another state—with a particularly iconic history of sovereignty struggles—has thrown its (in this case, cowboy) hat into the ring, challenging the ever-expansive centralized government in Washington D.C.

The Lone Star State now has a resolution of its own—reaffirming its 10th Amendment sovereignty over powers not allocated to the federal government. HCR 50 out of the Texas legislature is yet one more resolution adding to the growing chorus of state-led dissidence that is becoming increasingly hard for Big Government advocates in Washington to ignore.

As Texas Governor Rick Perry articulated:

“I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state. That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”

To Perry and others, returning to the letter of the law—and reaffirming the aforementioned 2nd letter of “USA”—is essential for the survival of the Union. And they support their position by citing what happens when they cede ground to the federal government.

Whether it’s in the area of federal fuel standards, federal healthcare standards, federal education standards, or federal environmental standards—or even federal food preparation and ditch-digging standards—the states are being forced to relinquish their ability to govern their own affairs in a manner they deem appropriate. Rather than letting Governor Perry’s Texan constituents to govern themselves according to Texas ideals and values, bureaucrats in Washington believe their mandates are the best fit.

And, of course, the federal government’s one-size-fits-all dictates apply to Michiganders, Washingtonians, New Hampshirites, and Missourians as well.

The so-called “stimulus” package is a case in point. Like making a deal with the devil, states are finding that accepting the recent infusion of billions of dollars in federal stimulus money sounds attractive—until one gets to the catch. And what a catch it is.

The “stimulus” money provides the federal government with insurmountable leverage to dictate what the states are to do and how they are to do it. And even when so-called “fiscally conservative” governors buckle and accept the tainted money “with reservations”—such as Charlie Crist of Florida and John Huntsman of Utah—it only reaffirms the effectiveness of the federal government’s stimulus strong-arming.

Clearly, sovereign states across the country are beginning to feel that the government takeover at the hands of Barack Obama, Tim Geithner, and the Democratic Congress has gone far enough. One by one, they are waking up and realizing that their authority as co-equal members of these United States may be the last defense against a centralized, all powerful federal government. The reassertion of the 10th amendment—borrowing the words of Lincoln—may be “the last, best hope” for the people of this nation.

Without the States, all that remains is “U.A.”—which could one day stand for “Under Authority.”

William Warren is a Contributing Editor of ALG News Bureau.

Nevada is the Latest State to Reaffirm their 10th Amendment Rights

ALG Editor’s Note: As ALG News Bureau has previously reported, states all across the country are rising up to reaffirm their 10th Amendment Constitutional rights, saying they will not follow unconstitutional federal mandates.

Echoing their declaration, the state of Nevada has now followed suit, joining countless others as listed here.

Click here to view the legislation coming out of Nevada.

 

Editorial: Circumventing States' Rights

Perhaps one of the most straightforward ways to inflate the size and authority of the federal government is to diminish that of the states—the 10th Amendment notwithstanding.

As the $819 billion (Government) “stimulus” package marinates in Congress, a side campaign has been launched against the very states’ rights that were intended to keep an aggressive Federal Government at bay—and keep the Republic afloat. Now one particular individual is bearing the brunt of that assault.

Ever since the madness geared up last fall, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford (R) has maintained a stalwart, no-nonsense opposition to the culture of bailouts and “stimulus” packages—particularly federal bailouts for states, especially the Governor’s own South Carolina. As he wrote in a Wall Street Journal piece last November:

“I find myself in a lonely position. While many states and local governments are lining up for a bailout from Congress, I went to Washington recently to oppose such bailouts. I may be the only governor to do so.”

This hostility towards state bailouts is starting to infuriate certain members of Congress—particularly those who see Big Government and inebriated federal money dispersal as the end all and be all to every societal woe imaginable. For many of them, states’ rights—such as Governor Sanford’s right to reject a state bailout—are mere nuisance.

One congressman is dealing with this nuisance by throwing down the Big Government gauntlet of One-Party authoritarian bullying.

Trampling on the bedrock principle of constitutional federalism, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) is using the powers of the Federal Government in Washington to circumvent Mr. Sanford’s authority as Governor—all in an effort to force federal stimulus funds on South Carolina. According to South Carolina’s “The State” newspaper:

“Just before the House passed President Obama’s $819 billion economic-stimulus bill Wednesday evening, Clyburn inserted an amendment empowering state legislative leaders to accept the special federal aid if the governor fails to act within 45 days of the measure’s enactment…

“Clyburn made it clear his provision was aimed squarely at Sanford.”

Mr. Clyburn’s actions constitute the proverbial “double-whammy”: Not only is one Representative—out of 435, of course—using the powers of Congress to revoke a state’s right to be fiscally accountable, but he is also exploiting those same powers to carry out a personal vendetta against an obvious political rival.

Opening the door to let the federal government step into any state and start dictating policies is a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately, a lot of dangerous precedents have been set in recent weeks.

The degree to which the current Democrat-controlled government in Washington has gone to further their Big Government agenda is appalling at best and unconstitutional at worst. Going far beyond the “enumerated powers” granted by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the politicians in the capitol have begun to drift into the dark and desolate waters of Big Government authoritarianism.

Hopefully Governor Sanford and others of his ilk can anchor the nation in the unshakeable rock of constitutional limited government. But right now, the Ship of State is foundering badly, with many a loose cannon on a badly rolling deck.

California, There You Go

The all-knowing politicians in Sacramento, CA, have decided that they should dictate their own onerous auto emission standards. President Barack Obama has ordered his Environmental Protection Agency underlings to let them do so. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) is adamantly opposed. And Mr. Boehner needs to reconsider his position.

In the first place, the current restriction on states setting their own standards is a clear violation of the Enumerated Powers clause of the U.S. Constitution. According to the 10th Amendment, “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.”

Nowhere in the Constitution does it delegate to Congress the authority to set emission standards. Hence, like it or not, California has the right to impose stricter controls.

Mr. Boehner and his adherents argue that if California is allowed to set its own standards, automakers would be forced to build special cars for that state only (and any other state that follows California’s headstrong lead). And that brings up to the second reason Mr. Boehner should reconsider his position.

In the news release announcing his opposition, Mr. Boehner states, “Millions of American jobs will be placed in further jeopardy if automakers are forced to spend billions to comply with potentially dozens of different emissions standards in dozens of different states.” While the Congressman’s compassion is doubtless well-intentioned, that’s a pretty big “if.”

The fact is, automakers at home and abroad have another, very real alternative to spending billions of dollars following California’s emission control dictates: They can tell the politicians in California to take a hike. Literally. If California’s myopic politicos decide they are too pure of heart to drive the same cars good, decent Americans in the other 49 states are tooling around in, they can get out and walk. And leave the driving to us.

Recently, ALG News featured an article on the remarkable out-migration California is enduring, as nearly 150,000 citizens left the Golden State last year alone. This, despite California’s beautiful beaches, bounteous mountains, abundant sunshine, and breathtaking climate. So, why are its people leaving? In a word: oppression. In three words: taxes, rules, and regulations. There is something in the heart that yearns to breathe free – even if the air is not always pristine.

So, with all due respect, Mr. Boehner is wrong on this one. States rights trump auto sales. And perhaps allowing California’s Green-eyed politicians to take their oppressive instincts to their ruinous extreme is one sure way to eventually help put the good people of California back in the driver’s seat.
 
© 2008 GETLIBERTY.ORG, AMERICANS FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT