by State Rep. Susan Lynn (TN-57th)
The following is a letter from Tennessee to the other 49 State Legislatures
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 those purposes 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.
Susan Lynn [send her email] is a member of the Tennessee General Assembly; serving on the Commerce Committee and Chairman of the Government Operations committee. She holds a BS in economics and a minor in history. She is the Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s Commerce Task Force. Visit her blog at http://susan-lynn.blogspot.com
Oct 29, 2009 @ 17:06:04
Also,
You forgot to mention that the Constitution of Texas states that “Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States”
So if you are subject to the Constitution of the United States, wouldn’t that mean that you are subject to Federal Statutes enacted by the Congress, whose powers are enumerated in Article I of said Constitution?
Oct 29, 2009 @ 17:03:01
Soviet style collective? Is that supposed to be a euphemism for the Constitution?
I’m beginning to think that no one on this forum has read the Federalist Papers.
Oct 29, 2009 @ 16:40:19
I am a citizen of The Republic Of Texas. We have a clause in our agreement with the union that we may break our ties if we so desire.
I dont know why Mark desires to be party to the soviet styled collective but I gaurantee that his centralized government will bite him in the butt.
Oct 29, 2009 @ 07:57:18
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your previous comment. Do you mean to say that you are a citizen only of your particular state, and not of the United States? You must realize how disingenuous it is to suggest this.
I think you maybe should take a few days and read the Federalist Papers, which provide quite a bit of illumination regarding the role of the Federal Government.
We are not still operating under the Articles of Confederation. You are not only a sovereign individual of your state, but exist in a dual capacity as a sovereign of your state, but also as a sovereign of the United States under one Federal Government.
The United States exists by a constituted government, which was agreed to by all of the states, whether or not you are prepared to admit that fact. It is not a loose confederation, but a Federation. The States don’t have the authority to withdraw from this government, because they are sub-sovereign entities existing within a larger framework. Not to mention the practical aspects. It’s basically a moot and absurd suggestion to dwell on such a far fetched notion.
While I agree with your main contention that we must be weary of encroachments on State Governments by the Federal Government, I categorically reject your contention that States are somehow exempt from Federal Legislation.
If you would like to be angry about something, might I suggest to you instead to be angry about the 17th Amendment, which basically disenfranchises States, and takes away any ability by the State Legislatures to ensure redress of complaints.
Oct 29, 2009 @ 06:30:00
Then by all means……post to your hearts content!
Oct 29, 2009 @ 06:21:25
Perhaps I will write the Tennessee Legislature and do just that, thank you for the suggestion (Although I am sure that the letter expresses opinions held by only certain elements within the Legislature).
Also, thank you for your willingness to leave my comments up. The issue is important, and by posting the comments, I hope to provide clarification for those who may be interested.
Oct 29, 2009 @ 06:03:08
Just for the record: I only posted this article…..I didn’t write it. Why are you not arguing your position with Tennessee?
I firmly believe they are on the right track. You firmly believe they are not.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to present this to them, than to me?
You can continue to post here as long as you like, your thoughts and opinions. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, or what I think is valid and important.
While I may not agree with you, I appreciate the civility of your comments.
Marti O
Oct 29, 2009 @ 05:41:08
I have to agree with Josh here. An encroachment by the government which violates our rights and liberty guaranteed by the constituion cannot stand at the same time as the Constitutional protections. As I recall, in these situations where there is a conflict…..the Constitution prevails.
Why would you consider a state taking affirmative action to push back against the attempts to enlarge the power of the federal government, as nonsense?
The federal government exists as a creation of the states and the states have the right and duty to dissolve that same government if they determine it is no longer beneficial to allow it to continue.
Statute and code is contract law: everything is contract. I am supposed to be a free and soveriegn individual of my state. US citizens are only those residing within the ten mile square boundaries of DC, and its claimed territories etc. and these are the only people bound to adhere to statute and code. And this is IN the statute and codes.
So why would a state affirming its soveriengty, to be self determining, and limiting the encroachment of federal government be objectionable to you?
We can argue this forever, but this is really what is at the core of this.
Marti
Oct 29, 2009 @ 05:14:33
Re:
Marti,
I’m sorry but you’re just incorrect. The text of the opinion does not say that the Federal Government cannot control commerce within States at all. It says that the Federal Government cannot dictate by Federal Statute what Statutes the States must enact. That’s the whole premise of the opinion written by Justice O’Connor. I’m sorry to put you on the spot but you are the one who referenced the case to begin with. Perhaps you should read the entire decision, and read it carefully.
Also, it isn’t my “interpretation” at all. It is enumerated quite clearly in Article VI, Paragraph II of the Constitution.
Josh,
Marti wrote:
“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.”
How can I construe this as something other than what it plainly says?
I don’t mean to sound smug. I am merely pointing out that the opinion expressed in this blog doesn’t conform to reality. The Supremacy Clause assuredly provides the Federal Government the authority to pre-empt state statutes, whether that be regulating commerce between, or within, the states, or anything else.
Oct 29, 2009 @ 04:49:08
Hey Mark,
You should think more carefully about the content of the post and the wording of the Supremacy Clause that you so smugly cite as some kind of trump card.
It says that federal laws in pursuance of the Constitution trump state laws. Yet Susan Lynn is clearly stating that the federal government’s laws are unconstitutional.
Therefore the supremacy clause is moot.
Oct 28, 2009 @ 23:19:53
You missed the part about where Congress can interecede only if there is a dispute between states. The commerce claus only allows the fed to control commerce between the states…..not inside state boundaries.
Instead of launching this volley at me…….why not contact Tennessee? There is an email addy attached. I am sure they would be very much interested in your “interpretation” of what their state can do and what its rights are.
So you can cut and paste? I knew that….And?
Marti
Oct 28, 2009 @ 22:01:26
Re:
Marti,
It seems you have a very, very selective reading of the particular case that you cited. Far from negating the Supremacy Clause, Justice O’Connor’s opinion reaffirms it (in addition to the Commerce Clause, which gives the Federal Government the right to regulate interstate commerce).
To get into specifics, regarding New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), the case dealt with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act, which was an attempt by Congress to regulate the disposal of radioactive waste produced by the States. RWPAA contained three provisions, two of which were ruled constitutional, the third or “take title” provision was not. However, here is where your attempts to mislead do not match reality. The third provision was ruled unconstitutional due to the fact that the Federal Government attempted to force the states to take regulatory control of their nuclear waste, and thereby implicitly compelled them to enact State statutes to this effect. This is the point of contention on which the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Statute was unconstitutional. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Supremacy Clause.
Taking text from the same opinion that you cited (see, I can copy and paste too), Justice O’Connor states that:
“We have observed that the Supremacy Clause gives the Federal Government “a decided advantage in th[e] delicate balance” the Constitution strikes between state and federal power. Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. at 460. ”
Does this sound like a negation of the Federal Government’s authority to supersede the laws of the States? Yeah, it doesn’t sound that way to me either.
So if the case is not about the Supremacy Clause, what is it about? O’Connor writes that “This case instead concerns the circumstances under which Congress may use the States as implements of regulation; that is, whether Congress may direct or otherwise motivate the States to regulate in a particular field or a particular way…As an initial matter, Congress may not simply ‘commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.’”
Interesting. It sounds to me like the case pertains to whether Congress may direct State Governments to legislate in certain ways, not whether the Congress may enact laws that supersede the states.
She again clarifies later:
“The allocation of power contained in the Commerce Clause, for example, authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce directly; it does not authorize Congress to regulate state governments’ regulation of interstate commerce.”
Does this mean that the Federal Government cannot regulate states then? Let’s turn to your cited decision to find out.
“This is not to say that Congress lacks the ability to encourage a State to regulate in a particular way, or that Congress may not hold out incentives to the States as a method of influencing a State’s policy choices…
…First, under Congress’ spending power, ‘Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds…’
…Second, where Congress has the authority to regulate private activity under the Commerce Clause, we have recognized Congress’ power to offer States the choice of regulating that activity according to federal standards or having state law pre-empted by federal regulation.”
Wait, I may have misread that last sentence. It sounds like Justice O’Connor is stating that state law can be pre-empted by federal regulation. According to your “theory”, that couldn’t possibly be right, could it? She writes later in the text:
“[F]ederal law is enforceable in state courts, and that federal courts may, in proper circumstances, order state officials to comply with federal law, propositions that by no means imply any authority on the part of Congress to mandate state regulation.”
So again, what does this case really mean? Again, let’s turn to the text of the decision you cited to find out.
“By contrast, where the Federal Government compels States to regulate, the accountability of both state and federal officials is diminished. If the citizens of New York, for example, do not consider that making provision for the disposal of radioactive waste is in their best interest, they may elect state officials who share their view. That view can always be pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause if it is contrary to the national view, but, in such a case, it is the Federal Government that makes the decision in full view of the public, and it will be federal officials that suffer the consequences if the decision turns out to be detrimental or unpopular.”
Aha! It seems that what Justice O’Connor was saying was that it is not permissible for Congress to turn the States into the regulatory agencies of Federal Laws. If the Federal Government chooses to pre-empt state laws, they are the ones who must be politically accountable for their decision to do so.
Maybe next time, you should read the entire court case, instead of doing a copy and paste from a selective portion of the Judicial ruling in order to make it appear that you are not completely inept.
A decision affirming the Tenth Amendment, and stating that the Federal Government does not have the right to tell States how to legislate, is not the same as saying the the Federal Government cannot pre-empt the statutes of the States (Again, look at Article VI Paragraph II of the U.S. Constitution for added clarification), but if you had actually read the entire case, you would have realized there is a difference…and you apparently didn’t notice.
Oct 28, 2009 @ 19:38:50
. Do you agree with the findings of the U.S. Supreme court in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)?
(Page 133) Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate Branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one Branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.
Where Congress exceeds its authority relative to the States, therefore, the departure from the constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the “consent” of state officials. An analogy to the separation of powers among the Branches of the Federal Government clarifies this point. The Constitution’s division of power among the three branches is violated where one Branch invades the territory of another, whether or not the encroached upon Branch approves the encroachment….
The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the “consent” of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States.
State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.”[emphasis added]
Maybe next time do a preliminary search on what the “enumerated powers” are. I doubt Tennessee or any other state would agree to your submissive interpretation of this issue.
Illegal trade AGREEMENTS are not the same as Constitutionally ratified treaties. Agreements are corporate, under statute and code, and are contract. These ARE NOT the supreme laws of the land. Simply contractual agreements between governments. But you are supposed to realize there is a difference……and you apparently didn’t notice.
Marti
Oct 28, 2009 @ 19:17:03
This is idiotic. The constitution explicitly gives the federal government the power to override state laws, it’s called the Supremacy Clause:
Article VI, Paragraph II of the U.S. Constitution states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
The Supremacy Clause has been upheld in numerous Supreme Court rulings, notably Edgar v. Mite Corporation, in which the Supreme Court ruled that “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute.”
Maybe next time do a preliminary google before you post this nonsense.