Not all of the bills fall within these limitations. Missouri's bill actually goes somewhat further and does assert the right fo the state to negate federal law, specifically in reference to the proposed federal Freedom of Choice Act, which some fear would bar states from passing laws regulating abortion. New Hampshire's bill actually goes so far as to lay out a very strongly worded variant of the Doctrine of Nullifcation, which specifies acts by the federal government (many of them currently being proposed in Congress) which would effectively negate the Constitution and the authority of the federal government within their state. Hawaii's proposed sovereignty bill comes very close to being an actual act of secession, based on native tribal rights.
As things stand right now it looks like Oklahoma, Washington, Hawaii, Missouri, Arizona, New Hampshire, Georgia, California, Michigan and Montana will all definitely consider sovereignty bills this year. They may be joined by Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Alaska, Kansas, Alabama, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania where legislators have pledged to introduce similar bills. Twenty states standing up to the federal government and demanding a return to constitutional principles is a great start, but it remains to be seen whether legislatures and governors are brave enough or angry enough to follow through. As the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress push for more expansion of federal power and spending that may help provide the motivation needed for the sovereignty movement to take off.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Just one little dampener on your breathless enthusiasm. Twenty states considering sovereignty bills does not necessarily mean that there is majority support for those bills in the state legislatures.
2 - Glenn Contrarian
To back up Doc, I read it the same way. Are there any states where such provisions truly have a reasonable chance of passing?
3 - Dave Nalle
Don't accuse me of excessive enthusiasm. If you read the article, it is intended at least in part to debunk those who seem to have gotten the impression that some of these laws have ALREADY passed, which they have not.
I think the one in Oklahoma will probably pass. It passed the House 92-3 a couple of months ago. Some of the other bills are very, very controversial. New Hampshire's was introduced yesterday and when people see the wording I think some are going to be pretty nervous about it.
My guess is that Oklahoma, Arizona and Washington will pass. Their bills are straightforward and widely supported. Missouri's is pretty radical, but they did pass an anti-gay referendum so it might pass too.
Just the fact that we're looking at so many of them all being introduced more or less at the same time is pretty signficant. Sends a message to Congress, not that they are listening.
Dave
4 - Hope and Change?
Did anyone see "King Barry of The Tax Cheats" routine tonight?
He still thinks he is running for something...did anyome notice every once in a while he would...get off message and look disoriented. Either the teleprompter was broken or the "brutha smoked a blunt on Airforce One...."
If this guy is best that America can do...my 11 year old son is doomed to grow up in the ruins of a once great country. The more exposure Barry gets his ratings get lower, the less confidence Americans have in the economy and in government.
His presidency is turning into the biggest case of "buyers remorse" in history.
5 - lominac
If the dollar collapses in the future and deficits are out of sight, etc. then a smart move for a state or group of states would be to secede and form a new nation. The new nations created could then dump the entire colossal federal debt. The US military guys would go along because they wouldn't be getting paid or their money would be worthless. This is something that could happen very quickly if the currency became worthless.
6 - Baritone
Dave,
I think your "breathless enthusiasm" is apparent in your words.
I see such action as blatently stupid. In the larger world, our states are nearly irrelevant. While there is commerce carried out between American states and other countries, when it comes to politics and military issues, foreign countries don't come and talk to the Idaho State Legislature or the Governor of Rhode Island. They deal with the Federal government.
Individual states asserting their supposed Constitutional rights could go a long way in weakening the country as a whole. States could conceivably go to war against each other over any number of possibly contentious issues. I could forsee having to go through "check points" or even some version of customs - having to present "papers" to move from state to state.
The founders came down more heavily for states' rights owing to their fear and distrust of a strong central government because of their very recent dealings with England and its excesses.
This is a far different world we live in now than when Ben and John and James, etal hammered out the Constitution.
States flexing their muscles and asserting their right to ignore or nullify federal mandates can only lead to chaos. Your notion of its possible positive effect is, I believe, naive.
BTW - if what lominac suggests should occur, how long does anyone think any of these newly formed unions survive? How many other countries would be poised and ready to swallow them whole? Or do you imagine that some of those guys camping out in the Michigan woods in their camouflage outfits would spring up and save us all for god and uh, country? To which of these newly formed "countries" would the bulk of our current military repledge its allegiance? Might not the navy adhere to coastal states? Actually, I suppose the army and airforce would all gather in Texas and Oklahoma or the southwest in general. That'd be great. Ya'll could make George king and "Big Dick" his creepy, snearing Rasputin.
B
7 - bliffle
How does this work if, say, a President decides to Preemptively attack Canada, who he suspects of having a secret Nuke WMD program. To do so he calls up the National Guards of the various states as reserves.
Then what?
8 - pablo
"Almost half of the state legislatures are considering or have representatives preparing to introduce resolutions which reassert the principles of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution and the idea that federal power is strictly limited to specific areas detailed in the Constitution and that all other governmental authority rests with the states.
I take issue with the author's characterization of the 9th and 10th amendments to the constitution as being left to the states. In point of fact only the 10th amendment has to do with states rights. The 9th amendment is as follows:
"The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
This little known amendment has nothing to do with states rights, but individual rights of persons.
Nalle is similar in tone to former rejected Supreme Court Nominee Robert Bork, who attempted in his confirmation hearings to link the 9th and 10th amendments together, and also to say that nobody knows what the 9th amendment means and that it is an ink blot on the constitution.
It is quite clear the meaning and intent of the ninth amendment as laid out by James Madison, that it was inserted into the constitution so that it could not be inferred that if a right is not laid out in the constitution, then the people dont have that right. I suggest all freedom loving people read and examine the 9th amendment carefully, as it has been feared and abhored by the Supreme Court for the last 200 years, because the implications in it are that the people are free, and the government is limited.
I am not surprised however that Mr (libertarian) Nalle would attempt to link the 9th and 10th to the states, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Furthermore the 10th amendment is very clear that it leaves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the "states" or to the "people", whereas in the 9th amendment the states are not mentioned for very good reason, the 9th has to do with individual rights, not states rights.
9 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, I agree entirely that individual rights should always be paramount. If you read a bit more closely you'll see that I'm not stating MY opinion of the 9th and 10th amendments in the first paragraph of the article, but restating the position taken in these bills. In fact, a position stated very specifically in a couple of them - follow the links. So your usual attempt to make me the scapegoat fails because you've neglected to actually pay attention to what the article is saying.
It may be somewhat off-base, but not surprising as it is coming from state legislatures rather than individuals. Inevitably there's a certain amount of self-interest on the part of state government in these proposals.
And B-tone. I think that at this point it may be necessary to cede some power from the federal government to the states and to the citizens in order to strengthen and even save the Republic. Unbalanced as power is in the nation right now, with the bloated and domineering federal system, if we don't do something to spread authoritty around the way the founders intended the government may just collapse under its own weight. Better to make these adjustments voluntarily than to be forced into more radical and dangerous territory through inaction.
Dave
10 - Brunelleschi
Is this really a case of states wanting to turn to an 18th century political document and go back to "what the book says to do?"
Or is this just a case of states seeing the need to reset the "price-point?"
It's a little of both.
It is natural and expected to use the "Founding Farters" said this or that argument-it fits the GOP way of thinking. But, the Farters didn't think about Social Security, Interstate highways, local benefits of military bases and defense contracts, funding for research that makes it's way to universities, GPS systems that use satellites, the FAA that keeps air travel safe, the internet.. add your own.
People just forget these things when the price gets too high to keep playing. I don't fault the states for pushing back, but they really don't have to look back that far to support their protests.
11 - Maurice
Well written article, Dave.
Brunelleschi - Don't be so quick to dismiss the Founding Fathers (reminds me of Al Gores' flipant question - "Who are these guys?"). The Founding Fathers were thoughtful and intelligent men that had very good reasons for the things they wrote. James Madison (the author of the Consitution) said, "There is nothing in the Constitution about Charity". In other words he had high hopes that Social Security and other charities would never become part of the federal government. They knew that once the pandoras box of federal favors to 'some' was opened that we would be no longer free.
12 - Baritone
I still believe you are ignoring the possible can of worms that could be opened if such actions are taken by individual states. As you note, most such proposals differ widely. What do you suppose might happen if most or all of the states enacted their own legislation to take back power from the Federal government, every one of them perhaps different in significant ways from the others? What effect might that situation have on the things that Brun cites above?
Do you believe that the Feds would just sit back and let it happen? I can imagine more instances like Wacko - er Waco happening as people decide to take up arms against the Feds. There are any number of individuals and groups out and about just itching for such an opportunity.
Again, I look upon state government as being more and more irrelevant as the nation becomes more and more homogenous and interdependent in pretty much all areas of human endeavor. More and more, the basic job of state and local government is simply to deal with the nuts and bolts of day to day government, commerce and so forth, and to perhaps act as a conduit and sounding board between the populace and the Federal government.
Individual identity with a particular state is becoming a thing of the past. People working in the corporate world rarely stay in one state for long. I remember years ago someone relating to me that IBM stood for "I've been moved."
I was born and have lived most of my life in Indianapolis. Yet, I don't have any particular feeling for or attachment to Indiana over anywhere else. Had we the means, my wife and I would be out of here in a shot.
B
13 - Clavos
Nicely put, Maurice, and good to hear from you again...
14 - Clavos
Had we the means, my wife and I would be out of here in a shot.
Why?
Unless you're talking about leaving the US altogether, I don't see why. By your own argument, Indy is no different from Miami, which is no different from New York, which is no different from LA, etc.
Obviously, I don't agree with your argument. In Miami, even the language is different -- not officially, but de facto.
To quote an old Florida tourism advertising slogan:
"Florida. The rules are different here."
And we like it that way.
15 - Cindy D
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government
to support these invaluable interests and check the other many. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." -James Madison
Yeah, he was a real prince. Wouldn't want that rabble creating a tyranny over the opulent.
16 - Baritone
Clav,
The "differences" you cite are at most cultural, and on the whole superficial. They do not alter the fact that Florida has a myriad of interdependencies with other states and the Federal government. Do you really believe that things would be better if the states became, in effect, little fiefdoms, controlled by small time petty pols?
It could be said that Florida has distinct regions that differ widely from each other. Miami is unlike anywhere else in many respects, the same could be said for the Keys, both of which differ from say, Orlando which differs from Tallahassee or Appalachacola. Should perhaps each of these regions and others be considered as separate entities and not part of the larger whole which is Florida?
To a lesser extent Indiana has different regions. The whole area around Gary, East Chicago, Hammond, etc. is different in many respects to Indianapolis or Ft. Wayne or Evansville. It would make far more sense if that area was governmentally attached to Chicago. Chicago is unlike anything else in Illinois. The same could certainly be said of New York City and the rest of New York state. As I recall, Norman Mailer, among others asserted that NYC should be a separate state.
The fact is, though, IMO it matters little as regards the bigger picture. Like it or not we live in a world economy that individual states would be ill equipped to deal with on behalf of its citizens. Some might flourish, but most would likely get the crap kicked out of them.
The across the board dislike, hatred even, of the Federal government is irrational and counter productive.
If we could afford to leave Indiana, it is possible that we would move to Germany, but we would more likely go to NYC or perhaps Chicago. Yes, they are different to Indy in many respects, but mainly by degree and lifestyle. In Midtown Manhattan you can get a "Big Mac" which has the same "two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun" that you can buy in Sarasota or Terre Haute.
B
17 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, the problem is that you read that quote and see it as a negative. Others who are more sensible see it as a positive.
And B-tone, you're just wrong about state governments. They are the primary providers for most of the government services you depend on. They provide law enforcement, infrastructure, the legal system. The federal government could not handle all of these things efficiently over such a large country. That's why we have divided powers.
Dave
18 - Cindy D
Dave,
Others who are more sensible...
Now, what if the "others" are not the opulent? And based on the quote, they are the majority. Are they less "sensible" because they are not rich?
19 - Dave Nalle
They are sensible in that they realize that if we don't protect the rights of the rich, we will not protect their right to become rich or to generally profit from the fruits of their labor.
Dave
20 - Clavos
B-tone,
What Dave said.
To which I'll add (not entirely facetiously):
...fiefdoms, controlled by small time petty pols?
That's a dead on description of the federal miasma, although your description of the pols is a tautology.
21 - Brunelleschi
Maurice-
I'l let my parents know when they get their much-needed SS check each month that they are not free.
I have a lot of respect for what he founding farters left us to work with. What other nation can boast 44 peaceful changes of power? That's quite an impressive number and worthy of great respect. I salute them.
But their work was done in a different time and place. To say the only way to think about modern problems is to turn to "it is written" is too close to religion.
We should just be practical about it, that's all.
Modern people have brains too.
22 - Michael Carl
CentrePoint News had a story on eight states that are pursuing sovereignty legislation. The most dramatic of these is Hawaii. The question we have to have is that most of these bills have been submitted since Obama took office. Yet, four or five of them are in states that Obama carried.
23 - Dave Nalle
Michael, most of these bills have been in the works since last year or much longer. A couple of them were first submitted in the 1990s.
As you mention, the Hawaii bill is one of the most radical. It basically adds up to secession from the union.
But read the link to the New Hampshire bill - which was only submitted earlier this week. In many ways it is really the most radical of all and it's very, very specific about what they find objectionable.
Dave
24 - Jason J. Campbell
Great article Dave!!
With respect to your claim that, "For the most part, they are not so much political statements of independence as they are expressions of fiscal authority directed specifically at the growing cost of unfunded mandates being placed upon the states by the federal government"
would you then anticipate that as we get further into an economic hole, the viability of state sovereignty becomes all the more attractive? and if so, what reassurance can the federal gov. give states not to explore this alternative?
25 - Cindy D
Jason comes out to play. yay! Great articles Jason.