But he went on to make the key distinction that the New Hampshire bill actually makes the claim, based on the writings of Jefferson and Madison, that if the government fails to obey the Constitution then it has effectively negated itself and dissolved the union formed by that document. Itse said, "If the general government nullifies the Constitution, how do you withdraw from something which does not exist?"
Oklahoma State Representative Jason Murphey wrote an editorial for the Edmond Sun explaining his state's sovereignty bill and linking it specifically to the unfunded mandates and massive spending in the so-called stimulus bill, linking this issue to the efforts of some governors to block federal spending within their states. He notes that it is "is going to be important for the state to refuse to participate in new inappropriate federal programs such as the apparent expansion of the welfare program included in the stimulus bill." He also expresses the widespread concern that much of the money in the stimulus is intended to benefit the Democratic Party's political allies, pointing out that "we can expect the federal government to reflect the desires of powerful special interests, liberal politicians and their support groups like ACORN — the possible recipient of $2 billion because of the stimulus bill."
A lot of crazy claims about the sovereignty movement are still circulating, many of them seemingly generated by Ron Paul supporters involved in his Campaign for Liberty to advance their own interests. But the truth is that, contrary to their assertions, this is not a movement for secession from the union, and the sovereignty bills are generally not arising out of grassroots efforts from far-right groups like C4L.
Rather, these resolutions are originating from inside legislatures and from established state politicians, specifically in response to concerns about unfunded mandates and excessive burdens placed on the states by the federal government. The expense and partisan character of many of the elements of the stimulus bill is increasing concern and helping to motivate legislators to pass these state resolutions as are federal efforts to limit the constitutional rights of individuals on a nationwide basis. While the 10th Amendment is central to their argument, legislators are more concerned about retaining power they see being gradually eroded by the federal government than more abstract issues of Constitutional rights.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Roger Nowosielski
Let one thing be clear for all those who might hope for a separatist movement, and I quote:
"There is no really satisfactory theoretical solution to the problem [of federations, confederations, etc]. If a federal government possesses a constitutional authority to intervene by force in the government of a state for the purpose of insuring the state's performance of its duties as a member of the federation, there is no adequate constitutional barrier against the conversion of of the federation into a centralized state by vigorous and resolute central government. If it does not possess such authority, there is no adequate assurance that the federal government can maintain the character of the system when vigorous and resolute state governments take full advantage of their constitutional freedom to go their own ways."
References: Arthur W. MacMahon, ed., Federalism: Mature and Emergent (New York: Doubleday, 1955), p.139. See also of course the Federalist Papers. Martin Diamond interestingly discusses "The Federalist's View of Federalism," in Essays in Federalism (Institute for Studies in Federalism, 1961).
So for all the hoopla which seems to surround these valiant acts on the part of state legislatures, it's nothing more than a storm in a teacup. Nothing but talk.
2 - Roger Nowosielski
I guess no answer is forthcoming. Good, I put that baby to rest.
3 - lumpy
as I read the article it clearly says that this is not about secession or separatism..
4 - Dan(Miller)
No Suh, you have not put it to rest. Far from it, Suh. Not by a long shot.
Dan(Miller)
5 - Glenn Contrarian
I wonder if the Republican governors will be able to declare their sovereignty from the RNC and particularly the Republicans in Congress since many of the Republican governors SUPPORTED the stimulus bill because they knew how bad their respective states needed it....
6 - Baronius
Dave, what's your assessment of the Mark Sanford thing? Governor Sanford has said that he won't take any of the stimulus money for SC. Apparently, the Senate responded by putting a provision in the stimulus bill that allows state legislatures to accept the money even if the governor refuses it. I can't imagine that provision standing up in court.
7 - Roger Nowosielski
#3 - to lumpy and all other luminaries:
Then what else is it about but plenty of hot air or crying over spilled milk (since the author of the article dares not to spell out his or her conclusions clearly but chooses rather to beat around the bush)?
It's nothing but an exercise in wishful thinking. The bill has passed, grow up and swallow your damn pride. Another for years and your time may come - but not if you're going to be such crybabies.
8 - handyguy
If Mark Sanford's 'principled stand' results in genuinely needy South Carolinians suffering, shame on him. And shame on you for encouraging him.
I'm not sure where Dave actually stands on sovereignty, or how far he would really like to see it taken. I wonder if it's some sort of an intellectual game for him, not about practical results [positive or negative] at all.
But I see it as a slippery slope.
And I think tying it to the stimulus bill makes Republicans look like loonies, or sore losers, or both.
The bill is law now. Worry about something else. Jeez.
9 - Roger Nowosielski
It's nothing but moral protest - and that's giving it plenty of credit. More likely, perhaps, to demonstrate to their base that they're opposed to it in principle - political gesturing at best.
But that's only my humble opinion. I'm always open to a more enlightened insight.
10 - Dave Nalle
Dave, what's your assessment of the Mark Sanford thing? Governor Sanford has said that he won't take any of the stimulus money for SC.
I wrote about this in one of my other articles. I think that Sanford would very much like to make a moral stand, but will probably end up being forced to go along and take the money. The same (but faster) for Rick Perry here in Texas. With Perry it's mostly just posturing. With Sanford it really is a matter of principle.
I just hope it doesn't hurt Sanford when he runs for president in 2012.
Apparently, the Senate responded by putting a provision in the stimulus bill that allows state legislatures to accept the money even if the governor refuses it. I can't imagine that provision standing up in court.
It's blatantly unconstitutional. I just hope that someone has the guts to at least challenge it.
In this situation we see one of the most profound and corrupting forces in government at work.
The states are hard up for cash. The feds come to them with this money. But the money comes with strings attached which take away the rights of the states and their citizens. Ultimately the state legislators cave because they need the money to fulfill promises so they can get reelected. They go for the short-term benefit and as a result they sacrifice much more important long-term principles.
This amendment they added to the stimulus bill which lets state legislators override their governors is particularly dangerous. If it's allowed to stand it could open the door to all sorts of other violations of states rights.
Dave
11 - Matthew T. Sussman
"The bill is law now. Worry about something else."
PATRIOT Act. You'll get over it.
12 - Arch Conservative
"If Mark Sanford's 'principled stand' results in genuinely needy South Carolinians suffering, shame on him. And shame on you for encouraging him"
It's been all the rage on the blogs and in the mainstream media recently to pontificate on the reprecussions the GOP will face if this spending bill has any positive impact on the economy yet I don't see anyone discussing what will happen to this spending bill if it does not help or actually makes the economy worse.
What's to become of King Barry and his band of merry socialists if this bill makes life worse for us? Why isn't anyone speculating on that?
13 - Arch Conservative
That should have been what will happen tot the Dems
14 - Dan(Miller)
Dave,
I understand that under Stimulus legislation, a state legislature will be able to accept Federal funds money even if the governor refuses. Do you have the actual text, or a link where the text can be found?
Leaving aside for the moment any questions under the Federal Constitution, it would be interesting to see how this intersects with the various State Constitutions.
Dan(Miller)
15 - Dave Nalle
That's exactly right, Dan. In fact, the Clyburn amendment doesn't even require a vote of the legislature, it just requires the leadership of the legislature to request the money.
The text is someewhere in the 1100 pages of the bill. Having already read two earlier versions my brain is not up to reading another, but let me know if you can find it.
full text.
Dave
16 - Glenn Contrarian
Arch-Con -
Y'know what? IMO the real crisis point has passed already. Things will get worse before they get better - as Obama pointed out (and as FDR pointed out in the same situation) - but they will get better. The real crisis point really came when Bush was in office and the TARP bill was passed to keep America's - and the world's - economy from coming to a complete and screeching halt. The TARP bill was a set of crutches - flawed, certainly, but infinitely better than nothing, and who was it that stepped up and really made it happen? Yep! Obama! And many couldn't help but notice how little influence and leadership Bush and McCain showed at that crucial moment. That's when Obama won the election.
And now that we know things will eventually get better, now that we know the American economy will survive, don't worry - you and your fellow cons will claim it was the tax cuts in the stimulus bill that did it...at which time Obama can claim that HE and the House Democrats put the tax cuts in the bill before they ever asked for your input!
The ONLY argument you'll have left is that the cons argued for MORE tax cuts and LESS infrastructure for the states (and which Republican governors are going to 'patriotically' refuse the money?)...but it won't matter because the economy will be improving, and the guys presently in office will get the credit!
Best of all, all of America can see how he DID reach out to Republicans not once, but several times and was rebuffed and denigrated for his efforts. America can see who SAID they were attempting to be 'bipartisan', and who was truly doing his level best to BE bipartisan.
I didn't really think that one through until I read your post...and unless I'm WAY wrong (economic history says I'm right) or something truly terrible happens to Obama himself, he may have ensured victory the next election by his actions in his very first month in office....
17 - handyguy
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
Describing this as allowing legislatures to override the authority of the governor is a distortion. And the actual protocol for requesting federal funds [any funds, not just this bill] may vary from state to state anyway.
In other words, typical rightist paranoid tempest in a teapot.
18 - Dave Nalle
Handy, you have no idea what you're talking about here. Go read up on the Clyburn amendment. It allows the speaker of the state house in any state to request the federal funds with no vote or approval process whatsoever. It totally negates state law and sovereignty.
Dave
19 - handyguy
Me: "The bill is law now. Worry about something else."
Sussman: PATRIOT Act. You'll get over it.
Touche. I guess the poor, put-upon rightists may continue to whine all they like. And no doubt they would, with or without my blessing.
I hope and believe the new administration has already started, and will continue, to undo some of the more pernicious consequences of the deranged and unconstitutional mindset that gave us the, ugh, USA-Patriot Act.
Our turn now.
20 - handyguy
The quote at the beginning of my comment, describing the Clyburn amendment, was from news wire services, dated Jan. 30. It was all I could find in a quick Google. If you have contradictory info, pray share it with us, O wise one.
There actually doesn't seem to have been any coverage of it since Jan. 30...maybe it was watered down or removed? The bill has gone through multiple revisions since then.
But your description of it serves your argument too conveniently. I would trust an actual quote more.
21 - Dave Nalle
You can hope all you want, Handy. Truth is that Bush has handed them a powerful tool of oppression and they're unlikely to give that power up. It's out of character.
Dave
22 - handyguy
I just scanned the bill - it is pretty damn ginormous, eh? And I did not see the 45-day governor/state legislature provision. That doesn't mean it isn't there.
It is relatively clearly divided into sections and subsections. I guess that amendment could be hiding somewhere illogical, or I may have simply missed it.
23 - Dave Nalle
Clyburn is on record discussing the amendment quite a bit after it was first proposed on the 30th. I quoted him earlier, but although I found the text once before quoted in an outside source I'm still looking for it in the bill.
Dave
24 - Baronius
cut and pasted from the Congressional Record, February 12:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING DISTRIBUTION AND ASSURANCE OF APPROPRIATE USE OF FUNDS SEC. 1607.
(a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR.-- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will request and use funds provided by this Act; and (2) the funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic growth.
(b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE.--If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State.
(c) DISTRIBUTION.--After the adoption of a State legislature's concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of government, public entities, and public-private entities within the State either by formula or at the State's discretion.
Section 1607 provides additional funding distribution and assurance of the appropriate use of funds. Not later than 45 days after the enactment of this Act, the governor of each state shall certify that the state will request and use funds provided by this Act to the state and its agencies.
If funds made available to a state in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by its governor, then acceptance by the state legislature, by adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to the state. After adoption of a concurrent resolution, funding to the State will be for distribution to local governments, councils of governments, public entities, and public-private entities within the State, either by formula or at the State's discretion.
25 - handyguy
Thanks, Baronius. This doesn't seem to be in the OpenCongress link Dave provided. Not sure why that would be.
I did find this in a more recent story:
In an interview with The Hill before the bill passed, Sanford indicated he would check with his lawyers about the provision, but he might not be able to trump Clyburn’s move.
“I’ve learned the Irish prayer,” he said. “God grant me the power to change what I can, the serenity to accept the things I can’t and the wisdom to know the difference.”