Assault on the Tenth 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. - The Bill of Rights

The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments -- as well as the overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government. Since the suppression of this sovereignty, the federal government has increased greatly in size and influence, both in terms of its influence on everyday life and relative to the state governments. There are several reasons for this, including the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services -- as well general political pressure to erode the Constitution.

The tenth amendment makes it very clear that all duties and rights not given to the government are reserved to the people and the States. The Social Security Program, Medicare, the Welfare Program, the IRS, nationally funded student loans, and farm subsidies are all examples of the federal government appropriating power not given it by the Constitution.

“As president, one of my priorities will be restoring the 10th amendment and federalism. Decisions about issues like civil unions or right-to-die legislation should be made by the states, not the federal government. I will stop federal judges from imposing new definitions on the States. I will also return control over education to parents and local communities. Decisions about whether or not to fund vouchers, have merit pay for teachers or extend the school year should be made by parents and local school boards, not by D.C.-based bureaucrats.” - Ron Paul

The Tenth Amendment makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution. In United States v. Sprague (1931) the Supreme Court noted that the amendment "added nothing to the [Constitution] as originally ratified." The Tenth Amendment makes explicit what had before only been implied.

Both political parties have used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, and both have played a role in the drift to what departing Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor fears: "Congress will nibble away at state sovereignty, bit by bit, until someday essentially nothing is left but a gutted shell."

Thanks in large part to depression, world wars, and Cold War, the powers of the federal government have grown over the last century into areas clearly accepted as state provinces such as public housing, gun control, voter registration, education, and marriage. The result, according to syndicated columnist George Will, is "a mockery of federalism." The national government determines such "local" issues as the speed limit on state highways. It does not claim the power to set speed limits within states; it merely tells the states that, if they want federal funds for highway construction and maintenance, they need to post federally approved speed limits.

Federalism

While visiting Birmingham, England, President Clinton signed the order which officially revoked President Ronald Reagan's EO #12612. Reagan's "Federalism" order reaffirmed federal government's few, limited and enumerated Constitutional powers. Clinton's Executive Order (EO) #13083, simply named "Federalism" not only failed to affirm the limited powers of the executive branch, it effectively revoked the 10th Amendment and arrogates to the President broad new powers tantamount to those of a totalitarian dictatorship. The President declared broad new dictatorial powers over the states for himself and all federal agencies. Under pressure from the states and Congress, President Clinton was eventually forced to "suspend" Executive Order (EO) #13083, simply named "Federalism."

The order, which eliminates the principles of federalism (shared power) that have guided the U.S. for more than 200 years, came on the heels of the President's announcement that he would not spend the last two years in office as a "lame duck" nor be beholden to a "do-nothing Congress." Rather, he pledged to issue a flurry of executive orders to further implement his agenda. Another recently-issued Clinton EO directed the rewriting of all federal regulations pertaining to race & gender discrimination to include "sexual orientation" as a covered group. Thus, Clinton has illegally usurped Congress and taken upon himself authority to dictate the law.

EO #13083 justifies federal action (i.e., intervention) under the following circumstances:

When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries.
When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs.
When there is a need for uniform national standards.
When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.
When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties.
When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States.
When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities.
When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations.
When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments.

Patently unconstitutional, a "Sense of the Senate Resolution," authored by Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) was attached as an amendment to a piece of major legislation, S.2260 (the appropriations bill for the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary Departments). Although not law, a Sense of the Senate Resolution makes clear what the will of the Senate is on a particular matter and what kind of laws they may pass if legislation becomes necessary. The text reads: "Executive Order No. 13083, issued May 14, 1998, shall have no force and effect," and "Executive Order No. 12612, issued October 26, 1987 [President Reagan's "Federalism" Order], and Executive Order No. 12875, issued October 26, 1993 [President Clinton's initial reaffirmation of Reagan's Order], shall be in effect as though Executive Order No. 13083 never took effect."

The White House announced it would postpone implementation of the President's EO #13083 after representatives of the state governors made a serious protest. Congressional actions and citizen outcry are credited with prompting the White House to indefinitely "suspend" the order until new language is negotiated with the state governors.

Clinton may have pulled back on EO #13083, but the order openly reveals his will and way of thinking. While grassroots Americans received an education about Executive Orders, the President has yet another, similar instrument at his disposal: the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD). Similar to an Executive Order ,a PDD often deals with issues relating to national security, is often issued secretly and is re not broadly publicized. You will be hearing much more about PDDs.

Erosion of Our Civil Rights

The War on Drugs wouldn’t be possible if the federal government obeyed the Tenth Amendment. In just a couple of decades the War on Drugs managed to make a mockery of nearly the entire Constitution. The War on Drugs has seen the emergence of mandatory minimum sentences, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. It has created drug courts, in lieu of anything acceptable under the Sixth Amendment. It has led to drug testing in schools, in disregard of the Fifth Amendment. It has led to no-knock warrants and to increasingly lowered standards of probable cause for search and seizure, in open contempt of the Fourth Amendment. It has been used to justify stronger laws against guns, in violation of the Second Amendment, and restrictions on commercial speech, in violation of the First.

But, the War on Drugs pales in comparison to the War on Terrorism which has proved an even better excuse for infringing civil rights, as it is even more taboo to be soft on terrorists than on drug users. Thanks to the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government was handed on a silver platter it’s best hope for creating a police state, without having a foreign adversary as frightening as the Nazis or the Communists to justify its actions.

The Bush Administration has given us military tribunals, secret searches, and the Patriot Act.

Americans are coming dangerously close to having no rights left at all, except for the few the government spares us. We must turn this around soon, and with the right destination in mind, or we will wake up one day in a dictatorship.

Universal Health Care

The Democrat plans for Universal Health Care is a violation of two of our fundamental rights as stated in our Constitution: The Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The right of the people against an all powerful Federal Government and the right of the people to decide for themselves what the government is NOT given power over by the Constitution.

Every plan being proposed requires certain things of every citizen. One plan requires, mandatory preventative visits to the doctor. Another requires that proof of health care must be rendered before a citizen can be hired on a job. Every program requires that all citizens have some form of health care that is regulated by the government. In addition, each program places several regulatory requirements on the health care industry itself which, at least for the moment is still under the private sector. For each of these proposed health care programs we as citizens are being told that we must relinquish regulatory control of an aspect of our personal life, namely health care, to the control of the Federal Government.