« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Restoring Federalism and our Republic

By: DerKrieger (Diary)  |  December 22nd, 2011 at 09:44 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I was going to write another Federalism article today but in researching the topic I found this great article by Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) that I would recommend instead. The Congressman is the founder of the Congressional 10th Amendment task force.

In the article Congressman Bishop mentions an issue, among a host of others, that I myself have considered at length to be the biggest obstacle to restoring federalism; the intoxication of power. Even conservatives who claim fealty to the Constitution and a desire to downsize government want to cling to their power rather than actually return much of it to the states.

He says:

“Our battle cry will be the commitment to ‘lose power’. We will return home for re-election proud to have made a step in re-establishing the Constitutional “vertical” separation of powers concept. We will return proud of voluntarily relinquishing federal control. We will return proudly having lost power in Congress. We will also have struck a blow in defense of individual liberty.”

Much to my chagrin, this battle cry did not rouse the troops. republicans in Washington, so long out of power, were not in the mood to lose the power that had so recently gained.

Congressman Bishop “gets it”.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Bill S

    The only way he would “get it” is if he went on a full-speed campaign against federal judicial intervention in state affairs. This is the number one reason federalism will likely never again be a workable philosophy. The citizens and politicians in this nation have permitted the courts to usurp states’ rights and eliminate the ability for state governments to set their own policies and laws where the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly apply.

    This is where Newt Gingrich is dead on target – it’s time to dramatically roll back the powers of the judicial branch and reign them in to a constitutionally appropriate level. Until that happens, federalism is just a pretty word with absolutely no meaning or applicability.

    • retire05

      It is not just the federal judiciary that intervenes in state affairs, the federal government, through its agencies, do as much, if not more, damage to erode the rights of states guaranteed them by the 10th Amendment.

      Sure, you know about Arizona’s battle with the DoJ, but do you even have a clue about how many times Texas has taken on the federal government? Remember the famous Ten Commandment cases? Texas won, while the other state lost. The EPA? Being sued by Texas. Our redistricting lines, required by the federal government? We are being sued over them because the Democrat, Eric Holder, claims they are not fair to minorities (although the DoJ did not make that argument, they just want to make sure that minorities are over represented in Texas Congressional boundaries).

      Perry, through our Texas State Attorney General, Greg Abbot, has taken on the feds so often I am surprised Abbott doesn’t have a D.C. office.

      But while judiciary activism is a problem, it is no greater than the over reach of unelected agency heads themselves.

      Newt Gingrich is one smart cookie. And he would make a great professor at some tony university teaching American history. He is an idea machine but like the guy who goes target practicing, sometimes he misses the target.

      As I have said here before, I have met Newt and found him to be personable. And the slams against his wife, Callista, are unfounded as when I met her at a book signing, she was one of the nicest public figures I have ever met. It was in Gettysburg, and she was just standing there with a couple of Newt’s security. I walked up to her, spoke, and she proceeded to talk to me for almost a 1/2 hour as we talked American history. Pleasant, personable, and polite are the adjectives I would put on her.

      I have no problem with Newt’s personal foibles, it is not up to me to forgive him for them. But he tends to wander off the farm at times, seemingly not knowing where he is going. His recent statements on the judiciary were out of line, as the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, and it is Congress, not the President, who has the ability to legislate laws that would basically make SCOTUS rulings moot.

      So to make a long story short, yes, Perry gits it. And he understands that the rulings of the court are just one faction of the problems this nation has with the usurpting of the 10th Amendment. He also can relate to those Iowa farmers who have to deal with the government periodically, but Mother Nature daily.

      • Bill S

        The author was referring to Rep. Rob Bishop from Utah. Frankly, I don’t need a lecture about Rick Perry. I already support the guy.

    • DerKrieger

      The citizens and politicians in this nation have permitted the courts to usurp states? rights and eliminate the ability for state governments to set their own policies and laws where the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly apply.

      That is why I have stressed the importance of electing state legislators and governors with the courage and fortitude required to seize back their usurped power and to defy unconstitutional legislation and judicial rulings from the federal government.

      And I agree with you about Newt’s assessment of the courts. They have become legislators rather than jurists.

      I believe that if enough people can be made to understand federalism. they will recognize it as the means to reduce the size, scope, reach, and power of the federal government, because the Congress sure won’t do it themselves no matter how many Tea Party conservatives we send up there.

  • Pingback: click here

  • Pingback: Nick Carnes

  • Pingback: Desire Even

  • Scope

    didn’t the House Leadership propose in their new updated contract that they would be required to cite the area in the Constitution that allowed them to write and pass any legislation? Has that in fact happened, or is it yet another shallow promise they never intended to uphold?

    It’s amazing how quickly the newbies, pushed and voted for because of their lower taxes, less government positions, seemed to have drunk form the goblet of Washington power, and have folded to the aisle crossing wishes of Boehner and Cantor, just so they are not called obstructionists.

  • DerKrieger

    …and rep. Shadegg (R-AZ) has been trying to get the Enumerated Powers Act passed for years without success.

  • westcoastpatriette

    and the reckless trampling all over States’ rights will lead to such a repugnant reaction from the people that the concept of state nullification will become wildly popular and recognized as the only just recourse to repel the bully our federal government has become.

    Waiting around for the courts to protect us simply is not the answer as we continue to lose ground–too many times with the courts consent.

  • retire05

    “That’s why I have stressed the importance of electing state legislators and governors with the courage and fortitude required to seize back their usurped power and to defy the unconstitutional legislation and judicial rulings from the federal government.”

    Look no further, you have found your heart’s desire. His name is Rick Perry, and with the increased number of CONSERVATIVE Republicans elected to the Texas legislature with the help of a CONSERVATIVE governor in Rick Perry, he, and our legislature, along with a brilliant state Attorney General, have taken on the federal government more than any other state in the nation.

    Of course, there has been blowback from the Obama administration. When we decided that no state/federal funds could go to those agencies that performed abortions, we got sued. When we decided that we wanted to keep the Ten Commandments on our Capital lawn, we got sued. When we felt that we, as a state, could best determine our drilling interests we got sued. When we, according to Texas law, had our legislators draw the new district lines to represent the increase in our population, we got sued.

    One man, Rick Perry, has consistantly stood up against the D.C. leviathan. And if you can show me another governor who has such a record, name them.

  • Bill S

    This diary has nothing to do with Perry. Stop threadjacking. If you want to write about Perry, do it in a diary about Perry. Or write your own.

  • DerKrieger
  • DerKrieger

    Link is correct but I posted the wrong text.

    …TX is as guilty as any other state when it comes to taking federal funds.

  • retire05

    you seem to think you possess the authority to dictate to others, and don’t need a lecture on He Whose Name May Not Be Mentioned On This Thread According To Bill S, perhaps a lecture on civility, and the First Amendment, would benefit you greatly.

  • gekster

    …

  • Bill S

    Or perhaps you won’t be posting here any more. Threadjacking is against the rules. You can follow them or you can leave. And I can help with that.

    Your choice.

  • acat

    Cheshire grin

  • Tbone

    Not right?

  • gekster

    extra butter and garlic salt, please.

  • westcoastpatriette

    I love garlic salt on my popcorn, too! And of course, butter is a given. Never met anyone else who does. Welcome to the brotherhood (or should I say sister/brotherhood).

  • DerKrieger

    ..one of Gordian Knot proportion.

    You are correct in that much of the problem is in federal mandates. If the federal government mandates something (Medicaid for example) then they ought to help pay for it.

    I wouldn’t consider this a case of the state using federal tax dollars to pay for state needs though. That is something altogether different. Like CA using federal funds to pay teacher salaries.

    I would have to dig into it a little deeper but I believe most federal mandates have an opt out provision. That is, the state doesn’t have to participate but if they don’t, they forfeit federal funds, and most importantly the state’s taxpayers still have to pay for the program via federal taxation.

    So if Texas for example wanted to opt out of Medicaid and manage a program on its own, Texas taxpayers wouldn’t get a break on their federal taxes. So this is often seen as a case of the state getting “its” money back.

    Extricating a state from this situation I think requires a two pronged approach. Implement something like the Federal Funds Act (in my newest post) and at the same time opt out of federal mandates.

    The FFA would prevent the tax dollars from going to the federal government and would instead allow them to be kept in the state for the state to implement their own replacement programs if they so chose.

    In a right-side-up world we would pay more in state taxes and less in federal taxes and then the states wouldn’t have to depend on DC sending money back to the states. It would have never left in the first place.

    At the moment states are limited in how high they can raise their income or sales taxes to be more self-supporting because they’ve been crowded out by the confiscatory level of federal taxation.

    Although I think I pay too much in taxes I’d prefer to pay more to my home state and less to the federal government.

    Any transition back to federalism will be long and painful but I think it is the only way to get the federal government back under control.

  • retire05

    by using the term “federal” funds, because (and you can correct me if I am wrong) the actual term is “taxpayer” funds.

    The federal goverment has little in the way of actual revenue production (oil leases, etc) and functions almost exclusively from taxpayer funds. So, if Texas, a donor state gets some of that money back, do you begrudge us that money?

    Would it not be better to not tax the citizens in the first place, allowing them to keep more of their earnings, than to have to send it to D.C., only to be diluted by bureaucrats?

    I am not a supporter of earmarks or pork or whatever label you care to use for the system to forced theft via the IRS only to have bureaucrats determine where it is best to spend that money. I am a fully supportive 10th Amendment proponent who thinks that the citizens, not the bureaucrats know best how to spend their earnings.

    I only mention He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned According to Bill S because he is also a strong proponent of the 10th Amendment and the only one running in this GOP primary that talks about it.

  • Scope

    shouldn’t the federal government pay for those mandates? If I am not mistaken, Perry refused the money for extended unemployment benefits, because when someone in Washington gets serious about the 99 week extended benefit payments, they will realize that the states are left holding the bag for those additional funds, no? When the federal government “mandates” who qualifies for medicaid, and the income qualification keeps getting higher and higher, should the states be left holding the bag for those payments? When the federal government will not secure the border, and now they are even cutting down on that skeleton crew, should states have to pay, out of their states taxpayer dollar budget’s to secure the border? When No Child Left Behind, or more recently Obama’s Race to the Top federal education programs dictate what schools will or will not do, should a state be responsible for implementing something that the federal government has “mandated”?

    To say that Perry has taken federal monies is a shabby excuse for fighting for federalism. Perry has the best Federalist positions, but has been more than just a little constrained by the federal government. Because Texas has been a model for the nation, Texas is on the bottom of the list of federal subsidies, natural disaster help, or border security help. Is it not the first responsibility of the President, and the federal government to secure our nation’s borders? If Perry refused every federal dollar, Texas would not be enjoying the current economic successes it has. The Texas citizens would be overburdened with very high taxes to pay for what the feds have told them they must do, and in many cases are unwilling to pay for.

  • gekster

    I thought I was the only one. :)

  • retire05

    head’s up to turn the volumn on on my computer.

    Are you now threatening me with banishment? Why? Because I mentioned He Who Shall Not Be Mentioned On This Thread According to Bill S? Forgive me if I was unaware that you are the owner of this blog and have the power of banishment. Please, also, give me the printed date that mandates what consitutes “tread jacking.”

    But I shall not respond to you again. Feel free to try to intimidate someone else, if you so desire. I shall simply read your link to the ROE.

  • acat

    I use coconut oil and a wok, I find it just tastes better than that microwave stuff, and the smaller heated surface of the wok burns fewer kernels. Your mileage may vary, of course!

    Garlic salt is on the counter, melted butter’s by the microwave. Make yourselves at home.

    Mew

  • Scope

    I would be interested in knowing DerKreiger what you think Perry should have done in his state to promote more federalism, when it is almost a forgotten term in political circles. What should he have done rather than taking the federal monies? I am not trying to be argumentative, I just would like to know what your solutions would have been to Texas taking federal money.

  • gekster

    I’ll have to give the wok thing a try.
    Never thought of that.

  • westcoastpatriette

    Never seen a wok with a lid. If not, how do you prevent the popcorn from flying all over the kitchen?

  • acat

    would qualify…

    Let us remember that it took a century, give or take, for big-government to get to this point, it’s not going to all go away in a single election. That doesn’t mean, though, that we shouldn’t continue rolling it back.

    Mew

  • jimmyg

    http://www.window.state.tx.us/recovery/transparency/map/index.php

    Just over 29 Billion. Texas was number 3 among the 50 states in the amount of Stimulus funds received from the federal govt, behind only California and New York.

    http://www.recovery.gov/Transparency/RecipientReportedData/Pages/Landing.aspx

  • DerKrieger

    “The problem is definitely…”

  • acat

    Also, in both cases, it’s critical to keep agitating!

    The reason the wok works is the smaller surface area, but ya gotta keep it moving around so the popped kernels move up and away from the oil.

    Mew

  • streiff

    I’ve long campaigned to have RedState declared a douchebag-free zone.

  • acat

    I haven’t seen another one with a lid, so am keeping this one!

    Mew

  • Scope

    as to federalism, who is the best candidate that recognizes that states should be the incubators of the country’s pulse, at least with respect to the fact that some states are going to hell in a hand basket, and some have found their way around the federal monster. Whi is it that you have trust in that will make Washington as inconsequential as can be? That’s should be the biggest thing on voters minds, particularly those that want smaller and less government. The fact that some governors were all but forced to take federal monies, just to keep them attached to the federal teat, should not even be a consideration. Didn’t Palin try to turn back some federal monies, only to be overruled by the Democrats in AK?

  • Bill S

    Some people are just destined to commit hari-kari here.