Everyone Talks About The 10th Amendment ...
One of the themes that recurs in Republican politics is federalism, which its proponents use to move power back towards the states and closer to the electorate where it belongs. The 10th Amendment forms the great touchstone of federalism, in which all powers not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution should remain with the states. Small-government advocates argue that the 10th Amendment got overrun by FDR in the New Deal and has never recovered its proper place in limiting federal power.
However, the 10th Amendment has much in common with Mark Twain's observation about the weather: it gets plenty of discussion, but no one does anything about it. Fred Thompson says he'll do more than just talk if elected President:
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.
Mark Tapscott gets back from his vacation just in time to note the importance of this essay to conservatives looking for a champion in this presidential primary, and maybe not just conservatives:
I often remind my liberal friends in the mainstream media and non-profit advocacy communities who believe Washington has become too secretive that you can have open government or you can have big government, but you can't have both simultaneously.Liberals who want the government to be efficient in addressing critical social challenges should recognize the value of the 10th Amendment in assuring that officials can actually address those problems effectively.
It's encouraging that Thompson seems intent upon moving the presidential campaign towards a debate on first principles. It is too little recognized among the current generation of conservatives that Reagan's great advantage during his career was that he always sought to put issues and proposals in the context defined by first principles.
I agree with Mark. We hear plenty from Republican candidates about reducing the size of government, accompanied by spending proposals for a new raft of federal programs. That was the absurdity of "compassionate conservativism" -- not that conservatism can't be compassionate, but because in the version offered over the last six years, it's amounted to a miniature version of the Great Society.
Thompson gives a clear indication of how federalism can apply to today's government to reduce its reach and to allow more control over self-government by communities and states. The founders included the 10th Amendment because they knew the farther power traveled from the voters, the less accountable the powerful would become. The nightmare bureaucracy of Washington DC today would be their worst nightmare come to life, with its control over all aspects of American life far outside the boundaries of the Constitution.
When I wrote yesterday that Thompson has conducted a philosopher's campaign, this is what I meant. In his way, Thompson has conducted the most substantive campaign of the cycle. Hopefully, he will continue that effort once he officially enters the race.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 28, 2007 10:57 AM | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)
Comments (28)
Posted by GarandFan | July 28, 2007 11:54 AM
Go Fred!
Posted by Monkei | July 28, 2007 11:54 AM
It's always exciting to read that Ronald Reagan is still a well like president ... probably one of our top10 definitely ... I sure would like to know what Reagan and his handlers would have done differently that this "president" has done. It's hard for me to believe that Reagan would have ever gotten us stuck in Iraq for starters.
Thompson as Reagan ... closer than the other midgets in the race, but definitely not a Ronald Reagan.
I am waiting for the Dems to pull out the "Bush Republican" mantra against those who totally support this "president" . I bet THAT would be a negative to hand around someone's neck!
Posted by Russ | July 28, 2007 12:08 PM
"Miniature"?
Posted by newton | July 28, 2007 1:08 PM
Reagan was Reagan. Bush is Bush.
I believe that every President has his own style, and when he departs, he breaks the mold.
If Thompson becomes President, he will have his own mold to break.
Posted by Bill Hennessy | July 28, 2007 1:54 PM
This piece, along with Mark's, inspired me to write a little short story--the Constitution introduces her Tenth son to the 110th Congress. Turned out a little sad, actually.
Posted by skippystalin | July 28, 2007 2:35 PM
A mini-Great Society how? Over the course of 10 years, the prescription drug benefit alone will cost more than any one of LBJ's entire budgets. It seems to me that Bush is building a much "greater" society than even Johnson planned.
I believe that the Kennedy/Johnson practice of cutting taxes and expanding discretionary social spending while fighting a war was the direct cause of the "stagflation" that ruined the Nixon, Ford and Carter presidencies. I can't see how Bush's insistence on doing exactly the same thing will bring a different result.
Remember, it took well over a decade for the effects of the JFK/LBJ policies to be felt. It should stand to reason that the same will be true of Bush's.
Posted by unclesmrgol | July 28, 2007 2:37 PM
Monkei,
They already are using the term "Bush Republican". As a "Bush independent" I understand the meaning fully -- it's like being tarred with the epithet "Lincoln Republican" during the "useless" Civil War.
A badge of honor. not of shame.
Posted by Angry Dumbo | July 28, 2007 2:41 PM
Reagan wasn't a lock in the 80 primaries, he was considered a bit of a freak, has been actor. Thompson isn't Reagan, but I would say he is a bit of a freak has been actor.
My problem with Thompson is that he just doesn't seem to want the job. Reagan took a lot of punches on his way to the White House, Thompson doesn't appear willing to pay his dues.
If Fred really wants to run, he needs to tap into that Federalist Society brain trust and start dropping references to his ideal Supreme Court nominee, someone like, say Janice Rogers Brown. This should be enough to give Chuck Schumer a wedgie.
Judges are ground zero in the culture war. If Fred wants in, pick a fight with Schumer and Fred gets my vote in 08.
p.s. Fred also needs to state unequivocally that he IS NOT afraid of snowmen and commit to the CNN/UTube debate.
Posted by Cornellian | July 28, 2007 3:31 PM
There is precisely zero support among Congressional Republicans for reducing the size of the federal government. Their record over the past decade or so demonstrates that conclusively. Any rhetoric to the contrary is just designed to win primaries and then to be conveniently forgotten before the next election, the better to dole out pork to one's friends and supporters.
I dare any Congressman or Senator who voted for the Terry Schiavo law to explain to me how they really believe in federalism.
Posted by unclesmrgol | July 28, 2007 4:05 PM
It's too late, Captain.
We are federalist in name only, and to be honest, I look to the United States government to secure my rights, not the government of the State of California. In fact, I'm far more apt to lose rights by actions from Sacramento than I am by actions from Washington DC.
The Constitutional right of interstate commerce requires a strong central government. The runup to the Civil War proved that, by the commerce clause of our Constitution, what any state makes into an allowable property right must be respected by all other states, since the free movement of citizens of our country as well as their possessions must be respected. In the old days, that property was slaves. In these new days, that property is automobiles and guns and weed. The South forgot that fact, and by leaving that government, allowed it to take action against them.
Posted by SH | July 28, 2007 7:18 PM
From the original article: It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding.
I was with Fred until this part. I am sure as part of his legal education, he probably had to read the Constitution. We clearly don't have the same version because mine doesn't have the above "appropriate" function. The Thompson piece is nothing more than empty rhetoric to woo the modern so-called conservatives who have never bothered to read the Federalist Papers. If they actually did, they would be more anti-Federalists like Mason and Randolph. We really need to weep for this Republic.
Posted by mrlynn | July 28, 2007 10:15 PM
The chief villain in the decline of federalism has been the abuse of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Until a President and a Supreme Court is willing to circumscribe the federal government's right to intervene in every aspect of state, local, and private life under the Commerce Clause, there is no hope of reversing this decline.
/Mr Lynn
Posted by Rose | July 28, 2007 11:49 PM
I agree with Ann Coulter - Fred done showed us hisself under pressure when he recently called Bill Clinton's PERJURY a "TRIVIAL MATTER", and said that "according to the Founding Fathers", it just didn't rise to the level of impeachment.
Ann was the guest who immediately followed him on that interview.
(Just think, when HE KNEW what he was about to say to Sean, HE SAW HER IN THE GREEN ROOM !)
Fred may have a lot of great TALK - LIKE NEWT - but he don't got the WALK - and he certainly had the OPPORTUNITY.
No way - EVER! Not if Hell freezes over and Fred walks on water.
No, I am not a Truther, I ain't a Ron Paul insane freak.
I voted for Reagan. I voted for Bush Sr, and Bush Jr.
But I didn't vote for Gerald Ford or Robert Dole, and I won't vote for anyone LEFT of the Bushes.
I won't vote for another Bush, either.
These are some of the men that Fred SLANDERED to excuse his vote to support Bill Clinton's perfidy and abuse of power.
Clearly, Fred never spent a night kneeling in the snow to pray for this nation.
If such men as it required to form this nation feel such ways about the CITIZENS of our nation, how can Fred have the SHEER GALL to call on THEIR NAMES AND REPUTATIONS to cover his fanny for covering Bill Clinton's fanny?
He will NEVER get my vote, and as you see by the election records, when I won't vote for a GOP candidate, millions of others don't, either - NOT FOLLOWING MY LEAD and I am not making any such presumption - but if such a man has insulted MY INTEGRITY - I am far from alone in feeling that insult.
And a GOP that wants its candidate to succeed needs to stop insulting their voting base - the results of them CONTINUING to do so are CLEAR.
Fred, Newt, Rudi, Mitt, McCain, Brownback, et al - are all AT LEAST as far left as Gerald Ford and Robert Dole.
You moderates cannot carry enough water to make these sales to us.
If you want a win, find a candidate WE CAN SUPPORT.
You stomp over the Tom McClintocks of this nation for the sake of Dah Ahnold Mans to your own hurt.
And check where it gets you - CALIFORNIA CITIZENS PERSONAL I.D. DATA is being sent TO MEXICO to process TRAFFIC TICKETS for the GOVERNMENT OF Dah Ahnold Man's CALIFORNIA.
TO MEXICO!!!
So don't try to tell us these RINO SQUIRREL BUTTS ARE BETTER THAN HILLARY of 1,000 FBI FILES!
Posted by Rose | July 28, 2007 11:54 PM
p.s. Fred also needs to state unequivocally that he IS NOT afraid of snowmen and commit to the CNN/UTube debate.
Posted by: Angry Dumbo at July 28, 2007 2:41 PM
*******************
Fred has already written into his Calendar that August is a BORING MONTH.
Lah dee dah!
Posted by Georg Felis | July 29, 2007 12:09 AM
I would like our candidates to remember the First Rule of Politics. You can’t outspend a Liberal. If you propose 10 billion dollars to help starving iguanas, they will propose 20 billion and complain that you want to slash payments to the poor starving critters in half.
Posted by Tony | July 29, 2007 4:46 AM
You mean actually respect and adhere to the Constitution?
Like McCain-Feingold?
Like "eminent domain" (Kale case in Connecticut)?
Like gold & silver being replaced as legal tender by pieces of paper?
Posted by John | July 29, 2007 7:47 AM
A critically-important point about the 10th Amendment: powers not delegated to the federal government are not reserved JUST to the states. Those rights "are reserved to the States respectively, OR TO THE PEOPLE."
This is careful and meticulous language making a careful and meticulous distinction. Failure to note this distinction results in a misreading of several parts of the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment in particular.
Posted by Ray | July 29, 2007 8:15 AM
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Although I agree that the 10th amendment limits the power of the federal government to only those powers granted to it in the Constitution, doesn't the above power, as stated in the Constitution, give Congress the authority to impose its laws and regulations over the States as long as said laws and regulations can be considered as beneficial to all and therefor is part of the "general welfare" of America?
If Congress has the authority to collect taxes for the general welfare, they must also have the authority to disperse those taxes for the general welfare as well.
Doesn't this mean that Congress can enact laws on how tax revenue can be dispersed to the states and what devices may be used to disperse those funds, like general welfare payments or the creation of federal programs and departments in government like the NEA, as these all can arguably be considered as beneficial to the general welfare of the US? That "general welfare" part leaves a lot of wiggle room, don't you think?
Personally, I think Congress does exceed it's authority as granted in the Constitution.
Posted by John | July 29, 2007 8:37 AM
Ray, your comments below are absolutely correct. This problem was best summed up by Robert Heinlein: "The power to tax is the power to destroy."
========
Although I agree that the 10th amendment limits the power of the federal government to only those powers granted to it in the Constitution, doesn't the above power, as stated in the Constitution, give Congress the authority to impose its laws and regulations over the States as long as said laws and regulations can be considered as beneficial to all and therefor is part of the "general welfare" of America?
If Congress has the authority to collect taxes for the general welfare, they must also have the authority to disperse those taxes for the general welfare as well.
Doesn't this mean that Congress can enact laws on how tax revenue can be dispersed to the states and what devices may be used to disperse those funds, like general welfare payments or the creation of federal programs and departments in government like the NEA, as these all can arguably be considered as beneficial to the general welfare of the US? That "general welfare" part leaves a lot of wiggle room, don't you think?
Posted by Random Numbers | July 29, 2007 11:53 AM
Rose:
READ THIS
I won't insult idiots by calling you one, but frankly your single track BS is starting to bore me.
Try coming up with an HONEST argument for once.
Posted by Tony | July 29, 2007 1:19 PM
Good point, John. Now if we can get Americans to quit worrying about Paris Hilton's time in "prison" and Nicole Ritchie's up-coming stint in jail, then perhaps the PEOPLE will exercise those rights.
Posted by Rose | July 29, 2007 1:37 PM
Random Numbers - I posted nothing that rates you insulting me or saying that I am dishonest.
His vote matters to me and obviously it doesn't matter to you - you and he are both full of excuses for what he did.
I prefer to skip to the bottom line.
I assure you that is what George Washington would do as well.
Maybe you are not familiar with the case of Benedict Arnold and men accused of being associated with him in his conduct. And what George Washington thought about it, and did about it.
Not saying that Clinton's Perjury was Treason - but it was Criminal - and feloneous - and he did it before the world - he was BLATANTLY guilty.
The "precedents" for whether it was a "Trivial Matter" or not, are a matter of CHOICE.
Fred specifically cited THE FOUNDING FATHERS. That was FRED'S CHOICE for "precedent".
I didn't bring that up, FIRST, regarding HIS VOTE - HE DID. IN FRONT OF ANN COULTER.
You can be as big a fan of Fred's as you wanna be. I said the same thing to those who voted for Dah Ahnold Man.
You can hate my guts for not agreeing with you - I don't give a flying rip.
But you cannot make others agree that what he did had anything to do with JUSTICE.
Because it didn't.
I won't cast a vote in the General Election that will leave the selection of our future Judges to such a man.
In case you think this is about Bill Clinton, let me inform you and others, I voted for Nixon - the choices were ... shall we say, "limited"... in that election. But he had pulled himself up considerably fromthe race with Jack Kennedy and did seem more able for the job. And did an almost satisfactory job until he decided to cover for that break-in.
My own first, excessively jaded opinion at that time was - so what, they all do it - they are all crooked.
But my uncle got hold of me, and told me a thing or two about what direction the citizens ALLOW this nation to go, CONSEQUENCES, and such - and the entire extended family at that time sat onthe couch DAILY watching EVERYTHING about those hearings THAT FRED THOMPSON WAS INVOLVED IN - watching Howard Baker do a SPLENDID JOB helping steer those hearings.
then, after all the hard work of the GOP MEMBERS in that hearing, Gerald Ford co mes along, pronounces the nation "needs to heal" and PARDONS NIXON, without so much as a by your leave. WHEN GOP VOTERS WERE ALREADY SCREAMING FOR NIXON TO SPEND TIME IN JAIL.
I voted for Carter. I hate Carter's administration deeply, cement-filled missile silos, giving away the Panama Canal, the Shah of Iran - but I don't regret not voting for Gerald Ford.
HEALING IS DONE THROUGH JUSTICE.
The NATION did NOT heal, and neither did NIXON, due to Ford.
As far as I am concerned, Fred did the Ford Thing.
I'll never vote for a FORMER PROSECUTOR WHO FAILS TO COMPREHEND JUSTICE AND HEALING.
Watching him pick him close intimates from the likes of John McCain and Howard Baker and Spencer Abraham does nothing at all to enear Fred to me.
Those moderates of you who adore him are welcome to him.
Find your Majority to elect him SOMEWHERE ELSE. Because me, and the millions of voters who refused to vote for Gerald Ford, or Robert Dole, we aren't going to vote for Fred, either.
So when you "moderates" who want to beat the Dims slap the Conservative GOP base smack in the face as hard as you can, then that means you have the votes for Fred or Rudi or some other RINO somewhere else.
And you KNOW that you do.
Because when you cut us out of the equation, you have the votes somewhere else, or your boy cannot beat the Dims - just like Gerald Ford, and Robert Dole could not beat the Dims without us.
We u nderstand you expect a lot of crossover DIMS - but the only one THEY crossed for was REAGAN.
But if Fred don't look like Reagan to us of the STAUNCHEST Reagan supporters, he ain't gonna remind those old Dim crossover voters of Reagan, either.
Those crossover voters didn't come through for Ford, or for Dole.
Well, good luck to you.
Posted by Rose | July 29, 2007 1:43 PM
That "general welfare" part leaves a lot of wiggle room, don't you think?
Posted by: John at July 29, 2007 8:37 AM
**********************
No, it doesn't allow THIS MUCH "wiggle room".
Posted by Rose | July 29, 2007 2:09 PM
http://patriotpost.us/histdocs/crockett_not_yours_to_give.asp
This site posts the account from Davy Crockett, himself, "Not Yours To Give", regarding the "charitable giving" of a Government entity.
I've never seen it put better. I was thrilled to see it well put by the man whose statue I grew up playing on. The man who bought my freedom with his life.
I say that as a woman whose family was already in Texas by the Battle of the Alamo where Davy died to by freedom for Texas, to buy time for Sam Houston to defeat tyranny in Texas.
Davy earned the right for his opinion to count. His words have a veracity that earns them a place among the documents that defend our Constitution, as well.
Posted by Rose | July 29, 2007 2:17 PM
...departments in government like the NEA, as these all can arguably be considered as beneficial to the general welfare of the US?...
Posted by: John at July 29, 2007 8:37 AM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Can they, now? How amusing for you.
Care to let the General Public make a general election VOTE on that?
hehehehe
Yeah, I didn't think so!
Posted by Random Numbers | July 29, 2007 4:27 PM
Rose: I don't have to insult you. You manage quite well on your own.
You DO realise you are coming across as a nutter, don't you?
Posted by Rose | July 29, 2007 11:16 PM
Posted by: Random Numbers at July 29, 2007 4:27 PM
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
But you did insult me anyway, didn't you - don't you?
As long as you have the votes to make up for ALL the Conservatives you are dissing, I don't give a flip.
But don't try to tell US that WE cost the GOP the '08 election - because YOU decide who the candidate will be on the GOP ticket - less than 1/4 of the Conservatives do not vote in the Primary. About half vote in the General Election.
The Moderates have been bragging for 3 years that they do not need us to win this next election - and they are proving to us that they do not want us.
You can call me a nutter all you want - I will be voting, and you do not respect my vote.
Live with it. Because if you think you are going to foist a Fred Thompson, or any of the other RINOS on us, then you are just sitting in the middle of your own boat, drilling holes in the hull.
Posted by swabjockey05 | July 31, 2007 9:12 AM
R. Numbers,
If what you say about Rose is true...why do you have to repeat yourself on the insult?
You aren't going to win Fred any votes by copping "attitude".