Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Good News: Media Now Has a Word To Describe State's Rights Advocates

It looks like a new style sheet has come out which dictates that any conservative cause or issue can now be described by adding the suffix -er to the end of the issue name.

First it was birth-ers, then Tea Bagg-ers, and now it is tenth-ers.

What are tenthers? It is used to describe people who advocate for state's rights as outlined in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The movement is garnering attention and several states have passed resolutions expressing support of their rights, and not just from the south for all you that want to immediately scream racism.
Their message is loud and clear: Big government is out of control; states need to take back their constitutional rights.

A movement has been growing over the past two years of urging states to exert their rights under the 10th Amendment. The Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, states: "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."

A number of states have passed resolutions that assert their rights. While the resolutions have no legal teeth, they're intended to carry a message: States' rights are being trampled on.
The CNN article spends a lot of time focusing on the matter in Georgia and uses a column written by an AJC columnist named Jay Bookman.

The basic thrust or tone is to paint a picture of how support of state's rights is a prelude to another civil war.
After the Georgia Senate's move in April 2009 for sovereignty, Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Jay Bookman wrote that this push has a "particularly nasty legacy."

"It helped precipitate the Civil War, and in the 1950s and early '60s it was cited by Southern states claiming the right to ignore Supreme Court rulings ordering the end of segregation," he wrote.
Right, Jay. It was actually New Hampshire that got the ball rolling on this movement. To date 37 states have introduced or voted on their own resolutions affirming state's rights, with Alaska and Tennessee actually getting their governor's signatures on the legislation.

It is more then state's rights being trampled on, it is out and out blackmail. The federal government learned long ago that they could threaten states by withholding funds if states didn't agree certain federal laws. You know, like the 55 MPH speed limit. If your state didn't play ball then they got no money from the transportation budget.

The counter argument is that states can make the hard choice to refuse the money, which is true to a point. At what point can a state tell the federal government that since they are getting no return for the tax dollars that their citizens are sending in, they have directed their citizens to quit paying any federal tax, or better yet, just step in and intercept those funds and prevent them from going to Washington.

How long before the Treasury Department agents descend upon the state? A lot quicker then you would see Homeland Security coming in to do a sweep for illegal aliens, I bet.

How many parts of the Bill of Rights have the liberals now come out in opposition to?

We have the First Amendment they are trying to overturn in wake of the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding campaign finance.

They have always been against the Second Amendment.

Now the Tenth Amendment.

No comments: