Right On The Mark

Back in April, just as the Tax Day Tea Parties were swelling with support, Texas Governor Rick Perry made this statement:

"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state," Gov. Perry said. "That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states' rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union."

Since then the Tea Parties have come & gone & some folks seem to think that states reaffirming their rights guaranteed through the 10th Amendment means a secession movement is brewing. While it may be true that some folks do support a secessionist movement I don't believe that's what the majority of states' rights people are suggesting. It's the sovereignty of the individual states; not secession.

My issue is that some folks seem to think that sovereignty & secession are the same thing. They are not. Secession would be a complete separation from the union. They would give up military protection. They would have to come up with their own currency. Secession would be more complicated than I believe some folks who may support it realize. However, asserting state sovereignty is not the same thing.

The 10th Amendment says:

"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."

Which is quite similar to a provision that was in the Articles of Confederation (our original document set forth to govern us).

"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

I believe by looking at both documents we can get a real sense of what our founders had in mind concerning too much power centralized at the federal level & why states' rights & sovereignty was & still is so important.

States wanting to assert their sovereignty seem to be taking issue with what they perceive as an overreaching federal government. Even though many folks might agree with that far reaching arm of the federal government, states have the right to slap back that far reaching hand. Governor Perry has expressed issues with sending money to Washington only to have it sent back to the people with strings attached. I agree with the sentiments on this issue expressed by Governor Perry. I have always found it idiotic that we send our money to the federal government only to beg for a portion of it back in the form of stimulus.

A state sovereignty movement reasserts the idea that states do have rights & are protected from an overreaching federal government. The federal government is there, in theory, to ensure the states don't trample on our rights --- to protect us. Today, it seems the states are the ones trying to protect us from the federal government's ever extending & far reaching arm. Proclaiming sovereignty is not the same thing as seceding from the Union. States can & should remain sovereign without seceding & destroying the Union. The federal government needs to respect that sovereignty; so long as that state is not violating the right of the people as laid out in the Constitution.