State Sovereignty: A Tale of Two Views

There is some huffing and puffing going on out in Oklahoma this month, where Republicans in the legislature have decided to issue a slap in the face to their Democratic Party oppressors by raising the specter of state sovereignty and the tenth amendment.

HCR 1028, which, if passed, would be sent to Democratic President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress, would not jeopardize federal funds but would tell Congress to “get back into their proper constitutional role.” The resolution states the federal government should “cease and desist” mandates that are beyond the scope of its powers.

The first thing to note is how the Sooners are quick to ensure that they bite the hand that feeds them without endangering the food supply. They will happily keep taking money from Washington, but will choose this moment in time to lecture Washington on their proper role.

Before dipping a toe in myself, let’s take a moment to look at two different responses to this news. First, our friends at Hot Air are quick to weigh in on the side of states’ rights, but properly note that abuses of this sort are dealt out by both parties.

The bill does not have any practical legal effect. It serves as a notice to the Obama administration and Congress that the Oklahoma legislature has taken offense at the federal government’s aggrandizement, which to be fair has come at the hands of both parties in DC. They’re specifically objecting to the bailouts planned by the Obama administration and those that came before in the Bush administration, especially since the White House now backs bankruptcy — after throwing away tens of billions of dollars — for bailed-out automakers.

Over at Liberty Street, we are reminded not only of the importance of states’ rights, but of the commerce clause as well.

Ignoring the facts and the U.S. constitution is nothing new for the Republican’ts. The framers of the Constitution inserted the one clause that allowed the United States to become a world power. It is commonly referred to as the Commerce Clause, and I turn to Wiki

(Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian tribes.

The Commerce Clause trumps the 10th Amendment and the concept of States Rights. Without the Commerce Clause, the US would be nothing more than a confederation of states, each state being its own little kingdom. We’d be very similar to Afghanistan with warlords a governor ruling each province state and the government in Washington being weak. Actually, we would not have survived the Civil War (1861 – 1865).

This is not cut and dried on either side. States’ rights is an interesting and important concept and there are areas where we should be actively working to limit the role of the federal government. It’s also true that the concept of “regulation of interstate commerce” has been so vastly abused that it’s little more than a running joke.

By the same token, states’ rights is one of those difficult gray lines which is nice to talk about but gets rather painful under detailed scrutiny. Liberty Street is correct in saying that veering too far in that direction results in fifty independent nations, barely tied together, which never would have lasted this long. But it’s also true that this is pretty much what some of the founders envisioned. Screaming that the federal government should heed the tenth amendment is fine and dandy, but it would be more convincing if these cries didn’t seem to only arise from some quarters when there’s a Democrat in the White House.

We’d all like the federal government to stay out of our business except when they’re doing things that serve our own personal interests and goals. Does the Constitution stipulate anything which would allow the federal government to define marriage? Not hardly. Yet some of these same states’ rights enthusiasts screaming today were doubtless not quite so vocal in their “opposition” to the feds lining up the Defense of Marriage Act, you can be sure.

States’ rights. Nice when you want them, inconvenient when you don’t.