by Gary Wood
Are you ready to restore state sovereignty?
It is a question all those supporting states’ rights initiatives need to ask themselves. Once answered affirmatively the struggle for educating others truly begins. It is easy to claim we support our sovereignty, to lend our voice to state resolutions, perhaps even support legislation with some teeth, yet how will we withstand the opponents who simply point to the dollars we are willingly cutting off?
Glen Warchol ran what is perhaps the shortest piece seen in the Salt Lake Tribune in recent history. In 10th Amendment cold turkey he quickly leaves us with the truth about what we are asking for and how we must accomplish it. He describes a very brief conversation between U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Rep. Chaffetz asked what it would take for the federal government to recognize the 10th Amendment rights of the states, a fair question asked to someone who could truly articulate the answer. “Stop taking their money,” is the answer Warchol reports and it is an answer known to be the true, root challenge. We must stop taking the money and mimicking the income tax system as a start to reclaiming sovereignty.
A friend was attending a local town hall meeting Tuesday night. Regarding their support for 10th Amendment state duties they were in the vast minority. At the meeting were 2 Utah State Representatives and 2 Utah State Senators. Besides the irritating fact the majority of those in attendance wanted more government intervention there was an eye-opening comment from one of the state senators when asked about Utah’s 10th Amendment rights. She simply brushed the matter aside with the age old trump card. She spoke quite plainly that 23% of the state budget came from the federal government and people were not willing to give those dollars away.
There it is, two sources corroborating the very fact 10th Amendment efforts suffer in the media, political circles, and neighborhoods across the country from the dependency these federal dollars have created. Right now there are a lot of citizens jumping on the wagon of states’ rights, it is fun after all and there are some really cool people involved in this movement! Some of the politicians involved are genuine supporters of our heritage, statesmen in a day when that breed is endangered, yet many are simply coming on board for resolutions or weak legislation as a way to win more votes.
Opponents, even those who appear to be supporters, are not willing to stop the federal flow of dollars but then again, neither are most citizens. I know, some of you already understand the federal dollars being used as a carrot would not exist if it were not ripped from the state citizens’ pocket, which is not the point of the opposition. The point they want to press is those who truly want our state sovereignty restored really want to take money from the sick, poor, down-trodden, and hungry. Supporters want to end federal funding of schools, roads, and more.
How foolish, in these tough times, can such nonsense be? Supporting the 10th Amendment is nothing more than a stunt for publicity or a failure to understand the dollars and lawsuits being put at risk. Don’t confuse facts with fiction here! Don’t mistake the Constitutional plans for a Federalist Republic with today’s necessary, representative national democracy. So the spin of opposition goes and grows in the ears of your neighbors, sovereignty is not sounding so promising for them.
Are you ready to stand in opposition to federal funding of vital entitlements your neighbors need? Are you blind enough to think the state and local governments will really care for life, liberty, and property better than federal intelligence? Can you seriously defend the notion you and your neighbors, city, county, and state officials can actually govern better by governing with less federal interference? How foolish, in these tough times, can such nonsense be?
As Gary Alder points out there are many in the 10th Amendment movement who are like young teenagers demanding their parents treat them as adults. If their parents dare say Okay will the teenager be ready? Will you be ready to tell your legislators to stand up to their duty, quit accepting federal funding, and quit being the tax collector for all federal waste? How will you stand in front of your neighbor who relies on a federal program administered by the state and tell them this is best? After talking with you about our heritage will they be ready to give those dollars away?
None of this will be easy and the ‘federal dollar denial’ card will be played relentlessly in a game of poker that will take many chips from your stack. Ultimately our Posterity’s liberty is at risk. You must be ready first, and then you must educate yourself on the benefits of our Constitutional order of separation of powers; checks and balances involving states’ duties in controlling federal usurpation. You must firmly commit to the idea of the lowest level of government being the government that is best. We will first lose federal inflow before we ever can stop federal outflow and many will cry foul, fool, fiend! Look in the mirror and ask yourself, honestly, are you ready to restore state sovereignty?
Gary Wood [send him email] is the State Chapter Coordinator for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center
Copyright © 2010 by TenthAmendmentCenter.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
"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."
Subscribe to entries
Subscribe to comments
All content © 2010 by Tenth Amendment Center
This article is right on! We make the Constitution mean something again by supporting and electing candidates with the backbone to stand up for LIBERTY and the 10th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution. That means we, the voters, have to be willing to DO WITHOUT almost all the things the federal government does now. We have to man up and stand the ramparts of freedom or shut up and take more of the same crap that we're getting now. What's it gonna be??? Are we lovers of liberty and rugged individualism or dogs conditioned to drool at the offer of "federal" and "state" dollars???? What's it gonna be???? I think most of you are dogs who growl for show but roll over and show your belly when the man offers you a snack treat….Prove me wrong, what's it gonna be????????
“She spoke quite plainly that 23% of the state budget came from the federal government and people were not willing to give those dollars away.”
This glaring example of constitutional ignorance from a state senator is why the states need recall laws. The truth of the matter is that Chief Justice Marshall had established the case precedent, now wrongly ignored, that Congress cannot base federal taxes on state power issues.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So not only is proposed Obamacare, for example, constitutionally unauthorized since healthcare is a state power issue, but Congress never had the power to lay taxes to fund Obamacare.
So what this state lawmaker doesn’t understand is that probably most of the 23% of the state budget that comes from the federal government should never have left her state in the first place. In fact, she’s not doing her job to fight unconstitutional federal taxes.
What a mess!
Correction: I don't know how much of the 23% federal funding actually came from Utah. But the point remains that probably most of it should never have left the states.
@B Johnson
I second that. Federal Income Tax is not even constituaional. The Federal Government were to collect their taxes on imported items from outside of the Union. And it was to be collected for the purpose of protecting the Union from foreign threats. I agree with a person on FB which said, let's have the states declare Sovereignty and leave the USA and create a new union using the original Constitution. I would move to this union at the first opportunity I get to get out of the debt increasing USA. Lets found a new currency based on Gold and precious metals. If there is anyone out there that are doing this I will join up with you.
I keep hoping that we can put a major dent into restoring state sovereignty in the 2010 midterm elections. In the meanwhile "we" need to get people up to speed on state sovereignty.
Again, we need recall laws to be able to give the boot to constitutional flunkeys before their terms are up. In fact, people should be required to pass a Constitution test before they can hold public office, state or federal.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by RonPaul_2012: State Sovereignty is About You! http://bit.ly/9dTjIN #tlot #tcot #RonPaul…
The most important argument against state sovereignty by the powers that be is EDUCATION. How can you do this to the children? The education dept of each state uses the vast majority of state tax money. These depts are bloated with "admistrators" that do not actually teach in a classroom. I know, there are confusing labels for most of these people, like "full-time equivlent ", "part-time equilavent", all carrying the teacher label to confuse us. Teachers are not graduates in actual studies, such as English, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, History, etc. They graduated with a "teaching" degree. Add to this the fact that teachers belong to govt unions, and are protected from termination by red tape. If they are let go, which is rare, they still receive benefits. We don't need a state education dept. All schools should be county run.
Actually, the primary purpose of public schools is INDOCTRINATION, to provide a docile workforce; otherwise, it would make sense to simply REQUIRE parents to provide an education for their child, just like a parent must provide for a child's other needs like food, clothing, shelter etc.
However, public schools begin spring up EXACTLY after the Civil War, in order to extend the completeness of centralized control throughout the very fabric of society, taking control of America's youth by force– "education" was simply a Trojjan Horse, essentially making every child a Ward of the State– and if they refused, an ENEMY of the state (yours truly included).
Price and quality-wise, public education ALWAYS fails, for the same reason as every socialist program: i.e. the government can NEVER provide a service better than the private sector. And so MOST people get ripped off by the public school system, paying more in taxes and higher costs, than they would for a private education.
I'm probably going to take arrows for this. But perhaps one reason that public schools are a front-end for unions, more specifically union indoctrination, is this. Regardless that people send their children to public schools in the name of education, the informal primary purpose of public schools in our culture is babysitting, IMO. So parents are a little bit too detached from what their kids are actually being exposed to in public schools.
[...] http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/12/state-sovereignty-is-about-you/ Easy AdSense by Unreal Bookmark It Hide Sites [...]
Actually, the primary purpose of public schools is INDOCTRINATION, to provide a docile workforce; otherwise, it would make sense to simply REQUIRE parents to provide an education for their child, just like a parent must provide for a child's other needs like food, clothing, shelter etc.
However, public schools begin spring up EXACTLY after Lincoln's war, in order to extend the completeness of centralized control throughout the very fabric of society, taking control of America's youth by force– "education" was simply a Trojjan Horse, essentially making every child a Ward of the State– and if they refused, an ENEMY of the state (yours truly included).
Price and quality-wise, public education ALWAYS fails, for the same reason as every socialist program: i.e. the government can NEVER provide a service better than the private sector. And so MOST people get ripped off by the public school system, paying more in taxes and higher costs, than they would for a private education.
A lot of very governmental things started to spring up after the civil war. The one thing that we should take not of is the progressive movement itself. It started out very small in the 1870s as the grange movement and wanted to impose an income tax and control the price of wheat that farmers sell. Now I'm not into conspiracy theories but I often wonder if there was a connection between the civil war and the progressive movement that followed because there were something called Jacobian republicans which might have been the same Jacobians of the french revolution.
It would be useful for someone with the data and skills to estimate how much money would be lost by a given state that refuses federal funds and how much money that state's taxpayers send TO the federal government and then determine how much the state's income tax rate would need to be increased to replace all of the lost funding.
Then, people could determine what they want to do about it. Do they want to try to maintain that same level or do they propose cuts? Do they want to revolt and NOT pay federal taxes and risk prison time? Is there some other solution?
If the federal income tax were eliminated, then state taxes could increase so as to produce the same level of funds for the state that it received from the feds. In some states, the citizens might be better off.
But, if the federal income tax is not eliminated and the state is refusing federal funds, the state's standard of living would decline unless the local tax rates were raised significantly higher overall.
I take the author's point to be that tenthers need to start thinking about this issue and preparing a response.
If that's the case, I agree.
However, I don't see any concrete answers in this article (or on this web site). Without hard data and some kind of plan, this is a major obstacle and it makes it easy for opponents of the 10th amendment to shoot down the very idea of states' rights.
Unless I'm missing something, the leaders and supporters of the 10th Amendment movements in each state need to address this issue for THEIR STATE since it will be different in each state.
Without an answer to this issue of the loss of federal funding, opponents will shred anyone (especially a political candidate) who argues in support of the 10th Amendment.
I posted the comment about each state addressing the financial issue raised in this post. The post got me thinking about this issue so I looked further and found the following article that addresses the issue and raises several interesting points that might be helpful to anyone interested:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/tenthamend.htm
Basically, the author suggests the states create 'escrow funds' to hold certain federal taxes (such as gasoline) that are collected by the states and then only disburse to the feds if the feds are using the funds in compliance with the Constitution.
It raises SEVERAL practical questions but at least it's a start. Also, it doesn't seem to address the federal income taxes that we all pay directly to the IRS.
Again, unless I'm missing something, someone with access to the data and the number-crunching skills needs to look at this issue and produce some concrete numbers (state by state) and more-detailed proposals for dealing with the financial issues accompanying the 10th Amendment movement.
If we're going to admonish government for not being responsible, then we must example personal responsibility ourselves.
It may not happen overnight, but the States can start to develop programs within smaller communities which would find methods and ways to innovate & create solutions to areas where government is now subsidizing through that intravenous needle of money.
It didn't take one election to get us here, it won't take one election to get out of it – but it can be done.
Our state, Arizona, can start lowering taxes to bring more businesses here; which will create jobs, which will increase state revenues. As we get out of this junket of debt, we can slowly start turning government jobs into private sector work forces, instead.
Schools, for instance, (once we're out of debt) can become private business – ALL SCHOOLS. They can create sponsorship relationships with corporations who can provide dollars & equipment, etc. to make it work. In the meantime, the State can give a school a 5 – year low interest loan by which to get itself to self-reliance and paid for by the parents whose children attend. In many ways, this is exactly how charter schools work in free markets.
[...] that which has stolen it?" Are you (really) ready to restore state sovereignty? via: The 10th Amendment Center I can only speak for myself (and my grand-children). Totally willing. Live Free or Die. Cheers, G. [...]
Two points.
(One) How much bureaucracy in involved in taking your money out of your pocket, account for it at the local IRS office, give an accounting of it to the main office (in DC), transferring the funds, account for it there, decided witch Federal Agency gets what, transferring funds to said agencies, etc., etc., etc. You get the idea.
All those bureaucrats have to be paid, rent paid on buildings, lights have to be kept on, etc., etc., etc, You get the idea.
That is a lot of money, our money.
(Two) While they are holding our money the Federal government is collecting interest on that money. Our money. Did you get a refund last tax day? Did you get the payed the interest that collected while the Fed held your money?
The Federal government is about 80% money hole.
[...] State Sovereignty is About You! [...]
[...] A Utah representative was more honest about her reluctance to support a similar resolution in that state. She was unwilling to “give away” federal funds which make up 23% of Utah’s state budget. (See Tenth Amendment Center article here.) [...]
Saying it's unconstitutional for the feds to tax us however they choose is completely wrong, and the Marshall decision quoted was completely nullified by the 16th amendment. It is against the founding principles of our country, but it's not unconstitutional, because in 1913, they changed the Constitution.
State sovereignty is about us as individuals, and at it's core, it's about us taking responsibility for ourselves. We all say we want independence from the federal government, but how many of us are prepared to fund our retirements on our own? A small percentage at best. Our States cannot be independent of the feds until the citizens of each respective State are ready to be more independent ourselves.
The Us Governent now owns 57.4% of the land mass in Utah, I wonder how much the State would recieve from either selling the land to the private sector or even leasing it to corporate interests? Does the Federal Govt. even pay property taxes to Utah? I watched congress debate on the floor of the house when it was disclosed that the Us governent as of this year owns almost 1/3 of the land in the US as of 2009. Perhaps if they sold off some of these assets a new 1.9 trillion increase in the debt ceiling would not be necessary? If the Feds would return the land to the States perhaps the States would not need as much help in balancing their budgets
Well said Dave. I live at the base of the Book Cliff mtns in central Utah. Coal, gas, oil and shale are abundant all around down here but we're completely surrounded by BLM and National Park lands so the State can't get most of these resources. I'd be against doing anything in the National Parks, but the BLM controls the lions share of the lands.
I agree with you that the States, or at least most of them, would be much better off if they controlled the lands within their borders. But I don't have any confidence the Congress wouldn't use more income as nothing more than an excuse to piss away even more money and continue racking up the debt.
well said Dave. As a resident of central Utah, I'm in an area with an abundance of coal, oil, gas and shale, but we're surrounded by BLM and National Park lands further than the eye can see. These BLM lands should be turned over to the people of Utah, and other States likewise, so that we can put to better use our resources. Most States would be in much better shape if they controlled the lands within their own borders, but I fear any increase in income to the feds would be used as an excuse by Congress to spend even more and still rack up debt on my kids backs.
NO STATE HAS SOVEREIGNTY !!!
The Nazi State did not have sovereignty. The Iraqi State did not have sovereignty.
Nor does the STATE OF TEXAS.
STATE is a word synonomous with Government Entity. PEOPLE, as Individuals, have unalienable Rights that NO State, even with the support of a majority of its subjects, can violate with impunity.
It is the duty, obligation, and responsibility of our Federal State to hold accountable to the Law any STATE that deprives Individuals of LIBERTY. (Liberty is the Right of the Individual to have the Law of our Federal Constitution protect the Individual from a STATE).
The 10th Amendment simply means that unalienable Rights exist even if they are not secured by Federal and StateConstitutions, and laws made in pursuance thereof.
ed@informed.org
[...] by Gary Wood, TAC [...]
[...] by Gary Wood, TAC [...]
[...] State Sovereignty is About You! [...]
[...] State Sovereignty is About You! [...]