| |
State Sovereignty - Giving Phil Bredesen Credit
by Stefanie at 9:56 am EDT, Jul 22, 2009 |
While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin [R] and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen [D] are currently the only governors to have signed their states' sovereignty resolutions. The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
I often disagree with Bredesen, but I certainly support him on this issue. |
| |
RE: State Sovereignty - Giving Phil Bredesen Credit
by Decius at 9:06 pm EDT, Jul 22, 2009 |
Stefanie wrote: While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin [R] and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen [D] are currently the only governors to have signed their states' sovereignty resolutions. The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."
I often disagree with Bredesen, but I certainly support him on this issue.
What are the specific oversteppings of soveriegnty that concern the activists? |
|
| | |
RE: State Sovereignty - Giving Phil Bredesen Credit
by Stefanie at 12:35 pm EDT, Jul 28, 2009 |
Decius wrote:
What are the specific oversteppings of soveriegnty that concern the activists?
The "activists" are often state attorneys general, acting on behalf of the state governments on given issues. Regulation of intrastate commerce is one major issue. An example is the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act (2009, Montana has a similar law), which also relates to Article I, Section 26 of the TN Constitution (not to mention the Second Amendment of the US Constitution). Another major issue concerns regulation of marriages. In a suit against the federal government, Massachusetts claims that the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) violates the Tenth Amendment (see page 22 of the link), regarding same-sex marriages. Other states are considering similar action. The issue of the legalization of medical marijuana by states has been around for a while, and there are new concerns regarding the possibility of a federal health care plan, and whether states would have the right to exempt their residents from such a plan. There's also the issue of whether the federal government has the right to impose mandates on states that received funds from the recent stimulus package. That type of mandating is nothing new, as the federal government often attaches strings to funding projects, such as the HOV requirements in 23USC166, which can be construed as unconstitutional micromanaging of states' affairs by the federal government. Some cases have more validity than others, but given the recent climate in Washington D.C., states seem to be preparing themselves for some Constitutional battles. |
|
|
|
