The Simmering Battle Over the 10th Amendment

It's on.

This morning, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) sent a letter to President Obama's Director of OMB asking him to make it illegal for states to pick and choose what stimulus money they want to accept. This was a direct attack on Governor Bobby Jindal (R-LA) and other leaders of the new conservative movement and Schumer knew it would illicit a response--especially since Jindal is giving the rebuttal to Obama's speech tonight ( a speech I'm hoping is being edited to include a response to Schumer).

Today, we have the California State Assembly pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana throughout the state to, at least on the surface, reduce the burden on police and to free them up for other crime fighting duties. Of course it's all about the money as California would make a killing on legally sold weed that could be taxed at decent rates and would help them escape the tsunami of debt currently flooding over them.

So the question arises once again; who has more say in what is and is not legal, the states themselves, which are much closer (and intrusive) to the individual citizen or the federal government?

A.W.R Hawkins looks at this issue today:

State governors -- looking down the gun barrel of long-term spending forced on them by the Obama “stimulus” plan -- are saying they will refuse to take the money. This is a Constitutional confrontation between the federal government and the states unlike any in our time.

In the first five weeks of his presidency, Barack Obama has acted so rashly that at least 11 states have decided that his brand of “hope” equates to an intolerable expansion of the federal government’s authority over the states. These states -- "Washington, New Hampshire, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, California...Georgia," South Carolina, and Texas -- "have all introduced bills and resolutions" reminding Obama that the 10th Amendment protects the rights of the states, which are the rights of the people, by limting the power of the federal government. These resolutions call on Obama to “cease and desist” from his reckless government expansion and also indicate that federal laws and regulations implemented in violation of the 10th Amendment can be nullified by the states.

This is a great battle and one that will not be fought diplomatically. The 10th Amendment was written to ensure that states retain their rights and to preclude the federal government from getting too strong and centralized. Previous skirmishes over this issue occurred during the days of the civil rights struggles and Bull Connor as well as other times throughout our nations history.

But this is something different; this is not a clear cut issue of racism or gay marriage. No, this is about the right of state executives to do what's best for their constituents even if the federal government usurps as much authority as possible. Governors Jindal, Palin and Sanford see that in the long run, parts of the stimulus will cost them enormous sums of money while parts of the bill will actually, you know, stimulate the economy. These new conservative leaders are ideologically opposed to the package thrown together by Speaker Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama and want nothing to do with it. Of course, there may be political reasons but everything Schumer does is political so why is he so ticked?

As Hawkins notes, the framers of the Constitution expressly gave the states rights that often times superecede the rights of the Republic when not expressly granted to the federal establishment.

11 states are signalling to President Obama that they take the 10th Amendment quite seriously. Will the Democrats in the Senate and Obama take up the battle or punt?