Spokane7
50°
January 26, 2010 in Opinion
Editorial: States’ rights bills waste lawmakers’ time, efforts
After the painful budget cuts of 2009, Washington and Idaho lawmakers are reconvening and contemplating more reductions. It’s serious business, but it is why they were elected. They were not sent to Olympia and Boise to second-guess the long history of federal court decisions that have formed the guidelines of federalism.
And yet some legislators think the time is ripe to erect sudden barriers to federal involvement. We’ve all heard the complaint about judges “legislating from the bench.” This must be the flip side, with state legislators stepping outside their jurisdictions and areas of expertise to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
We understand the arguments of 10th Amendment advocates as they seek to limit the federal government’s reach. We agree with some of their points and disagree with others. But it’s wrongheaded to pursue this through state legislatures. It’s as if Supreme Court justices demanded a seat at the table as legislators drew up their budgets.
State Rep. Matt Shea, R-Greenacres, is introducing a series of “sovereignty” bills that forbid the feds from imposing health care, firearms or environmental mandates. Sen. Jim Clark, R-Hayden, and Rep. Dick Harwood, R-St. Maries, are taking aim with similar bills in Idaho. Some of this is an attempt at “nullification,” meaning states could ignore laws they didn’t agree with.
But Congress has been given expansive powers to regulate commerce and impose laws based on interpretations of the Constitution by federal courts. The boundaries expand and contract as rulings are handed down. If citizens aren’t happy with those decisions or feel the Constitution is being ignored, the place to seek redress is the federal courts.
Tenth Amendment activists can proclaim their beliefs, but they won’t get anywhere if they can’t persuade the judiciary. Nor can states decide on their own to opt out of federal laws. The last time that happened, it started a civil war.
These bills are a waste of time. Even if they passed, they would still need to be submitted at some point to federal courts to determine whether they pass constitutional muster. This irony highlights the simple fact that this sovereignty show is taking place in the wrong arena.
To respond online, click on Opinion under the Topics menu at www.spokesman.com.
Trudy Rubin: Egyptians say no to Islamists 
gmorton on January 26 at 12:41 a.m.
While legislative resolutions declaring infringements of the 10th Amendment are not decisive, they are not a “waste of time” either, particularly if they lead to the State filing a challenge to such an infringement, or even an *amicus* brief supporting another state’s challenge.
It is much easier for federal judges to give the government a wave when they perceive that parties allegedly wronged are sitting silent on the sidelines.
Ninch on January 26 at 8:28 a.m.
The ongoing battle is between federalism (state rights) and nationalism (the Obama/liberal Dems agenda). Notably, Hitler and Mussolini gained their power with “nationalization” of their governments. Why would Americans from any location in our large geographic U.S. with its extensive diversity want a centralized national government that sees everything as “one-size-fits-all?” In striving for their “all-speed-ahead/damn-the torpedos” vision of equality, the Democratic-controlled federal government is in effect destroying “equity” in HEALTHCARE (all mandated to have insurance but do not have access to health care providers), EDUCATION (federal government takes away local control and mandates a singular approach that is NOT funded and IS NOT PROVEN to work), and ignores ENERGY sources (Obama’s cap and trade proposal actually penalizes the Northwest’s hydropower AND INCREASES OUR RATES.)
Citizen on January 26 at 11:24 a.m.
These so-called “sovereignty bills” are a complete waste of time in an area of well-settled law with long-established precedents. Our state and nation are facing historic budget deficits. Let’s not waste a single hour on this lame idea, especially not now with this budget crisis yet to be solved.
Federal law and precedents crush state law, when they conflict. The state has no power to change that. Our state legislature is the wrong venue in any event.
How did Shea make it through his Constitutional law class, if indeed he is an attorney? Surely he must know that his feel-good, fool’s mission appeal to tea partiers, has not a whit of merit as state legislation.
These bills deserve what they will get, a quick and merciful death.
builder_or_pyramids on January 26 at 1:49 p.m.
Federalism is a sharing of powers. If you want have a desire to pursue such a task. Contact your US Reps and Senators for resolutions, amendments and limitations on to be enacted to limit federal powers inclusive of downsizing certain departments which have over-sight over state entities.
The department of education has been argued as unnecessary. Should a national standard not be in place for relocation from one state to the next? What if an 11th grader arrives in Washington from say Arkansas with Washington’s equivalent of a 6th grade education? Does Washington honor Arkansas’s standard under their state rights?
The IRS should be done away with as the ‘tea baggers’ are claiming. Why these people don’t push for state’s to just simply pay the federal government a fee annually is beyond me. The IRS would collect from the state’s an apportioned tax. How the people of the state dictate the collection for the state to pay that bill now becomes a state question. The federal government also has a budget for completing its mandates to function.
To waste time in the capitals claiming to invoke or affirm other state type rights is a dead horse. Why are the politicians getting paid to kick it, when they are paid to clean stalls of the living creatures still in the barn?
I’m open to suggestions.
naturalair on January 26 at 6:40 p.m.
Well, how does the Spokesman Reviews editorial reporter become an expert on the Constitution? Representative Shea is a Constitutionally trained attorney so do you think he might just know a little more about this than a newspaper reporter does?
This articles’ opinion and several of the posts here are simply proof of the problem. Our state and all states in the union are sovereign. The attitude that we blindly serve the federal government has been wrongly placed in peoples minds over the years. There is a federal constitution and there is a state constitution.
Quick lesson-The Federal Constitution asserts our God given rights (the 2nd Amendment was smartly placed there to insure protection of the other nine). The 10th Amendment means basically that “if you think we forgot something, we didn’t.”
As Thomas Jefferson said, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
builder_or_pyramids on January 27 at 12:36 a.m.
Tim, are you one of those blind tea party people? Nice concept with no substance.
If things go right, we may have a chance to meet face to face.
I look forward to it personally.
Ken_Guidry on January 27 at 11:11 a.m.
The Spokesman suggests that citizens’ fighting for states ’ rights is a bad idea, and that legislators doing so is a waste of time. How dare we demand the federal government back down from its takeover of everything — for our own good. We are told that everything should be decided by the federal courts. Trust them, says the Spokesman.
We should trust the courts? Yep. Like in “Dred Scott”, there is a good one for civil rights. Or how about “Roe v. Wade”, there was a great decision for the right to life. Well heck, there are plenty to choose from. Why just this week, the Supreme Court handed down decisions striking down campaign finance reform, doing away with student’s free speech, and making it harder for citizen’s to challenge the government; all reversals of previous positions.
It seems we are required to believe there is no compelling interest for the federal courts to support federalism; less we be painted as fools. We should trust the courts. Oh, and the Spokesman…
jmeckel on January 29 at 12:35 p.m.
Our federal government supercedes our state laws, state laws trump county…..
This is the way of our government.
Instead of raising taxes, cutting programs and such, our law makers should take a reduction in pay. On the federal level, once they leave office they should NOT continue to recieve the same pay for the rest of their lives. Our President leaves office he shouldn’t continue to recieve the pay that he recieved while being President, same with the rest of the politicians.
If a normal person leaves a job they leave the pay and benefits.
Not so with the politicians in Washington, DC. They continue to recieve the same pay and benefits at the tax payers expense.
If we, the people, stood up and said “no more” we want that money to go to education, social security, medicare, and reformed healthcare, we wouldn’t have the budget problems we have today.
I want the same health care package they have, I want the same rights they have, and I want the lobbiest to get real jobs and quit protecting the big corporations.
mmspowaus on January 29 at 1:11 p.m.
Let’s get to the heart of the debate and dispense with the partisan blatherings. These are facts that are not in dispute.
a) Representative Shea is a duly elected member of the Washington State House of Representatives.
b) He was elected by an overwhelming majority of his peers in his distinct in 2008.
c) Matt Shea Esquire according to the Internet is a member if the State Bar in good standing and a graduate of constitutional law from Gonzaga University Law School.
d) Captain Shea served his nation as an Army officer in Iraq and was decorated.
e) The editors at the Spokesman Review were either hired or inherited their position at the paper.
f) The SR-editors strongly did not endorse Candidate Shea in 2008.
g) The SR-editors have not supported or endorsed any Rep. Shea sponsored legislation since he has assumed office.
It is unreasonable to suggest that Rep. Shea is a grandstanding politician as the Editorial Board at the Spokesman Review have endorsed in the recent past. (John Powers and Brad Stark come to mind). Rep. Shea in contrast along with other representatives has put his reputation and political career in harms way to emphasize the lines of demarcation of the federal and state jurisdictions as intended by the founding fathers of this great nation.
Is Rep. Shea unreasonably concerned about the entrenchment of the federal government into the jurisdiction of the States?
Every Obama era federal stimulus package allocated to the States came with several thick strings attached. Upon acceptance of Federal stimulus dollars, the States would surrender some of their sovereignty to the Federal government.
Either Rep. Shea is an alarmist or he is a rare hard working representative on the cutting edge of important issues and a Washington State Patriot of the likes we have not seen before.
By the end of this session of the Washington State House of Representatives perhaps we will know which is the real Matt Shea.
Lord on February 02 at 8:32 a.m.
There are some systemic, fundamental issues here that appear to be beyond the grasp. Over 200 years of accumulated tradition does not necessarily equal constitutionality. Some of the readers here simply assume that federal courts, more specifically the Supreme Court, has final say in everything we do, and that once they make a pronouncement it is written in stone. We have lost our way.
The preamble is the foundation of our U.S. Constitution, and the words “We the People” are the irreducible essence of that foundation. You might want to read it…several times. Let the words sink in.
It is unquestionably the right and the duty of the people to decide which rights and laws they choose to live under…which social contract they feel will best advance their liberty and their happiness. It has always been about, and was always intended to be about, “We the People.” And the will of the people is best expressed through their elected legislators, both federal and state.
In keeping with the Doctrine of Separation of Powers, all three branches have the right and the duty of constitutional review. And as a check and balance to federal power, so do the states. It must necessarily be so if we are to protect our liberties and be a government by the people.
I believe that an Imperious Supreme Court of unelected, life-tenured, agenda-driven justices has usurped and rendered impotent the Article 1 powers and duties delegated upon the legislative branch…the truest and most immediate voice of “We the People.” While we were sleeping, the Imperial Court has adopted to itself the habit of inferring rights and privileges into the Constitution that We the People chose not to, in order to advance their vision of what our social order ought to look like. This is expressly not their job. As it turns out, Thomas Jefferson’s remarks and concerns following the decision of Marbury v. Madison, were prophetic. The gradual erosion of the sovereignty of the people and of their liberties had its roots in those early years of the Republic.
We have lost our way.