Saturday, December 02, 2006

False Hope

In Stateline article entitled "States Hope for a Better Deal in New Congress" we find the following:

State lawmakers of both parties will be looking for relief from some federal policies imposed on states under the GOP’s watch, including expensive new rules for driver’s licenses and education mandates under the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, a growing number of state policies targeting illegal immigration and global warming will put pressure on new Democratic leaders in Congress to answer states’ calls for greater federal involvement.

This much I mostly agree with - although the sad truth is most states do not actually seek to remove the Federal Government from areas that belong to the states, rather they seek Federal dollars to carry out various Federal mandates.

Here is the most asinine statement anyone could possibly make on the issue of states' rights -

While the Republican Party traditionally was known as a supporter of states’ rights, it hasn't lived up to that reputation since taking control of Congress and the White House.

Has the ideology of the Party of Lincoln really changed so much as to actually make a supporter of states' rights? Name one piece of legislation in the last 40 years, sponsored or supported by the GOP, that actually supports and defends states' rights. The silence is overwhelming...

State leaders hope the turnover in Washington, D.C., will stanch what they describe as an unprecedented expansion of federal power over states during the term of President Bush, a former Texas governor.

"You know, it's the Republican Party that always talks about states' rights and the federal government having less to say about it. But on so many important issues it hasn't been that way," said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D).

Ok, tell us something we don't already know - but don't expect us to actually believe the Democratic Party is for states' rights either. The party of the New Deal and the Great Society, the party that covets the power of the 14th Amendment more than the air we breath, the party of social programs and socialism - no I think they are no fans of states' rights.

Americans that love their homes and their states, the traditional repository of government loyalty and citizenship, must do away with the notion that either party is actually for states' rights. We must either usurp the leadership of one or both of these parties or (better yet) focus on electing right-minded states' rights supporters to our governors' mansions and state houses (regardless of party). Once we have states that actually stand up for their rights, the wishes and whims of the Federal Government can be made moot.

States' Rights Do Have a Price

From Homeland Stupidity - it seems States' Rights can be had, for a price:

So the only objection left now is paying for the federal government’s intrusion into states’ rights. How much are our states’ rights going for these days? There is no real consensus, but studies range from claiming that the increased federal funding more than pays for its requirements to Rep. Rubén Hinojosa’s (D-Texas) claim that there will be a $39 billion shortfall.

So the states will sell their rights for $39 billion. But will anything change?

Education

From a letter submitted to the Hillsboro Free Press

In this election season, I would like to think we have figured out how to fund schools for the year. But No Child Left Behind, which has been proven a nuisance and an impossible goal to reach, is still threatening to take away school funding.

It is stupid that Kansas has let the national government play keep away with money that is to be used for education.

Kansas has done its share of work figuring out how to spend state money on schools and found a neutral number. Now it is time that we stepped up and reminded the national government about the 10th Amendment, which reserves power for the states to control education.

Don't get me wrong. It is great that the national government is giving the schools some funding, but it is wrong to attach strings such as NCLB.

It is about time for states to stand up for states rights and take control of education.

Alex Drake

Goessel

States' Rights in Australia

It seems it took Australian centralist only 80 years to destroy the concept of States' Rights - that would parallel US History.

The constitution was drafted to establish strong states to work with a weaker central government. This held true for the first two decades of our Federation as the High Court favoured state power and protected state responsibility over areas such as industrial relations.

For the states, the WorkChoices case was lost as far back as 1920. In that year the High Court in the engineers case swept aside the earlier decisions and discarded any idea of a balance between federal and state power. The idea of "federal balance", like "states rights", became a constitutional heresy. Today, they are nothing more than political slogans. Read More...