Utah Tenth Amendment Center
If you read Think Progress’s article by Ian Millhiser you may think so. The article is even listed under “Radical Right-Wing Agenda” to help readers understand how radical Lee’s interpretation is. Reading the many comments on the article most of the Think Progress readers accept the authors’ view. What is left out is key to understanding what helped create a country of citizens living more free than any other in history. Federalism is not radical; it is painted by progressives that way to help mask just how regressive their philosophy of governing truly is.
Before looking deeper into the commentary itself it is important to see just how accurate the author is. The first indicator the author may not be too concerned with accuracy beyond his views is a simple confusion on the date this video was posted. Mr. Millhiser begins his attack, and it is an attack, by stating, “Last week, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) posted a lecture on his YouTube channel where he explains in great detail his views on the Constitution.” His article was posted Jan. 11, 2011. Clicking the link to the video shows it was posted on Jan. 04, 2010 as he was beginning his campaign for the U.S. Senate in Utah. Where was the claim of radicalism a year ago?
More important than understanding this convenient error is the complete error of understanding federalism, the 10th Amendment, and our U.S. Constitution. According to the many progressives the Constitution has a “failed…vision” which Millhiser even falsely claims led to the Great Depression. If we are to accept the progressive vision our Constitution would support a return to times of child labor and worse. There is nowhere in their vision to consider people and States being responsible enough to maintain important laws. We must believe only a strong national government ruling beyond the Constitution is capable of maintaining such laws. Should Sen. Lee, by upholding his Oath of Office, help in restoring proper separation of powers progressives want everyone to believe we would return to the dark ages?
Millhiser further attacks as radical the idea Lee put forward regarding the unconstitutionality of federal minimum wage laws, Social Security, Medicare, and whites-only lunch counters. An interesting note on this typical attack on the Constitution is a failure to mention it was the Supreme Court ruling in Plessy v. Fergusun (163 U.S. 537,1896) that allowed the segregation to continue for so long.
Economic damages created by the federal government telling employers who they can hire and how much they can pay a person has a great deal of empirical data proving it stifles the economy while helping very few and driving up unemployment. FDR’s vision of a retirement and medical insurance program has been so abused by progressive politicians it is in deep trouble. The national government is not good at business or social insurance, nor was it ever meant to be.
No matter how much social engineering proponents want to trash the Constitution, and those who embrace their Oath of Office to uphold it, the fact is Sen. Lee and other staunch originalists are not radical, they are right. FDR and all those before and after him, including Mr. Millhiser, simply chose to either ignore the true meaning of federalism or never understood it in the first place. What is radical is the economic destruction the national government imposes on all citizens as an on-going attempt to convert our republic based on free enterprise into a democracy based on social manipulation.
What is labeled as radical tenther views surrounding states’ right blinds too many from learning our original structure. First, the 10th Amendment is the keystone for maintaining control of the national government by the governed. States created the national government because a free society of unified States requires a strong national government that is good at a few things. In his booklet “Where’s the Line?” Utah Rep. Ken Ivory outlines the 37 enumerated powers we need a strong national government to be very good at to help maintain liberty.
Beyond this it is not the rights of states, this is an inaccurate name dating to the Calhoun era, but the responsibility of States to work with the people living in the State for areas such as child labor, education, and other areas impacting daily lives. People are further responsible locally and personally to treat each other equally and with dignity. Because we have had periods in our history where we failed to do this does not automatically mean we should throw out the system of liberty for one of strong national control beyond constitutional powers.
If we believe the national government should have powers not currently granted under the Constitution progressives believe it is best to ignore the Constitution and create unconstitutional laws, especially if the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold those unconstitutional laws. Sen. Lee, based on his speech and his record, believes what many freedom loving citizens believe and that is we must uphold our Constitution by maintaining the separation of powers and requiring States to take on their responsibility while allowing the national government to do what it can do best. Should it be decided the national government needs additional powers there is an amendment process to alter our Constitution.
For better or worse we have 17 examples, beyond the first 10 amendments, of this process. If the national government is to be the source for child labor laws let an amendment to the Constitution be put in place to properly give them that responsibility. Until then it is the States’ responsibility. The Commerce Clause does not change this responsibility. The Supremacy Clause does not change this; laws are only supreme when they are made pursuant to the powers allowed in the Constitution. Mr. Millhiser does not want anyone who reads his article to search beyond the fear of some instantaneous return to sweatshops and segregation should we once again return to our Constitution.
However, when it comes to being radical Mr. Millhiser may actually have a point. Initially reading his article it was his views that appeared radical. Remembering radical is defined as extreme changes is accepted or traditional forms of doing things we are living in a time when unconstitutional, national government control has become accepted and traditional. In this respect Sen. Lee, and all of us who want proper roles of government restored, are radical. Yet, are you ready to accept a progressive’s belief life under the U.S. Constitution would be radical?
Gary Wood is the Educational Advisor for the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. Co-founder of the Heritage Training Center, focused on helping end constitutional illiteracy. With 35 years of devoted study of our Constitution his desire is to help others rediscover the inspiring heritage of the United States. Radio show host, training officer, lifetime member of the VFW and most importantly Grandpa.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Tenther Radio Archives
"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 © 2013 by Utah Tenth Amendment Center
Marcus, this is a great point. Relying on a court, often one that disagrees to a split of 5-4, to tell us what is and is not constitutional is a main source of the challenges we face. Liberals and conservatives are both equal partners in growing the general government beyond the limits it was to be chained to and the courts are a part of the problem, not the solution. States must quit putting together legislative directives that they view will end up in court to settle matters. If it is not enumerated in the Constitution that is the line that must be drawn and no court can move the line. I fully embrace the information Ken Ivory has written in his Where's the Line concept which people can read at http://wherestheline.info
Courts are not the end all decision makers people accept them to be. Thanks for sharing your insights and stirring some good thoughts on the root challenge we face. A quick reminder to all of us would be the States are sovereign nations and the general government is simply operated under an agreement between each sovereign nation.
There are many good points that are postulated in this article. I do believe that states rights have been taken for years at the expense of our local ability to control our destiny. However, I believe that Conservatives and Liberals are both to blame for the added strength in Federal powers. Lets take a look at the court system, for example….We argue that rights should be more centralized, pardon the pun, to the state. Right? However, for example, many have argued that the recent overturning of the gun law in Washington DC constitutes a federal obstruction of local rights. In essence, the very act of bringing a lawsuit to the courts lends more power to the federal government to rule over our local lives. Now, many people would say that that particular DC law was unconstitutional and nothing, not even state rights, should overturn the constitution. That is correct! However, to play devils advocate, the same federal supreme court that overturned the gun legislation has also ruled in favor of abortion rights centered on the mother's decision and not taking into account some fetal rights; overstepping state rights to interpret the limits and strengths of abortion. My point is that both Conservatives and Liberals have relied so heavily in the courts to push their particular agenda that every liberal or conservative case has added to the increase in federal power over our lives. Both have added to this adverse legal society. My wish would be to "radically" change things and allow people to choose, or their elected representatives, what they deem constitutional or not. This would mean that there will be states where a Utah Republican would disagree with a Democrat or vice versa, but it would allow the states to be their own laboratory for what they interpret the Constitution to mean. The simple fact is that we all have differing opinions of what the constitution means…….lending more perceived and actual power to our federal Government by bringing lawsuits for every adversarial action only hurts our argument to have a more limited federal government.