Utah Gets Uppity
By Christian Probasco, 3-06-10
 |
|
 | |
| The West shall rise again! | |
|
Utah’s current legislative session is and has been considering a number of bills which would limit the federal government’s powers under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. To whit:
A bill which would allow Utah to opt out of federal health care.
A bill recently signed by the Governor Gary Herbert mirroring an earlier law passed by (Montana) exempting guns made and kept in Utah from federal regulations.
A bill allowing Utah to use eminent domain authority to improve access to its school trust holdings through federal lands.
A joint resolution which “strongly urges Congress and the President to refrain from exercising authority related to the individual states beyond that granted by the states in the Constitution of the United States and declares the state’s sovereignty.”
A bill which would restrict the authority of federal law enforcement officers on state and county land, inspired in part by a recent federal raid in Blanding for Indian artifact trafficking.
Additionally, a bill introduced by Rep. Mike Noel which “condemns the federal denial of all R.S. 2477 rights across federally managed lands and encourages state and local government agencies to seek federal recognition of their land rights” passed the House and is being considered by the Senate.
Some of the legislation is non-binding and some of it is going to face legal challenges. Many observers from outside Utah are asking, “Where is the legislation coming from?” and “why now?”
It’s coming from members of the Patrick Henry Caucus , the Utah 9.12 State’s Rights Coalition and Utah’s Grassroots Alliance. And it’s coming from legislators reading what the Tea Party and their constituents have written all over the wall.
“Why now?” is a great question because the federal government isn’t growing as fast now, nor impinging on states’ rights nearly as much as it was under Bush II. The obvious answer is that there’s a Democrat in the White House, and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.
It’s important to note that not every Utah politician can hear the wail of the Tea Party. Representative Jim Matheson probably doesn’t understand any of this. Senator Bob Bennett who supported the $700 billion financial bailout and coauthored a bill for mandatory health care, has been targeted by the Tea Party and the Club for Growth. House Majority Leader Dick Armey’s group FreedomWorks is endorsing Republican challenger Mike Lee for Bennett’s Senate seat. Representative Joe Cannon--moderate on immigration but not much else--faced a similar challenge from the right last year. Now Jason Chaffetz is sitting in his seat.
Meanwhile, as if to prove they could be just as onerous as the federal government they want off their backs, legislators introduced H.B. 150 , which would allow prosecutors to bypass a warrant when seeking personal information from internet service providers and cell phone companies in cases involving suspected felonies, as well as “cyber-stalking” and “cyber-harassment.” The bill flopped in the House last month by a vote of 41-33, but there’s been talk of reviving it.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Despite Lincoln's good intentions, and good results, what he did was illegal. The confederacy had every right to secede, and legally he should have let them, at least as far as I read the constitution. It seems to me that he did the right thing anyway, but we don't know how it would have played out if he hadn't. Dependence and cheap labor was killing the southern economy, it is just as likely that they would have soon ended slavery due to economic conditions and reconciled back to the union without the bloodshed.
My argument for states rights is that state representatives are more directly accountable to the people who elect them. D.C. and the deals that are made there are a long ways away. Where I live in Idaho it really isn't that hard to go legislative session and pitch your case. You don't need to hire a professional lobbyist, you just need to make an appointment. My Mom, and friends have influenced legislation just by caring a little bit. There is no chance that would have happened in Washington. The more power the Federal government takes to itself, the less chance there is for that local voice to be heard.
I am a small government advocate, I advocate for a smaller federal government, but I also advocate for a smaller state, county and city government. Big government advocates have their shot in the local scene as well, and in the states they prevail the government would look different than it would where people with my ideals prevail. Issues such as civil rights may very well still need to be controlled by the federal government, but I still believe that the 10th amendment is a good one, and until it is repealed I think the states ought to push those limits for a while and really see where they are.
1) The states' rights banner was raised again in the 1950s and 1960s when the federal government had to intervene in southern civil rights cases to protect minority civil rights guaranteed under the same Constitution that you and your tea party friends now misrepresent. In the South, the whole concept of states' rights is merely code-speak for WASP hegemony, which is easier to enforce at the local and state levels than at the federal level.
2) In the West, states' rights is now code-speak for defiance of the federal government in the areas of environmental protection, public lands policy, and resource law. It's no coincidence that southern Utah is both a hotbed in these fights and proudly calls itself "Dixie" as a region. This western "Dixie" also happens to be a focus for the racist beliefs known as "Adamic Lineage" and "Progressive Divinity" along with polygamy, which also has racist foundations.
3) The states' rights movement variants known as Wise Use, the County Movement, and the Sagebrush Rebellion are all founded on the protection of local white "custom and culture" from outside and federal influences that would grant a voice and a stake to minorities within those local areas and thus, again, threaten WASP hegemony. You need only take a look at the record of opinions voiced by Jim Catron, a hero of the County Movement, on the protecting celtic/gaelic cultural influences to see the racial overtones in that movement.
4) The ideological underpinnings of the tea party movement itself harken back to the ideology of the Pat Buchanan "culture wars" speech at the GOP national convention in 1992.
I wouldn't be slinging around so much bull about other people's ignorance and/or ability for cogent thought if this has to be explained to you, Boggsy Boy.
By the way, Thomas Jefferson, godfather of states' rights, was a hypocritical pedophile who repeatedly violated the rights of Sally Hemmings, an underage black girl, in the most detestable manner possible.
The states rights issues was in fact first raised by the men insisting on a bill of rights. The first ten amendments were--all and each--intended to limit the strength of the federal government.
Since then they have been used to justify the limiting of individual liberties by every level of governance.
The last three comments (above) provide examples of these efforts.
History is replete with examples of efforts--ever since the end of the War with Great Britain--to justify limitations of human rights by appealing to states rights.
As a matter of fact it is pretty easy to make a case for our Bill of Rights being--instead of a defense of individual rights--an effort to protect privilege for the gentlemen farmers, merchants, and professional who pretty much called the tunes after the Revolution.
Perhaps you would care to post an actual example of that protection of individuals.
The Bill of Rights are clearly nothing more than a defense of privilege--a defense of the system from the Federal government.
Your simply saying that offers protection for individual rights does not make it true.
Anyone can cherry pick their anecdotes, and Mike seems to be the king of that. I will never convince some people that my standing is correct, and that is likely how it should be. A multiplicity of ideas was the central idea behind the 1st amendment, and it was maybe the smartest thing the founding fathers ever did.
RACIST: 1. Slang: Extremely Disparaging and Offensive term for a white person. 2: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities, if promoted by white people. 3: a belief that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, if promoted by white people.
You sound like teenagers who insist that they can get along without the parents help, and then call home for rent money. Grow UP
Public lands are what make our country great and unique.
I am a convert to loving the idea of public land. I like being able to roam the woods. However, I don't confuse federal land for tax and income producing private and state land. Nothing comes for free.