| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| 30 Republican Congressmen Create '10th Amendment Caucus' |
| 2006-05-15 |
| Three House members sat down with HUMAN EVENTS this afternoon to discuss their vision for a newly formed Congressional Constitution Caucus. The goal of the caucus is to "ensure that the Federal government is operating under the intent of the Tenth Amendment of our Bill of Rights," according to the official mission statement. The Tenth Amendment says: "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." And so, Rep. Scott Garrett (R.-N.J.), the caucus' founder, along with Reps. Virginia Foxx (R.-N.C.) and Rob Bishop (R.-Utah) are heading up a team of House members dedicated to downsizing the amount of power usurped from the states by the federal government. After serving for a dozen years as a congressman at the state level Garrett said he realized how much the federal government was telling the states what they could and couldn't do. He said his primary reason for coming to Washington was to form a caucus to change that. Less than a month into its founding, the caucus has attracted nearly 30 members. Garrett has attempted to reach across party lines, but has yet to receive applications from Democrats. Still, he said he would like to see a bipartisan group come together. While Garrett spends time getting press coverage and promoting communication across the board, Foxx is focused on connecting with groups advocating similar interests outside congressional circles. And Bishop has been tasked with reaching out to other members and building awareness by speaking out on the House floor. Bishop said with a grin that his main strategy will be to "whine a lot" because "it seems to be very effective up here." On a more serious note, the congressman said he plans to first, explain to other members the premise behind the tenth amendment, emphasizing that while the federal government may have good intentions, much of its power should be turned back over to the states. In other words, the federal government should "simply do less." Second, Bishop said the caucus will help bills that promote its mission to move forward by coordinating floor discussions back to back. "We'll keep harping on the issue until [people] start to notice," he said. Garrett said that while they realize successs won't happen overnight the caucus has come up with some realistic immediate and long-term strategies for accomplishing its mission. Bills currently backed by the caucus include: 1. An education bill (H.R. 3449) sponsored by Rep. John Culberson (R.-Tex.) that would give states back control of their schools 2. Sunsetting bills (such as H.R. 1227) offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R.-Tex.) and others that would allow for an evaluation and termination of government programs that are no longer useful. 3. And a bill that would limit the duration of Federal consent decrees to which state and local governments are a party (H.R. 1229) sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.) Foxx said she doesn't think people can be educated enough about the limited powers given the federal government by the constitution. It's main focus was not supposed to be programs such as welfare and medicaid. "The number one role of the federal government is defense of the nation," she said. "We've lost sight of that." Instead of attacking the problem in a piecemeal fashion, one of their primary goals should be to get an appropriation for a study of exactly *where* the federal government has overstepped its authority. Rating the transgressions from 10 to 1, most serious to least serious, would change far more minds in the long run. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #11 You'll know if they are serious if they tackle the gross misuse of the interstate commerce clause. |
| Posted by: john 2006-05-15 20:17 |
| #10 Its almost like we need a third set of the legislative branch: one whose sole existence is to review ever law after 5 years and then dispose of it one of ways: 1) Leave as is, review again in 5 years. 2) Send it back to the house/senate with recommendations for non-binding changes - set to expire 4 years later with no further review if a new version is nto passed. 3) send it back to the house/senate with binding changes, and if not passed the law is sunset within 2 years. 4) Set a time limit in the law after which is will expire and be expunged (House and senate can renew to prevent it) - typiclaly 2 years to 3 years to shut the program law's programs down. 5) strike the law down, making it unenforcable immediately, this being overridable by a veto margin in either the house or senate, and a simple majority in the other chamber. All the above would be done with simple Majority + 1 voting, and every state would have 3 reps, term limited and elected at large, proportially from each state (i.e. the 3 biggest vote getters win - this gives "third party" like Libertarians and Greens a voice - but ONLY as a brake). Sometimes the ship of state needs to have the barnacles scraped off of it. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-15 16:32 |
| #9 2. Sunsetting bills (such as H.R. 1227) offered by Rep. Kevin Brady (R.-Tex.) and others that would allow for an evaluation and termination of government programs that are no longer useful. AKA: the Lead Balloon Bill. But at least someone's starting to say these things. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-05-15 13:41 |
| #8 #6&7 - Great points. I wonder if an individual, a political entity, or any group of citizens could file a greivance w/the govt stating that the very things you mentioned - drug laws, roe v. wade, etc., violates my/their 9th & 10th amendment rights? |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-15 13:00 |
| #7 That is one thing I have always wondered - what every happened to the 9th and 10th amendments? They seem to be very important for liberty, yet the Supreme Courts of the past 100 years have trampled on them. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X 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. These amendments speak VERY strongly to the primacy of the People as the soruce and owner of ALL rights, and the limits on the federal government to affect them. The whole of the drug laws, rulings like Roe V Wade, etc - and a lot of the interstate commerce powers expansion fo fed government - seem to be gross violations of those amendments. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2006-05-15 12:39 |
| #6 It's no different from the Solomon Amendment that was just up before the Supreme Court. It's very simple. Don't take monies from the federal government and you don't have to dance to the piper. The expansion of federal power parallels the expansion of the federal treasury. ThereÂ’s a reason for that. The only real solution is to cut back on the power/money that the federal government has. No one wants to really do that because they benefit directly or indirectly from the situation. And do you really think that the pols would actually cut out large programs leaving only the truly necessary pre-30s functions of the federal government in tack? Show me in the same Constitution which these fellows cite where is Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Education? TheyÂ’re now part of the compact between the people and its government and are not going away. And since they are not going away, neither is the vast sums of money that the national government has to pull the strings of the states. |
| Posted by: Angaing Speamp1215 2006-05-15 11:42 |
| #5 I agree 'moose, but it's still a good first step. The U.S. govt' needs to quit micro-managing the states - a sign of any good boss. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-15 11:08 |
| #4 "Instead of attacking the problem in a piecemeal fashion, one of their primary goals should be to get an appropriation for a study of exactly *where* the federal government has overstepped its authority. Rating the transgressions from 10 to 1, most serious to least serious, would change far more minds in the long run." Agreed, but where to begin? We'd pretty much have to scrap the entire Federal Code. Hey, not a bad idea..... |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-05-15 10:50 |
| #3 I'm all for it. State's rights are non-exsitant nowdays. The states gave 'em all away for federal money. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-05-15 10:49 |
| #2 Its a step in the right direction. Hopefully more will sign on. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2006-05-15 10:45 |
| #1 Makes too much sense. It'll scare congress. Not a snowball's chance in hell. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-05-15 10:24 |