States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry of Resistance for Lawmakers
By KIRK JOHNSON
NYT
Whether it’s a correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights — or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing — are on a roll.
Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.
On Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state. The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.
In Utah, lawmakers embraced states’ rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
(More here.)
NYT
Whether it’s a correctly called a movement, a backlash or political theater, state declarations of their rights — or in some cases denunciations of federal authority, amounting to the same thing — are on a roll.
Gov. Mike Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican, signed a bill into law on Friday declaring that the federal regulation of firearms is invalid if a weapon is made and used in South Dakota.
On Thursday, Wyoming’s governor, Dave Freudenthal, a Democrat, signed a similar bill for that state. The same day, Oklahoma’s House of Representatives approved a resolution that Oklahomans should be able to vote on a state constitutional amendment allowing them to opt out of the federal health care overhaul.
In Utah, lawmakers embraced states’ rights with a vengeance in the final days of the legislative session last week. One measure said Congress and the federal government could not carry out health care reform, not in Utah anyway, without approval of the Legislature. Another bill declared state authority to take federal lands under the eminent domain process. A resolution asserted the “inviolable sovereignty of the State of Utah under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.”
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Consider this argument on House floor :
One of the insidious results that will come from this bill is to take away from the States the right they have to regulate education. That is given to them by the Constitution.
Since the U.S. Constitution was first ratified, the Federal Government has slowly, steadily and corrosively eroded the notion of States' rights and of our individual liberties. Nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the Federal Government to override States' rights.
I believe the Federal Government has historically limited its reach into private schools, and it would be a mistake to start applying new Federal mandates to independent schools that do not receive taxpayer funding. I also believe that we do not protect schools by empowering trial lawyers.
= = = =
Contrast that with Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4247, the Keeping All Children Safe Act, and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.
When is it appropriate to lock up or tie up a child, or handcuff a child to a desk? Common sense tells us these extreme measures should not ever be used against children with autism or Down syndrome or other learning disabilities. Yet the truth is there are thousands of incidents reported involving the inappropriate use of seclusion and restraint. Reports by the National Disability Rights Network, GAO, and others reveal that our children are at risk for serious injury and even death in the school setting.
The bill we are considering today outlines minimum standards that must be included in guidelines issued by the Department of Education. States then have the flexibility to determine how best to proceed. For the 10 States that already have comprehensive policies, all they need to do is show what they have already done. For the other States, the law will put in motion a review of current practices and a chance to put in place adequate guidelines. I would like to emphasize that these are guidelines. These are standards, like parents should be notified, that seclusion and restraints should only be used as a last resort, that training needs to be given to staff. I believe more often than not staff don't even know how to respond. And I would also like to emphasize that there is no private cause of action. This bill is not opening up all these lawsuits.
There are some that believe this is an unprecedented expansion of Federal authority, but I disagree. The Federal Government is involved in the schools. The Federal Government is the one that mandated that every child should have access to an education, including those with special needs. When we enacted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, we committed to ensuring that children with special needs have access to a free, appropriate public education. This bill ensures those children, as well as all students, are safe.
= =
The first comments were from the arguments lead by John Kline (R-MN-02), the Ranking Republican on the committee that wrote the legislation.
The second comment was from another Republican … who was on the same committee, had seniority before Mr. Kline leapfrogged her to become the Ranking member.
Sad to say, that the 10th Amendment argument would be used when the issue was the necessity to establish standards to protect school children. In Texas and in California alone, the GAO found there were over 33,000 reported incidents of restraint or seclusion during the school year of 2007-2008.
Even sadder, Mr. Kline successfully convinced Michelle Bachmann and Erik Paulsen that the 10th Amendment argument should prevail over protecting children.
The legislation was approved despite Mr. Kline’s efforts.
Post a Comment
<< Home