On the subject of good hair and states' rights

I recently found myself involved in a discussion on Facebook about an article pillorying Governor Good-Hair (Governor Rick Perry for those not in-the-know) for a couple of unrelated comments he has made over the past few weeks. The comments were taken out of context and then linked to show a supposed inconsistency in his stances. Basically, it is trying to say that he wants to refuse the US government on one hand, but wants their help on the other. I found this article to be just a BIT disingenuous. I mean, go after him on real issues or corruption, there are plenty of things to talk about; there is no need to manufacture them.

The discussion has covered a lot of tangential points, so I will need to break this up into three different blog posts:

I. GGH’s comments and the 10th Amendment

II. The 14th Amendment versus the 10th Amendment

III. GGH’s refusal to take the government stimulus money – A good or bad choice?

Part 1: States Rights and SUCH Great Hair!

Personally, I see no contradiction between GGH's stance against accepting stimulus cash and his request that a portion of the nation's stockpile of flu vaccine to be sent to Texas to combat the spread of swine flu as far as, and this is important so please pay attention to this, the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution is concerned. I am not saying he is correct to refuse the cash (although, in general, I do not like the idea of creating temporarily funded entitlement programs. They are historically difficult to end). I am just saying that his two comments are not inconsistent, although there are pundits who would like you to believe that they are and that he is an idiot.


(Ok, they are right about that second part.)

This argument is all about the 10th Amendment, which states, "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."

GGH stated that he believed the federal government was overstepping its bounds by trying to force states to create entitlement programs for which there are limited funds. He then went on to say that if the government kept doing it, he wasn't sure what the outcome would be, but secession was possible. Now, he didn't say that Texas WOULD secede; he just said it was possible. He was wrong; it isn't possible . . . at least, not legally. But he was right that the 10th Amendment limits the powers of the central government and that they are overstepping their bounds.

Certainly some amount of political grandstanding is involved here. The government has been violating the 10th Amendment for a century now. But his real point was that if Texas, or any other state, accepts this money and creates these programs, the state and its taxpayers will still be on the hook for funding these programs in 10 years when the federal funding ends. This is especially tough on states like Texas that don't have state income tax. We will have to raise our sales tax (which is a tax on the poor just as much as the rich), institute a state income tax, or allow the entitlement to go unfunded. This is a federal government demand on state taxpayers. This is not allowed under the 10th Amendment. If you look at what the federal government is allowed to do under the Constitution it is pretty much just entering into international treaties, creating a currency, raising a military, and regulating international and interstate trade. That's it. There have been some expansions of the federal government’s powers over the years, but forcing the state to create programs is not one of them. Certainly forcing states to tax their citizens to fund programs they didn't want or vote for is not a right granted to the federal government.

His second comment was in regard to flu vaccines. He requested that a portion of the national stockpile be made ready for distribution in Texas. He didn't ask for the government to pay for it (the individual does that) and he didn't ask the government to force people to take it. He asked that it be made available. This does not violate the 10th Amendment. In fact, the federal government isn't doing anything; the state of Texas is. Texas doesn't have a stockpile of flu vaccine so they need to get them from somewhere. The government has a stockpile, so the state is requesting some be made available. I see nothing wrong with that from a Constitutional standpoint. I mean, when you need bread you go to a baker, right? If you need a boat-load of vaccine you go to the place that has the product you need in numbers sufficient to your need. No 10th Amendment issue there. Again, the federal government isn't doing anything at all, the state is. If the federal government was forcing Texas to take the stockpile against their will you would have a 10th Amendment violation on your hands.

So, to sum up, he is not against the US or the federal government; he is not against the relationship between the state and the federal government; and he is not arguing out of both sides of his mouth in some sort of inconsistent manner. He is attempting, poorly, to bring focus back on the 10th Amendment and the rights and roles attributed to each layer of government.

Well, that and he is trying to make a name for himself on the national scene. I can only hope he fails.

NEXT UP!!! The 14^th Amendment and the 10^th Amendment