In addition to my responsibilities here, I will occasionally be published at the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center’s blog. “What does the 17th Amendment have to do with the 10th Amendment?” is the name of the first post:

After much debate and discussion, the Founders agreed that the upper house of the bicameral legislature should be selected by the state legislatures. According to the History of the U.S. Senate, this provision encouraged states to ratify the Constitution. This established – by its very nature – a more deliberative body, sheltered from the whims of a fickle populace. Senators went to Washington to advocate on behalf of the States (individually, of course), not its people. The membership of the House of Representatives goes to Washington to represent the people.

Fast forward nearly a century and our states are now dramatically overburdened by federal mandates. Legislation like No Child Left Behind and the Real ID Act require states to spend countless millions of dollars complying with federal regulations with absolutely no federal support. Why are states subjected to these federal mandates? Because there is no one representing the States in Washington.

Keep an eye out for more content there and on other blogs.

The Tennessean editorial board published their opinion of Tennessee’s push to affirm its sovereignty under the 10th Amendment today. From the column:

Unfortunately, it appears that this movement is only a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the current administration in Washington. Also unfortunately, Tennessee has become a “leader” in this movement.

In June, the state House and Senate voted overwhelmingly for House Joint Resolution 108. It urges Congress to affirm Tennessee’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and to stop imposing mandates on the states, while vaguely referring to “proposals from previous administrations and some now pending … (that) may further violate the Constitution.”

The resolution led to creation of a special legislative committee, the Commercial Appeal reported last month, that voted to send letters to other state legislatures to invite them to join in a “working group” to “enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and to seek repeal of its assumption of powers.”

Heaven forbid the states work together in an attempt to restore the federal government to its constitutionally permissible role. The board demeans the “laundry list” of grievances outlined in the special committee established to investigate this matter.

What The Tennessean fails to mention is that this resolution passed overwhelmingly in both the House, where it received 85 “ayes,” and the Senate, where it received 31 “ayes.” From there, it was signed – in June – by the Governor, who is – the last time I checked – a Democrat.

What objection does The Tennessean have with states affirming their responsibilities under the 10th Amendment? After all, it was James Madison who wrote in Federalist No. 44:

What is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part [the necessary and proper clause] of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them…

I applaud the Tennessee General Assembly for working in a bi-partisan fashion to rebuke the federal government for its “usurpations” of power, and I hope that a trend emerges, whereby states meet to discuss these unconstitutional encroachments and work to remedy them. I applaud Governor Bredesen for recognizing the importance of this issue. Lastly, I applaud State Representative Susan Lynn, who has championed this cause in the House and has been a leader in this fight in Tennessee.

The question we should be asking ourselves is, “What is the proper role of government?”

They’re the only two governors who have signed resolutions affirming their respective state’s sovereignty:

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states’ sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: “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.”

Kudos to Phil!

Politico put a new spin on these resolutions reaffirming the 10th Amendment, which have been proposed in 35 states so far. Apparently in D.C. – they think that the next logical step after passing these types of resolutions is secession. Ben Smith writes:

Hendrik Hertzberg flags a Georgia state Senate resolution, which I also missed, that appears aimed at opening the door for secession.

In the case of “[f]urther infringements on the right to keep and bear arms,” says the resolution, “[A]ll powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government.”

This seems to be a bit of a trend: Oklahoma’s Legislature this week overrode Gov. Brad Henry’s veto to pass a “sovereignty” resolution, and similar moves are afoot in Georgia and South Carolina.

Some commentors on these various stories have suggested these resolutions are being proposed by Republicans who are upset with Obama’s victory in November; however, both Republicans and Democrats have sponsored and co-sponsored these resolutions – and they’re coming from both decidedly Red and overwhelmingly Blue states (Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, Washington, and Oregon – just to name a few).

The resolution proposed in Georgia has the strongest language I have seen so far, suggesting the relationship between the United States of America and the Several States be dissolved if the federal government does not acquiesce to the request of the state.

Hmmm.

RT: Kleinheider