Issue Position: States' Rights and Sovereignty

Issue Position

There can be little doubt that the power and arm of the Federal Government has grown well beyond what our Founding Fathers intended at its conception. Their first attempt at a centralized government in the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Their second attempt--which we are now under--is proving to be too strong. It continues to grow in size and scope by the day, and has taken on a life of its own. Indeed, at some point in the future our country may be forced to hold yet another Constitutional Convention to address this issue. If this occurs, and it would be no small feat if it did, perhaps the third time would be the charm, finally establishing a government structure that is "just right." Don't get me wrong, what our Founding Fathers put in place was the greatest government the world has ever seen. It was both revolutionary and visionary for its time, something we probably take for granted today. Perhaps it was "just right" at its conception. Unfortunately, we are now seeing the repercussions of 200 years of tugging at the delicate strands of fabricate that comprise(d) that Republican tapestry.

The power of the Federal Government to levy a tax, particularly on income (thanks to the 16th Amendment), has given it manipulative power over the states via the purse strings. This is not right. The Feds are able to get around the limitations given to it in the Constitution by dangling financial carrots in front of the states. Which governor or legislature is going to turn down billions of federal dollars? What State is finally going to stand up to the Federal Government?

The leverage of the states is weakened further because they no longer have real representation in the U.S. Senate. The passage of the 17th Amendment, which transferred Senator election from each state's legislature to popular election by the people of each state, severely weakened the power of state legislatures. Unfortunately, I suspect the voting public would not readily give up the power of direct selection. After all, who wouldn't want to have a direct say? But can you imagine the kind of response a constituent might get from their U.S. Senator if, instead of calling them up directly, as merely one of the millions of voters the Senator has to worry about, they called up their three state legislators, who represent three of the 90 who make up the U.S. Senator's constituency? Three out of 90 is much more potent than one out of millions. And, in all likelihood, those three legislators would gather more of their legislator-friends and become a force the U.S. Senators would have no choice but to reckon with. The average voter would actually be better off under this type of system, even if they felt slighted that they no longer get to directly vote for their state's two U.S. Senators. State legislators are much more accessible than U.S. Senators, which is actually by design: U.S. Senators were to represent the States (whereas the U.S. House of Representatives is the chamber that represents the people directly). If elected, I would aggressively pursue both of our U.S. Senators to come in and report to the Legislature. Yes, "report" is the appropriate word. They are supposed to represent us after all. I can count on one hand the number of times our U.S. Senators came down to the Legislature during the eight years I worked there, and not once was it to "report" on anything that was happening back in D.C.

One way or another, though, we need to put a stop to the Federal intrusion onto State sovereignty.

Source