DENNIS CLAYSON, For The Courier | Posted: Sunday, April 19, 2009 12:00 am
What is the relationship between the queen of England and the U.S. Constitution?
Both are symbols of a time long past, when queens and kings had power and the Constitution actually modified the power of the federal government.
Both embody an idea of what the nation thinks it is and what the relationship is between culture, history and the state.
Like any symbol, they both have power to provoke emotions, and maybe even dreams of times long past, but both are now powerless icons, stripped of all authority and power.
There is one dramatic difference. The Brits are well aware that the queen has no actual power, but Americans like to pretend that the Constitution is still the law of the land.
As an example, the 10th Amendment 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."
What a hoot!
This seems to be suggesting that the federal government cannot exercise any power not given to it by the Constitution.
Everyone who works at the Department of Education must be laughing all the way from the Potomac to their cul-de-sacs in Virginia.
The Department of Education Web site tells the story: a new $109 million dollar program, another $44 billion available for something else and "The President's Plan for Education."
The Constitution doesn't give the feds, including Obama, any authority to educate anyone. Perhaps educating military officers or training certain officers could be acceptable, but that is about it.
Does Congress or the DOE care about that? Not a bit. If the Supreme Court won't go through the motions of redefining the Constitution, then the feds simply increase taxation and use the money as a bribe. It's very simple. If the federal government wants to control education, nationwide speed limits, blood alcohol limits or the calories in your Sunday dinner, they simply create a pot of money and then refuse to give a state any of this money until they "comply."
Since state governments are just as greedy as any other government, most cave in and let the feds run their schools (or whatever) as long as they keep receiving the money.
One state is finally fed up with all this. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said last week, "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, D.C., trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
So the state legislature has introduced a resolution demanding that the feds actually follow the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state," Gov. Perry said. "I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our Union."
The resolution cuts right to the heart of the matter. It states that federal proposals, which are not within the federal government's constitutionally designated powers, impede the states' right to govern themselves.
It demands that all federal extortion be ended. "RESOLVED, That all compulsory federal legislation that directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited or repealed�"
I can just hear the feds in Washington. "Isn't that quaint? Those Texans are so amusing. Hey, what's the angle on this anyway, is one of those hicks running for office or something?"
No modern federal official would believe that these Texans are for real.
So the Constitution is no longer relevant to the federal government. It rarely constrains any action that presidents, congresspersons, secretaries of this-and-that, ranking bureaucrats or even low-ranking operatives want to do.
The Constitution is no threat, but evidently "right-wing extremists" are. The Department of Homeland Security warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists." Evidently, there are some people who want a Constitution with more force than a European 21st century queen and they, and certain returning war veterans, are a threat to be watched carefully.
So, what is the difference between the queen of England and the U.S. Constitution? Well � the queen is still alive.