data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3e512/3e51228a1251e1c0947a038f618b8302c97ff6dd" alt=""
This article goes on to explain that the states are concerned about unfunded mandates (i.e. No Child Left Behind), where the Feds demand the states meet certain goals, but don’t provide enough funding for them to be met, leading to shortfalls which the states must make up out of their own budgets.
And though the article also says “Contrary to the fantasies of some extremists, these sovereignty bills are not the first step towards secession or splitting up the union…”, I can’t help but notice the similarities between South Carolina’s latest resolution:
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
TO AFFIRM SOUTH CAROLINA'S SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION OVER ALL POWERS NOT ENUMERATED AND GRANTED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION…
Be it further resolved that all governmental agencies, quasi-governmental agencies, and their agents and employees operating within the geographic boundaries of the State of South Carolina, or all governmental agencies and their agents and employees, whose actions have effect on the inhabitants or lands or waters of the State of South Carolina, shall operate within the confines of the original intent of the Constitution of the United States or be subject to penalty of law as provided for now or in the future, within the Constitution of South Carolina, the South Carolina statutes, or the common law as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
…and their earlier one:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the constitution of the United States by the federal government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the states, fully justified this state in then withdrawing from the Federal Union.
Wouldn’t it be really ironic if Obama had to preside over a second Civil War?
No comments:
Post a Comment