In a time of federal bailouts for corporations, aid to homeowners who are facing trouble paying their mortgages, and budget plans that call for trillion dollar deficits, a segment of the American population has had enough. Clinging to their signs and cries of showing Washington that power still rested with the people, 800 locations around the country were the site of “tea parties” last week, denouncing the policies of President Barack Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress.
To supplement these protests, 24 states are considering legislation that would reargue the principles of the 10th amendment, the amendment to the U.S. Constitution that delegates all powers not given to the federal government to the states. This showdown over the concept of federalism has intrigued constitutional experts, as well as some voters, who are seeing Texas Governor Rick Perry arguing that Texas has a right to succession (although Perry later toned down those remarks).
This grassroots action against the D.C. establishment will be analyzed in this week’s topic brief, which might be useful to extempers competing in U.S. extemp at NFL. It may also be useful to extempers preparing for CFL, as the topic areas are slanted 5-3 in favor of U.S. issues. This week’s brief will break down these competing ideas, providing background for the tea parties and their purpose, the fight in state legislatures over sovereignty bills, and an evaluation of how these actions could impact the American political scene.
Tea Parties
Although ignored or disregarded by much of the mainstream media, the tea parties across the U.S. last week have been compared to the rallies in March 2006 in favor of immigration reform. Those protests involved an estimated 750,000 people. Numbers have been hard to nail down for tea parties, due to groups wanting to inflate the numbers for political reasons and the fact that its always tough to say what attracted people to attend these rallies, especially if a celebrity was present to support the cause.
The tea party movement got its beginnings two months ago when a Seattle blogger named Keli Carender expressed outrage over President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus bill. This outrage was supplemented by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who on the air called for a tea party in Chicago to protest the big government policies being perpetuated by the Obama administration, policies that Santelli claimed were providing a moral hazard for Americans who were irresponsible.
To be sure, the tea parties also saw some of the typical right-wing issues get argued for, such as pro-life stances on abortion. However, their bigger significance is that it does represent a movement among Americans, claiming to be across party lines, against the growing size of government and its intervention in American life. These complaints are only bound to grow now that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is set to take action to regulate greenhouse gases now that they have been classified as a danger to public health.
The tea party movement serves as a way for the American right to start having a voice in economic issues. The Republican Party has tried to accommodate this movement the most of the two parties in claiming to now oppose budget deficits and irresponsible spending, despite the fact that when they were in power such spending continued to climb. However, at the rallies there were several Republicans that argued that under President Bush deficits were going down gradually, but the sickening economy made them worse.
State Sovereignty Bills
Before the tea parties, though, state governments have already tried to argue that their rights under the U.S. Constitution are being violated. States have often lost these constitutional battles with the federal government. New Deal legislation gradually impeded upon state sovereignty in the 1930s, the Great Society and Civil Rights legislation also defeated many of the arguments states had for rights (or with many Great Society programs provided funding in areas like education that later introduced more federal control), and now state government supporters argue that recent legislation from No Child Left Behind to the Patriot Act to the stimulus bill are eroding state sovereignty even more.
There are currently 24 state legislatures that have seen resolutions written supporting the state’s 10th amendment rights. In fact, New Hampshire saw a state sovereignty bill last year that included a “nullification of the Union” clause, arguing that if the federal government continued on its path that the Union should be dissolved. This measure failed, though. A recent state sovereignty bill in Texas, which Governor Rick Perry supported, argued that any federal law that imposed criminal penalties on nonenforcement should be repealed.
To be sure, opposition by the states to federal policies is not new. Under the Bush administration, the state of California challenged the federal government on its stem cell research ban and the state’s medical marijuana law. Other states such as Connecticut tried to fight the federal government on No Child Left Behind, arguing that it amounted to an unfunded mandate, an argument that was defeated in the court system.
However, what makes this opposition unique is that it is an interesting way of expressing displeasure with Washington. After all, these resolution cannot be enforced and merely express the sentiment of a state. Aside from Texas and New Hampshire, some of the other states that have considered sovereignty measures include Idaho, Tennessee, Montana, Oklahoma (who was the first to pass one), and Georgia.
Another important point to make is that a lot of the opposition to the federal government is not founded on a coherent platform. Some conservative states are opposed to Obama’s decision to lift President Bush’s ban on stem cell research and are worried that a recent wave of shootings across the U.S., as well as Obama’s recent overtures to Mexico, may result in stricter federal gun control laws. Others are worried that the stimulus bill passed by Congress imposes requirements upon states once they receive funding and are not happy that the federal government will soon be regulating greenhouse gases for automobile and power industries.
Impact
As far as the tea parties go, it is tough to argue that they will immediately lead to political change. Although inspired by right-wing moguls such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, the current Republican movement lacks focus. The party is still trying to figure out what its new direction is going to be and has done very little to reconcile social conservatives and economic conservatives. The Republican alternative budget proposal was quite laughable, arguing for a freeze in social spending, but still resulting in massive deficits. This is not the message that a party that is trying to oppose massive deficits needs to project.
However, while it is easy to be pessimistic about the Republicans, there is a danger for liberal forces from these movements. The tea parties numbers do show that there is a voting public that is skeptical and not very happy with recent federal spending priorities. Support for Obama’s stimulus bill declined as the debate went on and everyone knows that the economic stimulus package that was drafted under President Bush was not warmly received either. For Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to call the movement “Astroturf” (meaning that is was not a true grassroots movement), was disingenuous at best but does represent an arrogance that could eventually doom the party in 2010. The Democrats are hoping to expand their Congressional numbers in that election and have a realistic chance at taking a filibuster proof majority in the Senate but it will be difficult to achieve this if voters view the party and its supporters in the press dismiss opposition as not worthy of discussion.
In regards to state sovereignty bills, many of the most radical language, especially that coming out of Texas could be political motivated. Rick Perry most likely will face a primary challenge in 2010 from sitting senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and is doing his best to woo Texas conservatives, who have traditionally had a very independent streak from the federal action. Test polls showed before last week that Hutchinson would beat Perry in a primary, which is a bit disconcerting for Perry since he is the longest Texas governor in history, having taken over for President Bush in December 2000.
Another argument that these state sovereignty bills may have little impact is that the argument in favor of strong federal protections is non-unique. The states, in accepting federal aid for various projects, have already seen an erosion of much of their sovereignty. Today, constitutional experts are arguing that they do not see any new room states can carve out for themselves in our most prized document.
However, states might have something to go off of. California was able to successfully battle the federal government in regards to medical marijuana and their argument of unlimited federal power is appealing to voters. While polls show that Americans are not entirely against federal action to fix the economy or social problems, there is still a suspicion that the federal government is taking away far too much power and is growing more distant from voters. Considering these suspicions, state sovereignty bills may not be as far from the epicenter of voter sentiment as much as has been argued. And another item to consider is that while succession for states is out of the question, they could make Congressional math interesting. For example, as The Washington Post indicated last week, the state of Texas could potentially be split into five states, leading to ten more U.S. senators, and countless more representatives and considering Texas’s leanings to the Republican side that would greatly scare any Democratic lawmaker.