Per this AJC article, here’s the basic story:

As some of you know, in 2004 Massachusetts became one of the first States to full-on legalize gay marriage. Under State law there, there is no legal difference whatsoever . . . → Read More: An Interesting Test of the 10th Amendment]]> Up in Massachusetts, an interesting battle is being waged over the 10th Amendment and so-called “States’ Rights”.

Per this AJC article, here’s the basic story:

As some of you know, in 2004 Massachusetts became one of the first States to full-on legalize gay marriage. Under State law there, there is no legal difference whatsoever between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual one. Obviously, religious groups in the State are free to adhere to different standards, except where they act as an employer.

The problem comes from the fact that there, as in Georgia, many of the citizens are employees of the Federal government – which, per the Defense of Marriage Act passed in the 90s, does not offer benefits to same sex couples.

Therefore, postal workers and other Federal employees cannot place their same-sex spouses on their benefits package, such as employer-provided insurance.

One such couple sued, and a US District Court Judge whose district apparently only encompasses Massachusetts has ruled in the couples favor that the DOMA “interferes with the right of a state to define marriage”.

That quote, in particular, is what makes this interesting politically regarding the 10th Amendment.

You see, Massachusetts isn’t typically an area you hear about very much in the “States’ Rights Movement”. They were a solid part of the Union the last time things were this heated, and their politics there tend to be decently far out to the left on the disengenuous left/right political spectrum.

Contrast that to the more typical places you hear about “States’ Rights” – Georgia, Alabama, etc – where the politics is much further to the right. Indeed, Georgia passed its own gay marriage ban 76%-24% in 2004. In Georgia, “States’ Rights” proponents also typically are strong proponents of “traditional marriage”. It should be noted that the opposite is NOT true – not all proponents of traditional marriage are also proponents of States’ Rights. Indeed, I would argue that the percentage of those who favor traditional marriage who also are strong proponents of States’ Rights is very miniscule.

But here is the crux:

Will the States’ Rights proponents in Georgia support Massachusetts’ rights, even though they disagree with what they are doing? Or will they instead defend the “leviathan in Washington”?

This morning there were a couple that caught my eye, though only one of them is the subject of this post.

The bill . . . → Read More: Bill Criminalizing Abortion Introduced]]> Every morning, I do at least a quick scan of LEGIS for any new bills introduced, and I read the ones that happen to catch my eye for any given reason.

This morning there were a couple that caught my eye, though only one of them is the subject of this post.

The bill in question goes by a fairly innocent name – the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” -and is introduced by a “Constitutionalist” – Barry Loudermilk -that clearly can’t read the Constitution.

This bill criminalizes “intent” to perform an abortion if the “intent” is in any way based on race, color, or sex of the fetus and makes performing an abortion with this “intent” a felony.

What Rep Loudermilk doesn’t seem to understand is that abortion providers are businessmen who make business decisions. If a customer comes to them and asks them to perform a service they offer, why should they refuse this customer? If you refuse too many customers, guess what happens to your business – it no longer exists. Oh wait… that is EXACTLY what Rep Loudermilk is trying to do – force people to close their business! In this economy! Shouldn’t he be working to HELP businesses by REMOVING government regulations, rather than hurting them by adding even more?

Also note that “intent” is the keyword in the vast majority of “hate” crime legislation that Republicans typically (rightfully) denounce due to its unprovable and unconstitutional nature… yet this “Constitutionalist” Republican is now introducing a bill that is tantamount to hate crime legislation?

Furthermore, this bill provides legal (civil) penalty for “homicide of an unborn child”. Does this include a potential father who disagreed with the mother’s choice of abortion? After all, under current law only one half of the people responsible for the creation of the child has the right to determine whether that child lives or dies prior to birth.

But this whole discussion misses one very crucial point: Please show me where abortion is discussed in the text of the US Constitution. It isn’t. But there are TWO other clauses that specifically say that rights and powers not enumerated within the Constitution remain with the People – the 9th Amendment, and the favorite of the “States Rights” crowd, the 10th Amendment.

Abortion, like religion, is a subject government should have absolutely no say in whatsoever, either for or against. It is among the most personal decisions any person and couple can ever make, and government should not dictate in any way what choice a person and couple makes in this regard.

Barry Loudermilk doesn’t seem to get that.

In it, he states “As we remember our veterans today, let’s hope that someday soon maybe perhaps some will be willing to pay the ultimate price for freedom here at home.” (emphasis mine)

This is a CLEAR call for Civil War – soon – from a sitting member of the Georgia General Assembly!!!!

Of course, he is also a complete moonbat whackjob that no one in power listens to, and very few not in power listen to.

And he is EXTREMELY closely associated with “States’ Rights” Governor Candidate Ray McBerry – indeed, he is the sponsor for those 10 States’ Rights bills McBerry is so proud of!

I will update this story later tonight with more details and thoughts.

As always, I try to read the . . . → Read More: Georgia Health Care Constitutional Amendment]]> Last week, State Senator Judson Hill (R-Marietta) announced that he had crafted a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment that would protect Georgians from any “public option” health care proposal at the Federal level and that he had the support of the Senate Republican Caucus in this effort.

As always, I try to read the bill before I comment on it. I figure that I can’t ask my Representatives to do something I’m not willing to do myself, and I also like to be informed so that I can then pass the knowledge on to y’all and whoever else asks me any questions.

This morning, Senator Hill sent me the text of the bill, which you can see for yourself here.

There are no calls for “states rights”, “10th Amendment”, “nullification”, or any other such thing in this bill – though the first two were mentioned at a press conference last week, by both Hill and Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers (R-Woodstock).

As far as commentary on the bill itself goes, Paragraph 2 is the “meat” of the bill (Paragraph 1 is the definitions), and section a) I absolutely love. It basically says that government cannot compel you in any way to participate in any health care system and that government cannot penalize you or your employer if you or your employer choose to pay for health care directly (ie, no insurance company involved in any way). If this bill were just section a), it would whole-heartedly get a “SUPPORT” with a 10 ranking.

There is a “but” here though, and that “but” is sections b) and c). Section b) is extremely subjective and states that “Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or by rule or regulation.” The specific language I have a problem with here is “”Subject to reasonable and necessary rules and regulations that do not substantially limit a person’s options”. Who gets to decide what “reasonable” and “necessary” rules and regulations are? I’m likely to have very different views on that subject than, say Austin Scott, and he is likely to have very different views on it than DuBose Porter.

Furthermore, who gets to decide what “substantially limit[s] a person’s options”? Some would argue from a variety of angles that a person’s options are already substantially limited. For example, in Albany due to Certificate of Need issues, your ONLY option for using a hospital to deliver your baby is Phoebe. Are my options not already “substantially limited” due to the presence of only one local hospital permitted to provide this service?

This leads into my issues with section c), which basically says this constitutional amendment won’t affect any health care oriented laws we already have on the books here in Georgia. Again, meaning that all those laws we already have that limit health care options in this state, such as certificate of need and others, get to remain unscathed by this constitutional amendment that purports to ensure that our options regarding health care are not limited.

Overall, as of right now I would rate this proposal as a “SUPPORT” with a rating of 8.

For more coverage of this that you may have missed, check out these three posts on Peach Pundit (Erick Erickson, Icarus, and Senator Hill), this one from the AJC’s Gold Dome Live blog (Aaron Gould Sheinin and others), and this one from AJC’s Political Insider blog (Jim Galloway)

After reading the book, it is clear that this country has abandoned many of those principles. Currently we are . . . → Read More: Constitutionally Speaking]]> The book club in Albany is currently reading the 5000 Year Leap. The book is a simple read about the founders of this country and the principles that they considered when writing our founding documents.

After reading the book, it is clear that this country has abandoned many of those principles. Currently we are on a fast track, not to return to the original intention of the founders, but to distance ourselves even farther from that intention.

How can we get back to the garden? A new effort is being entertained by the states. Resolutions are being passed to return the power to the respective states and limit the size of the federal government, States’ Rights.

Georgia Senate Resolution 632 passed, “affirming states’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles; and for other purposes.” Nine states have passed similar resolutions and twenty-five others have resolutions calling for states’ rights pending.

A few states have taken the measure a step further. Montana has passed a bill (HB 246) that would allow guns and ammunition that are produced in the state and remain in the state to be regulated by the state, not the federal government. The bill will become law on October 10, 2009 and is suspected to be challenged by the Supreme Court shortly after. Texas is considering similar legislation.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution states that the federal government has the power, “…to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” Because the federal government gets its power from the states according to the Tenth Amendment, the government has no power to regulate intrastate commerce. This should prove to be a fascinating court case when the law is challenged.

There is talk about calling for a Constitutional Convention to repeal or alter Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 which gives the federal government the power to collect taxes. It is believed that such a Constitutional Convention, or even the threat of one, will help to curtail the spending spree that the federal government is currently enjoying.

All of this talk of States’ Rights is fascinating, but I have to wonder if these resolutions are just words on paper. Since the War Between the States, the states have surrendered more and more of their power to the central government until state boundaries have become little more than historical lines on a map. Are these resolutions too little too late or are they the beginning of something big? Time will tell.