States Get Uppity

With stress tests, politics, and even beauty pageants dominating the headlines, it can be difficult to locate the truly important story. It might be interesting to ponder what events occurring right now will be viewed as important by future generations. Some of these events like the Obama presidency are obvious. Others, may lurk deeper beneath the surface, or be clouded by our proximity to the events.

At certain times in history, you can perceive two opposite streams of thought – opposing each other, but simultaneously working their way through the cultural landscape. It is difficult to say which will dominate in the future, especially when both seem to be gathering strength compared to the status quo.

Since Sherman’s March to the Sea, the United States has (or have) been enduring the unrelenting centralization of power in the federal government at the expense of state and local governments. This federalization resulted in both the 14th and 17th constitutional amendments, but much of the federalization is carried out via quid pro quo manipulation. Some of it, though, is drearily codified in law and precedent. By the 1930′s, the states were rapidly losing power due to the “switch in time that saved 9″ Supreme Court’s ever-novel interpretation of the commerce clause,  Worse, by the 1970′s the states could neither outlaw abortion nor control the speed at which cars could drive on the roads they paved.

When Ronald Reagan began promoting a smaller role for the federal government 1980′s with Sandra Day O’Connor strategically but unpredictably placed in the Supreme Court, an almost undetectable counter-current was formed in the American psyche. It is important to note that even to this day the federal behemoth continues to gather all powers to itself, it’s just that it finally has found itself with a growing opposition.

Glimmers of hope began to be seen through the ever-enveloping darkness, however. By 1995, when the 1974 federal speed limit was repealed in Congress, the states were once again entrusted with the ability to determine their own speed limits. Montana famously had highways with no posted speed limits for a time, as if to underscore their regained freedom and their desire to eschew formal regulation when possible.

But what is going on today with the states? States are eagerly looking to declare themselves as “sovereign entities” under the new sovereign state movement. The movement is a mix between symbolism, putting the federal government on notice, and a genuine yearning for freedom that states are entitled to under the 10th amendment. The sovereignty claim is so popular in some states that when the governor of Oklahoma vetoed a legislative attempt to declare sovereignty, the legislature was able to bypass the governor and enact the legislation anyway.

And to say that Montana is at it again would be an understatement. They’ve set their sites firmly on the high court’s interpretation of the commerce clause. Montana has just signed into law a piece of legislation that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The law simply states that federal gun regulation cannot and does not apply to firearms that are both made and sold within the state as it involves no interstate commerce. The only one covering this astoundingly important story is the excitable Glenn Beck (youtube).

Will the Supreme Court openly interpret the constitution in a laughably ridiculous Roe-esque way to overturn the law? Perhaps, but Montana is just as likely to start ignoring Supreme Court decisions, and one wonders if Justice Kennedy will be able to contort his mind to see in the constitution what he wants to see.

The two forces are now nearly finished running side-by-side, and will very soon come to a collision. Things should get interesting… if you pay attention.