Rolling back the overreach of the federal government and
returning some rules or protections to the governance of the states is not a
roll back or denial of those protections, but simply a resettlement of them in
their proper place.
The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution,
clarify many important powers, including such things and freedom of the press,
religion, and speech. Amendment 10
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.”
So, when we see headlines such as “Congress allows killing
of bear cubs,” or “Trump eliminates protections for transgender students,” we
need to realize that while technically correct, they do not reflect the reality
of the situation. These do not reflect a
sentiment on the part of the President or Congress in favor of killing bear
cubs or more broadly being anti-environment, nor do they reflect a sentiment of
hatefulness toward transgenders or other LGBT people. What they do reflect is a
belief in smaller federal government and return of power that has been usurped
from them to the states. The states are
free to create regulations or legislation that are as strong as, if not
stronger than, the federal rules that are being reversed.
Let us not forget that the media needs to grab our attention
and that currently much of the media wants not only to grab our attention but
to also turn that attention against Trump and his administration. What better way to incite our hatred than to
show us a picture of an adorable bear cub and then to tell us that Trump wants
it killed. This does not reflect the
reality of the situation. There are laws
on the books in Alaska, which some argue favor hunting rather than necessary species
protection. I personally would fall on
the side of species protection (it sickens me to envision bear cubs shot in
their dens), but the way to protect them is not by federal overreach, but by
taking action within the state to alter or amend the state laws. Similarly, the transgender bathroom rule reflects
not a hatred of the cause, but only of federal overreach. Obama’s rule of one size fits all did not
consider for example school districts that choose to provide unisex bathrooms
as a way of accommodating transgender students.
The question of how best to accommodate the needs of students in a
particular school system is one for local not federal control. Some states already provide greater
protection than did Obama’s order, others provide alternate but equally
adequate protection. In some schools the
needed protection may be lacking and if so, it is up to the people there to
demand that their state or their school system implement the appropriate
regulations and protections.
We have a constitution, and, in addition to setting up three
branches of federal government, it also provides for both federal and state
governance. Federal overreach seems to have grown enormously in the past few
years. That so many are upset with the
corrections to this overreach, not understanding or acknowledging that states
have the ability, right, and duty to enact the rules whose federal roll-back
they are bemoaning, reflects the real threat to the well-being of our
democracy. The larger the federal
government becomes, the more that it takes local decision-making from the
people, the smaller that voice of the people becomes and the more that one’s
individual freedoms will be replaced by one-size fits all mandates from the
federal government. And, carried to its
logical extreme, it becomes the governance model of a dictatorship. So, if you do not like the result of the ending
of various federal overreaching rules, do not direct your anger at the person
or administration who is stopping such overreach. Instead, direct your voices to your state and
local governments, and demand that they assume the responsibilities that have
recently been usurped by the federal government.
Oh, and read the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment