Jim covered Congress and The White House during the George W. Bush administration for The Washington Times, and worked as a reporter, editorial writer and columnist for newspapers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and California. He has appeared on the Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, C-Span, and many local and national talk radio shows to talk politics and policy.
Latest posts by Jim Lakely (see all)
- Heartland on the Radio: Peter Ferrara on Tony Katz Today - July 7, 2017
- Heartland on the Radio: Jay Lehr on Rural Route - July 7, 2017
- Heartland on the Radio: Tim Huelskamp on Breitbart News Daily - July 6, 2017
A friend of The Heartland Institute has composed an interesting examination of how far we’ve come from the concept of federalism since the founding. His hook: medicinal marijuana … and other contemporary Constitutional conflicts. Rick Dow’s title: “Monuments, medical marijuana, Obamacare and Roe v. Wade”
What do all of these hot button issues have in common? The answer quite simply is they represent the battle between state rights and federal rights. …
A strong but limited federal government, which focuses only on its written enumerated constitutional powers, is how our system was set up. Support of a federal law over a state law is asserting the “supremacy clause” Article VI Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution. Conversely, each individual state has the right and responsibility to make most of the decisions, thus favoring the 10th Amendment and “… powers … are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” The lack of consistency in adhering to the original framework has lead to mass confusion among citizens and elected officials alike.
James Madison, the primary author of our constitution, wrote, “Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serves to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front.” Madison’s comment seems extraordinarily germane today.
Given this foundation should the executive branch of the federal government be able to set aside land without the consent of Congress?
Read the whole thing. Good stuff from a patriot and lover of freedom and limited government.