Fulton Passes States’ Rights Resolution

Lincoln Journal Star | By Nancy Hicks on April 13th, 2010

Lincoln Sen. Bill Avery read some of the e-mails he has gotten in support of a legislative resolution criticizing the federal government for overstepping its power and calling for a “balanced federalism.”

One e-mail writer said he was tired of “Washington trying to ram a liberal agenda down his throat.” Another was more succinct: “With all due respect sir, you are a scum bag.”

But Nebraska senators were more thoughtful and their language more refined during less than an hour of debate Tuesday on the tension between states’ rights and federal power.

States are standing up and asserting their unique rights as sovereign states, said Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton, sponsor of the measure (LR539) about other similar resolutions passed in other states.

His resolution, which passed 39-3, encourages Congress to “adhere to the principles of federalism.”

There is no balance currently, and senators need to stand up for states’ rights, Fulton said.

“We are not a subsidiary of the federal government. We are connected to our federal government, obviously, but sovereign,” he said.

Fulton said his resolution was not intended to be partisan. The growing power of the federal government has happened under many watches, he said. Though most senators voted for the resolution, none talked about specific issues they believed the federal government had usurped.

Only when specifically asked did Fulton point to three federal actions he believes are beyond the scope of the federal government: No Child Left Behind education mandates of the Bush administration, recent health care legislation and the federal bailouts.

Instead, discussion centered on the history of the Ninth and 10th amendments and states’ rights.

States’ rights has a murky history, used by Southern states to defend their right to allow slavery, Avery said. “States’ rights” was used as code for segregation during the civil rights era, he said.

Omaha Sen. Brenda Council pointed out that the states’ rights argument was used to prevent blacks from voting until federal law intervened.

Perhaps it is coincidental that this resolution is being introduced when a black man holds the highest office, she said. “I hope that is not at the core of this resolution,” she said.

American citizens have accepted that the final arbitrator of what is constitutional and what is not is the Supreme Court, said Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, one of three senators who voted against the resolution and its message to Congress. Council and Omaha Sen. Tanya Cook also voted no.

“If the message is we can turn back the clock, it is a hollow message. If the message is we can pick and choose which federal laws to follow, it is a hollow message,” said Haar.

Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber pointed out the hypocrisy of senators, including himself, who criticize the federal government on one hand, while “pushing (state) laws down the throats of local cities and citizens.”