TEXAS, TEA, & THE TENTH AMENDMENT

            There are seminal moments in American History that all recognize as the start of a major change in the course of the nation.  The shots fired at Lexington & Concord, the attack on Fort Sumter, the speech by Dr. King at the Lincoln Memorial are primary examples of these paradigm-changing events. Will the unprecedented activities of April, 2009 someday be recognized as a pivotal point in the course of the U.S. government?

            Similar to other epoch-making incidents, there is debate about the scope and nature of the April ’09 activities.  Depending on the source, there were between 800 and 2,000 “Tea Party” demonstrations across the United States, (named in memory of the pre-revolutionary war patriots who dumped British tea in Boston Harbor to fight taxes) held to protest what the participants believed was an unhealthy and unconstitutional increase in federal power, at the expense of both individual citizens as well as state governments.  The gatherings were held in large cities and small towns, in both “red” and “blue” states, and generally drew more participants than expected.  Attendees were both young and old, including a fair number of individuals who, in numerous interviews, stated that they had never previously participated in a demonstration, and never expected to do so.  In New York City, for example, with a population that has for the most part favored an “activist” federal government, an extraordinary turnout of 12,500 surprised even the local organizers. The Tea Parties had no central sponsorship, and although individual Republican politicians in some cases participated, were not the product of either the Democratic or Republican parties.

            Though not closely coordinated, the themes of the numerous Tea Parties were remarkably similar: an extensive unease with the unprecedented increase in federal spending and power, anger at the prospect of increased taxes, and concern with the abrupt alteration in foreign policy.  In a nation that has, at times, not been very historically-minded, the protestors carried Revolutionary War “Betsy Ross” and “Don’t Tread On Me” flags.  Speakers decried the growth of the federal government’s power, and what they perceived to be White House and Congressional policies that ignored the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the portion of the bill of rights that reads:  “The powers not designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.”)

            Despite the extraordinary turnout, media coverage was remarkably schizophrenic, an indicator of the increasingly partisan press in the U.S.  Talk radio and Fox News provided extensive coverage;  newspapers and most broadcast media downplayed the event, and, in some cases, even seemed to ridicule it.  In a remarkable turn of events, the Obama Administration refused to comment, responding to inquiries by stating that “The White House takes no note of these events.”

            But not all the protests of April were confined to the streets.  In Texas, for example, Governor Rick Perry announced his support for Texas House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50, introduced by state representatives Brendon Creighton, Leo Berman, Bryan Hughes, Dan Gettis and Ryan Guillen.  The measure notes that the powers granted to the state government under the Tenth Amendment have been violated by recent actions of the federal government.    HCR 50 also proclaims that recent moves by Washington violate Section 4, Article IV, of the Constitution, (“The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union of States a Republican form of government…”) and the Ninth Amendment (The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)

            Conclusion: It is undeniable that a sizeable and growing portion of the U.S. population is deeply concerned over the unprecedented growth in federal power and the radical change in foreign policy.