[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Page 4530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             STATES' RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, you know, we have seen for some time the 
Federal Government, since 1913, usurping States' rights. This Federal 
Government, this Congress, the House and Senate with the complicity of 
both Republican and Democratic Presidents, sending to the States 
unfunded mandates demanding that they come up with millions and 
billions of dollars that they didn't have, just out of the blue. We've 
now come up with one that many States believe will bankrupt them.
  How did we get here? Well, in 1913 the constitutionally sanctioned 
process of electing Senators was changed by the 17th Amendment. That 
was put in the Constitution after great debate, and what it required 
was that the State legislatures, the States select--not the overall 
population of the State--but the State legislatures would select the 
U.S. Senators. That was a check and balance on the Federal Government's 
usurpation of States' rights because if any U.S. Senator came up here 
and voted such an unfunded mandate upon the State, he was going to 
quickly be recalled, as has happened before.
  But the appeal--and I don't know how I would have voted on the 17th 
Amendment because it sounds so good. You know what, we ought to let all 
the people in the State elect our U.S. Senator. And once that was done, 
once that amendment was passed, there was no further check on States' 
rights and the protections afforded in the 9th and 10th Amendments that 
reserved all power not specifically enumerated, as it says here, in the 
10th Amendment: ``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.''
  Both Republicans and Democrats have violated that concept. And what 
could the States do about it? After 1913, they had no power to do 
anything about it. They didn't have an Army as big as the United 
States, and we didn't want secession again. We didn't want another 
civil war. It should be done legislatively and diplomatically and 
within legislative bodies, however they were called, and within the 
framework of the U.S. Constitution.
  Well, the Constitution, when it was drafted, addressed that point, 
and it's very clear. And perhaps it took a government to run away, as 
one State representative or Governor said, The mother of all unfunded 
mandates. The States--there are 39 of them that have so far said, We're 
not going to take this anymore. We're going to do something, whether 
it's going to be legislative, litigation, whatever. We're going to stop 
this. But the truth is, it may take years to get through the courts to 
the Supreme Court. It may take years.
  So here's the solution: it was in the Constitution all along. It's 
called article V of the United States Constitution. Now we know that 
article V has been used many times by this first line, ``The Congress, 
whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary''--we know 
that's been used many times. The House and Senate agree we need an 
amendment, and so they call for the amendment to be produced. But 
something--I haven't been able to find it. It's been done before, but 
it can be. It's there. But here it is: ``Or, on the Application of the 
Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States shall''--it means 
Congress shall, Congress shall, that it's not any choice that Congress 
has.
  If two-thirds of the States apply and say, We want a convention--not 
a Constitutional Convention because this can be restricted by the 
Congress--but an amendment--one amendment would be all that was 
necessary to return a check and balance on the Federal Government, give 
the States what the 9th and 10th Amendments reserved to them. Two-
thirds of the States make application, Congress shall call in a 
convention for proposing amendments--not rewriting the Constitution. 
And this is a procedural issue that the Supreme Court has always said, 
with regard to procedural issues, That's political. It's procedural. 
Congress, you do it however you want to. We're not touching that. We're 
not going to issue a decision. That's what this should be. This is how 
we return control and some sense of order to the States.

                          ____________________