What happened to our rights?

From the founding of the USA the issue of our rights was in the forefront. The most popular amendment of the United Sates Constitution, from the beginning, was about States Rights. People were afraid that the federal government would become dictatorial, like Britian had been just before the revolution, and they needed assurances that the rights of the states and individuals was “baked in the cake” when the country was founded. The bill of rights (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) was necessary to “sell” the adoption of the US Constitution when the country was founded. The cliff notes version of the 10th amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed there, it belongs to the states, or to the people.

Just what are the main powers of the states? States alone hold the power to set up public schools, oversee all elections, implementation of welfare and other benefits programs, defending their citizens against threats, and the distribution of aid. What it says more specifically is that the powers not delegated to the United States Federal Government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Reserving powers for state governments helps maintain a balance of power between the states and the federal government. They also allow states the freedom to try out different ideas and programs, which is why states are sometimes called “laboratories of democracy”. Additionally, what works in one state may not work in another. One size does not fit all. 

How well has the USA done in living by the intention of the 10th amendment? Has the Federal Government slowly taken over the rights that were reserved exclusively for the states? Have the fears of the founders been realized?

One of the specific powers established by 10th amendment for the states is to set up public schools. This would imply that they are responsible for the education of their citizens so why do we need a Federal Department of Education? At last count this department has 4,400 employees and has a budget of $68 billion per year. The Department’s website cites their mission statement as follows: “ED’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access”.

One of the members of the President’s cabinet is Education Secretary.

If education is the States reserved responsibility, why do we need a department and a cabinet secretary in the federal government?

Another of the states’ reserved responsibilities is to oversee all elections. If this is the case, why do we need a Federal Election Commission with over 300 employees and 6 commissioners? The Federal Election Commission received an appropriation of $81,674,000 for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023.

Distribution of aid is another state reserved responsibility, but the Federal Government has a department for that as well. The Department of Health and Human Services. The 2023 FY budget for this department is $144.3 billion for discretionary spending and $1.7 Trillion in mandatory spending for the same period. This is also a cabinet position. This department employs over 80,000 people.

One might conclude from this that the Federal Government has gradually taken over the rights that were reserved for the states. How and when did this happen?

Historically, the concept for such departments was introduced with President Warren G. Harding as early as 1923 but didn’t gain any traction at that time. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was formed in 1953 under the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare was a cabinet level agency from 1953 to 1979. It was established by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1953, effective April 11, 1953. Its mission was to administer federal and federal-state programs in public health, education, and social and economic security. The department was abolished by the Department of Education Organization Act (93 Stat. 695), dated October 17, 1979, and was split into the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Loss of local control of school districts occurred during the 50s. The public school I attended in the 40s and 50s was a township school until the mid-50s when it became part of a consolidated school system. Whatever efficiencies that might have resulted from this consolidation were not reflected in improved scholarship for the students. It marked the beginning of the steady decline of public schools in the USA. A recent article by PEW Research shows the abysmal results for the USA, using data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, that shows the USA ranks 25th in science, 47th in math, and 26th in reading when compared to all other industrialized nations. In the mid-50s the USA was number one in all of those categories.

When our school was a township school the hiring and firing of teachers, the courses offered, and the school buildings were under local control. There was total transparency between parents and the township school board.

Since then, there also has been an inverse relationship between the amount of money spent per student and student achievement. The more that was spent the lower the test scores.

In 1950 the USA was spending 2% of GDP on education and test scores were among the highest in the industrialized world. The USA is currently spending 6% of GDP on education, the most of any industrialized nation. The average for the other North American and European nations is 4.86% of GDP. At the same time, the results are going the wrong way. The same trend is found for the other functions mentioned. 

The rights reserved for the states have been taken over by the federal government, at least in part. What drives this change? After spending almost 40 years in Washington DC I know that in all cases it is the same, money and power.

Individual rights have been eroded in a similar fashion. Speech is no longer free since we now have the equivalent of “speech police “that determine which speech is acceptable and what is not. Who appoints these people? Who are they? Why are they necessary when the Bill of Rights says all speech is free? I don’t recall seeing any exceptions in the Bill of Rights.

Religion is also under attack. Many Northern Europeans, my family included, came to the USA, at least in part, because religion was tightly controlled in Europe. Recently, under the banner of being inclusive, we are forced to accept minority religions while being prohibited to express the majority religion. I see that practice as being exclusive not inclusive.

Gun ownership is another right that is under attack. Since I live part of the year in El Paso, TX right across the river from Ciudad Juarez I share this observation. In Ciudad Juarez, where there are very strict gun laws that prohibit the private ownership of guns, the murder rate by guns in Juarez is soaring while in El Paso, where almost everyone has firearms, our murder rate is one of the lowest in the country. Enough said.

Our justice system is far from being impartial as was intended by the guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

It seems to me that all of these changes have happened in the last 70 years. The Federal government has gained more power and control over both the states and the people, which was the catalyst for writing the Bill of Rights in the first place, to ensure that this would not happen, but it has anyway.

In contrast, Canada was not organized as a republic with any statements outlining Provincial or individual rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was adopted much later in 1982, guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law. The charter guarantees such rights as the right to equality, democracy, and mobility. The freedoms include those of conscience, religion, and peaceful assembly. Being subject to reasonable limits prescribed by law means the Federal Government has the power to revoke any or all of those rights if it deems it is necessary.

One recent example is the so-called trucker’s strike. Beginning January 22, hundreds of trucks formed convoys and traversed Canadian provinces before converging on Ottawa on January 29, 2022, with a rally at Parliament Hill. They occupied a small area around Parliament Hill in Ottawa for over 3 weeks in protest over government restrictions enacted during the Coronavirus epidemic. One could debate the justification for the protest but for the most part it was a peaceful protest. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded by invoking the 1988 Emergencies Act for the first time in Canada’s history, granting the federal government sweeping powers, including the ability to ban gatherings at certain locations and stop crowdfunding efforts to support the protest. As a result, the protestors’ rights were taken away. The trucker’s assets were seized, bank accounts frozen, and property seized. One could conclude that the individual only has these rights if the Federal Government agrees with you. If the government doesn’t agree with what you are saying, you are subject to punishment if you exercise those rights.

The Canadian Courts later differed on the justification of the action taken against the truckers, but their lives were ruined anyway. 

This is another example of the federal government telling you what you want to hear but it is only in force if it works for the government. Do we really have the rights we thought were guaranteed?


For more information about Lake Chapala visit: chapala.com


Tim Eyermann
Latest posts by Tim Eyermann (see all)

1 thought on “What happened to our rights?”

  1. Katina Pontikes

    The feds had to step in on education because equal access to education under states rights failed miserably. Thank heavens that the feds historical power exercise happened or we would still see segregation with the best schools being whites only.
    Also, the civil war was NOT about states rights as is still heard in the south. Just two examples of reasons the feds step in. I appreciate the EEOC, the EPA and more. There is a counter position to your lament.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *