Enforcing States Rights is Borderline Treason????

Once again I am writing in response to another blogger whom I disagree with. This time the writer is talking about the States that have filed suit against the Federal Government over the Healthcare bill. The writer asks the question as to whether this is a declaration of State Sovereignty or is it bordering on treason. He goes on to reference a New York Times article about the various states that are passing laws declaring states rights in areas to include the healthcare bill, gun laws, abortion and even local police powers being supreme to Federal authority. While states are citing the 10th Amendment as their legal stand the writer in question is quoting Article VI of the constitution as an argument of why this may be treasonous.

Quoted from the Constitution:
[2] This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[3] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
While I will agree that Article IV section [2] does give the Federal Government supremacy over the States, this supremacy is limited to those laws that are passed in accordance with the Constitution. That is the basis for the suits that are filed against the healthcare bill; it is an unconstitutional bill that should not be held up in the Supreme Court. This article is not an article that the Progressive Left wants to start using in trying to shoot down States rights, especially when considering Section [3]. Section [3] specifically states that all elected Government officials and the Judicial Branch of both the State and Federal Governments are bound by an oath to uphold the Constitution. Is it then treasonous to violate that oath and pass laws that infringe on the rights of the States and the Citizens of the United States? Is it really treasonous to pass State laws that ensure a State is in compliance with the Constitution even if it means blocking Federal Laws that are unconstitutional?

To further the attack against those States pushing for States Rights the writer quoted a readers comment from another New York Times article “If these wise state politicians are serious about federal intrusions into their affairs, they should insist that federal interstate highways be ripped up, that federal dams providing electricity and water be destroyed, that all federal military bases be removed, that all earmarked funds be refunded, that all Medicaid funds be rejected, that all agricultural subsidies be ended. We need some modicum of intellectual honesty and ideological purity in these matters.”. What the writer and this reader need to be reminded of is that the Federal Highway system was originally created in support of Military movements across the Nation, which is one of the functions of the Federal Government. The highway system is maintained by local State Governments, agreed they receive Federal funds, as they should since in accordance with the Constitution the Federal Government does have a responsibility to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8 [3]) in which interstate transportation of goods is a necessity. Just to be fair, this is also the article that the left like to try and misquote in defense of things like the healthcare bill, they are not to mandate, but regulate, to ensure fair trade between states, no taxes levied between states for importing goods, no monopolies, not mandates such as healthcare. Military bases and the like are authorized by Article I Section 8 [17]
Authority over all places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful buildings.
As for the statements the reader made concerning Medicaid funds being rejected, agricultural subsidies ending and earmark funds being refunded, well that is the price we will have to pay to follow the constitution, they are unconstitutional so I will agree with the reader on these. The reader also needs to brush up on their history; the dams that provide electricity, specifically the Hoover Dam and the Boulder Dam are sticky wickets. There was multi-state and Federal involvement in the planning and approval of the Hoover Dam which led the way for the Boulder Dam. The benefit of each was not confined to a single state, so it can be argued that this did fall into the jurisdiction of Article I Section 8 [3], in fact it would appear to have been done precisely in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended. The best example of the readers point would have been the Tennessee Valley Authority which was formed by Federal Charter in 1933 by one of the most Progressive Presidents we have ever had, F.D.R. If you want to research it you will find that the TVA has turned out to be a failure more or less, currently it is having to contract with private energy companies in nearby states to purchase electricity created from wind power to make up for the shortfall in it’s production.
As in other arguments made by the liberal, progressive left they make claims that look good until you get below the surface and look at the real facts. Just to be fair I’m posting the link to the other bloggers entry so that you can read for yourself and decide whether I’m right or wrong.
States Rights or Treason