By Steve Byas

In one of the recent presidential debates, former Senator Rick Santorum strongly opposed the deference of other candidates to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"This is the 10th Amendment run amok," complained Santorum.

Question to Santorum and those who would agree with him that we should dismiss the 10th Amendment if it blocks the implementation of our pet issues. What other parts of the Constitution do you dislike?

Santorum is running to be the president of the United States! His first act, were he to be elected (this is hypothetical, since he is not going to be elected) would be to take the oath of office, which binds presidents to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That Constitution includes the 10th Amendment, which Mr. Santorum believes other candidates who are supporting its preservation, protection, and defense, are allowing it to "run amok." Do we really want a president who believes the Constitution is "running amok," by inhibiting the passage of his political agenda? I thought we already had that in the White House.

Alas, Santorum is not the only candidate -- not the only Republican candidate -- who thinks the 10th Amendment, and other parts of our Constitution have run amok.

Congressman Michelle Bachmann was dead on right to criticize former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for his government health care system in that New England liberal state. However, Bachmann was wrong to say the health care law of Massachusetts violated the U.S. Constitution. When asked what provision of the U.S. Constitution was violated by a health insurance mandate inside one state, she responded that it is "inherent" in the Constitution. Whenever you hear these inherent arguments, it usually means that they are simply unable to cite a specific portion of the Constitution to support their philosophy. Philosophically Bachmann is absolutely correct to oppose an insurance mandate. Constitutionally Bachmann is correct to oppose one at the federal level, but the federal Constitution does not dictate everything to the states.

In fact, James Madison, whose contributions to the federal Constitution were so great that he is often called The Father of the Constitution, said that most governmental activities are left to the state level, and that the federal role is very limited, with their powers "few and defined."

This disregard for the form of government our Founding Fathers gave us -- federalism -- is not confined to some of our Republican presidential candidates. Of course we are not that all surprised that Nancy Pelosi cackles, "Is that a serious question?," when asked how the federal health insurance mandate is constitutional.

It is disappointing that I have often heard a Santorum-like repudiation of the 10th Amendment by those right here in Oklahoma who claim to be constitutional conservatives or libertarians. For example, I heard a "libertarian" who thought it was good that a federal judge had struck down California's law (passed by the people of California through their constitutional process under the 10th amendment) against same-sex marriage. I have heard more than one "conservative" argue that the issue of abortion should not be handled at the state level, or that the issue of drugs should be taken care of by the feds.

The pattern is clear. Many conservatives and libertarians have adopted the position which was once the disingenuous stance of the Left: federalism and local control is fine, just so long as it coincides with my position.

At least those who want to impose a national solution to some issue by passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution are using the correct method. Liberals usually just get what they want through some left-wing judge who cares no more for the concept of federalism and fidelity to the Constitution than he does for tissue paper.

Take, for example, the issue of same-sex marriage. Clearly, the Founders intended for marriage to be a state issue. For that reason, I don't favor amending the federal Constitution to nationalize marriage law. But, let's be honest. If we did not have federal judges who want to make law as well as interpret and apply it, this issue would remain a state issue. Some federal judges have simply decided to ignore the 10th Amendment (I guess they agree with Santorum that it has "run amok") and they proceed to strike down state laws that define marriage as what it has historically been since Adam and Eve -- between a man and a woman.

Frustration has led some to seek a "preemptive strike," if you will, against these lawless judges by adding yet another amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Maybe federal judges would respect that amendment more than they do the 10th Amendment.

Opponents of allowing states to make most governmental decisions are concerned that the states might make the wrong (in their view) decision. Why, a state might decide to execute only one race, or one sex! They might reimplement slavery or segregation. Such Doomsday arguments are silly, at best. No one can really believe that such policies are going to be even considered, much less passed, in any state in America.

It is odd that these anti-10th Amendment folks (and that is what they are, regardless of their protestations) can really believe that liberty, limited government, free enterprise, and private property are better protected by the government in Washington, D.C., rather than those in the states. Does a politician become more moral, more devoted to liberty, and more dedicated to the free market by his presence inside the Beltway?

If so, why don't we just ditch the rest of the federal Constitution along with the 10th Amendment, and turn everything over to those "freedom-loving bureaucrats" who run the United Nations?

I don't believe the problem is that the 10th Amendment has "run amok." On the contrary, I contend that our Oklahoma Legislature has been too cowardly to assert its rights under the 10th Amendment. They need to remember their oath of office, in which they promised to uphold the Constitution of the United States. News flash: The Constitution of the United States includes the 10th Amendment, and if our legislators fail to stand up for the sovereignty of Oklahoma, they are guilty of failing to follow their oath of office.

Let's run amok.