There are two views of the current attempt to reverse the trend toward the absolute superiority of the federal government over all levels of this country. The first is that we are working to make it return that power through voting for members of Congress. The other is that we are working to take back that power.
      Although these read similarly, there is a significant difference. The former admits the power was theirs to take in the first place. The latter does not concede that power to the federal government.
      As the old objection to federal power was held, the power to give is the power to take -- where better illustrated than in today's liberal howls of taking back some of the largesse. The same observation applies to power itself, the power to give it back implies the power to take it some time in the future.
      My position is that the federal government never had the "power to take new powers" in the first place. The power to control state and local government was never given to it in the first place. The only way they can "give it back" properly is with apologies and the promise that it will never happen again. But that is not what we are getting.
      What we are getting is piecemeal returns with discussions over degree rather than any admission there was no right to take those powers in the first place. That admission would be the apology that is required. Rather in the presumption the return of those powers is at the option of the federal government we are getting no change.
      What we got from the 1994 elections was at best a conditional surrender. It was an agreement to try to change some things with a few specifics that amount to a statement that the balance between federal power and state and local power is at the whim of the federal government. What it is the power of the federal government to return it is their power to take again.
      In the mean time the supporters of the new Congress are showing all the signs of admitting dependence upon that Congress for their freedoms in ceasing other means of reasserting legitimate local powers regardless of federal government actions. The 10th amendment resolution has lost its impetus. Western states are taking a wait and see attitude on a change in the way federal lands are managed. The call for a constitutional convention is a dead issue despite Congress refusing so submit a balanced budget amendment to the states.
      In accepting this conditional surrender we have ceased taking the actions that forced it in the first place. Unconditional surrender is a better policy. We need to redouble our efforts toward using our power as citizens of our states to continue to the give the federal government only one alternative, either return those powers with apologies or they will be taken back.
      A constitutional convention may appear to some to be cutting off one's nose to spite Congress but if Congress agrees it would not be a good thing to have then Congress will do what such a convention would do. And let it be a race to see which does the right thing first; not a wait and see approach as we have.
      This needs to be a race between Congress giving back and the people taking back. And in competing in that race Congress will be admitting it had not the power to take in the first place. That may be the best we get. 1994 was only the first skirmish in a war that is far from won. We can not win it if we forget the war is for our rights not for what rights we can get Congress to recognize based upon who we vote into office each year.
      At the moment the 10th Amendment resolution has the inertia. The resolution should be considered the prelude to a call for a constitutional convention to strengthen the current 10th amendment "and such other matters as the convention shall deem appropriate." If Congress will not renounce its unconstitutional powers then they will be taken from it.