Senator Mike Rounds pretends to be Tea Party, and the best he can do is bleat ineffectually about lost court cases.
Senator Rounds is among 33 Congressional Republicans who contributed articles to a glorified PDF anthology from the Tea Party Express. Senator Rounds chooses to write about the vital role of the Tenth Amendment in protecting states’ rights. Senator Rounds supports his case by offering two examples of educated jurists refuting insurance-salesman Rounds’s reading of the Constitution. The 10th Amendment didn’t win on ObamaCare:
South Dakota joined the Florida multistate lawsuit in 2010 to challenge the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka Obamacare) and prevent the federal government from exceeding its authority through the ACA. The states argued that the Commerce Clause has never before been interpreted to expand Congress’ authority to require individuals to purchase a specific product, such as health insurance, or face a penalty. Unfortunately, the states lost, and the Supreme Court again ruled to expand federal authority over the states. It will be up to Congress to fix its own mistakes [Senator M. Michael Rounds, “The 10th Amendment Is the Cure for Bad Government,” Tea Party Solutions for America, 2015, pp. 139–140].
The 10th Amendment didn’t win on highway funding:
The federal funding system further tightens the federal stranglehold on states. Today, the federal government is attempting to use state governments as its tool to enact policy. Of course, financial penalties result if states choose not to participate. The Congress seeks influence by encouraging, through financial incentives, the enactment of federal programs. In South Dakota v. Dole, 283 U.S. 203 (1987), the state of South Dakota sued the federal government to challenge the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. South Dakota lost the case, and the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress did not violate the 10th Amendment because it merely exercised its right to control its spending. The implications of that decision and the authority granted to the federal government go much further than a drinking age for alcohol [Rounds, 2015, p. 140].
Rounds doesn’t offer an example of the Supreme Court giving the Tenth Amendment primacy over any specific policy. He just whines vaguely about local solutions being best.
But in that regard, Rounds shows himself to be an excellent Tea Party member. He facts, laws, court decisions, offers no specific or practical solutions, and just keeps mouthing other people’s slogans that sound good in his personal echo chamber.