States’ rights. For some, the very term invokes images of Confederate flags and backwoods militias. At the very least it seems to suggest being out of step with mainstream America. So-called states’ rights bills are always controversial, and often result in costly litigation with the federal government.

Some Tooele County reps are supporting a set of such bills currently proposed by Utah lawmakers. SB 11 would exempt firearms made in Utah from federal gun control laws. HB 67 opts out of any federal health care reforms not approved by the state Legislature. HB 234 takes on the REAL ID ACT of 2005, and HB 143 would authorize the state to exercise eminent domain over certain federal land holdings.

The proposals are bold, to say the least. Uncle Sam won’t be pleased, some warn, and his displeasure could manifest in costly legal disputes at the expense of state tax dollars.

Whether the bills are prudent is open to question, but the fact that pushing for states’ rights has come to be seen as radical or even dangerous in some circles demonstrates just how far we’ve strayed from our founding principles. Our nation’s Bill of Rights is explicit when it comes to federal and state authority. As put forth in the 10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

In other words, states are more than geographic boundaries or national voting districts. With exception of those powers specifically put forth in our four-page founding document, states are to function as independent governing bodies. While the Union is granted limited powers of keeping the peace, maintaining a currency and other necessary services, governance is mainly the purview of the states. Instead of all-inclusive laws enforced by an elect few, the system provides more local governing adapted to the needs and lifestyle of a vast and diverse population.

That system is still evident in Utah’s liquor laws as opposed to Nevada’s, or our marriage laws in contrast to those of Massachusetts. But when our state can’t manage its own health care, air quality or a host of other issues without getting into trouble with the feds, Uncle Sam has overstepped his bounds.

Some argue that there are issues simply too important to leave to the states, because places like Utah will never do the “right” thing without federal intervention. That position works beautifully when a law is imposed to bring the nation in line with your own thinking. The idea isn’t so novel when the feds pass a blanket law that’s less to your liking. As a matter of proportion, our ability to influence policy is strongest on the most local levels, which is precisely why the constitution leaves the bulk of governing to the state.

Utah shouldn’t have to “opt-out” of any federal law not explicit in the Constitution, because such issues fall to state lawmakers by default. In a time when politicians defer to Constitutional lawyers more than the founding document itself, we need representation that will stand for the right to state governance. Time will tell if the bills now in question will be good for Utah or Tooele County, but any outcome should be free of a superseding federal government.

Matt Rowley is a teacher at Copper Canyon Elementary who lives in Tooele. He can be reached at matrowl@yahoo.com.