Yes! That's what worked in California, like a charm! /s
Posted on 05/03/2016 3:51:19 AM PDT by Fhios
"... One new idea that has not yet been proposed is for Congress to empower states to have the ability to reform their insolvent pension plans. Such legislation would pre-empt state laws that prohibit states from making necessary reforms. It would allow pension reform laws passed by state assemblies to take effect. ..."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Why on earth does Congress have to pass a law to allow states to amend their own laws? Since when do states lack the ability to amend their own laws and constitution?
States and Municipalities are running out of OP money because of poor planing and execution as well as waste fraud and abuse and the worst of them are the big progressive run cities and states.
The Trib is delusional, as usual. It’s not a law that’s the problem, it the Illinois Constitution that’s the problem.
L
That is exactly right, on all counts.
Silly me... I thought it was the states that empowered Congress.
-PJ
If they are so worried about their pensions why didn’t they become an insured member of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (a US government agency)?
Could it be that the state felt it was so big for their britches that they din’t need no steenking insurance plan? They were big boys wearing big boy pants and could buy their own lollipops, mom!
They already had an avenue of guaranty. They should have used it.
Illinois (Tribune) knows that. They just want to put the cooties on the government by later saying “You touched it! You own it now! —— PAY UP and fix it!”
This accomplishes two things:
One, it ends up siphoning $$$ from the Treasury to placate the unions and politicians in the near term, and
Two, it chips away further states’ rights, as Federal ‘law’ trumps state law. Even ex post facto.
Problem is the citizens have been conditioned for decades on how the should be entitled to other people’s money/acquiring money out of thin air. Also corruption is excused through running jokes and acceptance.
That’s sure hitting the nail directly on the head.
Well, ex post facto is not state law.
It’s a matter of U.S. constitutional law.
Other than that, we agree.
illinois created the problem .... let em solve it on their own, with their own $$$
corruption mismanagement over the top benefits all for votes at the time..... now comes home to roost... drop dead scumbags..... the epitome of libtard governance.... hahahahahahah
same for california.... and new york and every other airbag libtard run state.... and new york city... the ultimate cesspool of libtardism....
That’s a central planning idea. But I tell you what, if a state won’t allow itself to reform their pension, in no way should the federal gov’t bail them out. I worked with a public employee union in CA and they always figure if the CA taxpayers haven’t enough money to pay for their pensions, then the federal gov’t will bail them out.
Yes! That's what worked in California, like a charm! /s
I’m not sure what you mean by that.
If there is an existing state law that allows/prohibits something, and the Federal government - at a later date - enacts legislation that supersedes that state law, is that not ex post facto?
What am I missing?
“Why on earth does Congress have to pass a law to allow states to amend their own laws? Since when do states lack the ability to amend their own laws and constitution?”
“States and Municipalities are running out of OP money because of poor planing and execution as well as waste fraud and abuse and the worst of them are the big progressive run cities and states.”
The most important question that was ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if, on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subversion of liberty — if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy; then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity will execrate your memory.
Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government.
So far therefore as its powers reach, all ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the least importance — there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power…
And are by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the federal government succeeds at all.
In a free republic…
Brutus #1 - Anti-federalist
States, sufficiently subjugated by the federal leviathan, have become the stomping grounds for socialists.
Congress caused it along with most else that’s wrong with our poor Nation....
zactly right.
FYI...The writer worked for Reagan and Bush(41). Seems she should have a different mind set.
The supremacy clause is merely an affirmation that enumerated powers of the Federal government cannot be subordinate to State law.
Two stark examples would be Arizona and the courts overturning State immigration laws because of the Supremacy clause, and Colorado legalizing marijuana despite mountains of Federal law that do not quite measure up to the Supremacy clause.
I believe it’s the real idea is to get the Federal government involved to eventually get a bailout. Thus, a new tax is invented for mismanaged government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
