[planekT]

I missed your whole point maybe in my post. Sorry. I see where you're coming from. Either the States abide by all the Fed rules or they don't.

But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?

Constitutionally, I think that the Fed's rights are actually quite limited. The States can do what they want, but it does have to be within the realm of the Constitution.

Maybe we need to stop and think about that. The Fed and the States are both bound by the Constitution. Outside of the Constitution however, I don't believe that the States are limited to law passed by the Feds, if indeed, it is not a power given to them under the Constitution. So, does the Federal Government have the Constitutional authority to impose whatever it wants to? Obviously not, or else no powers would have been accorded to the States in the Constitution.

[R W Reactionairy]

"I missed your whole point maybe in my post. Sorry. I see where you're coming from. Either the States abide by all the Fed rules or they don't.

But that would kind of make a moot point of powers reserved for the States wouldn't it?

... and what do Federal subsidies have to do with a Federal Government that adheres to the Constitution? Government giveaways and other miscellaneous wealth transfer schemes have nothing to do "promoting the general welfare."

[Alia]

Please see my post 49 for response. IMHO, the states need to either stop asking for fed subsidies and therefore the states will not only be sending (hehehe) lesser money to the state; but for the states, a lot of the strings attached in re Fed Law, would be a moot point -- the states would have more autonomy. There do need to be SOME connections, however, between Fed and State -- national defense, etc. But the situation now, between states rights and Fed rights -- are so mixed up and entertwined.