Posted on 03/11/2010 11:55:55 PM PST by JustPiper
Delegates Say They Want to Send a Strong Message to White House
RICHMOND, Va. - Virginia's General Assembly is the first in the nation to approve legislation that bucks any attempt by President Barack Obama and Congress to implement the national health care overhaul in states like Virginia...
It’s meaningless. Fed law trumps state law. Supremacy clause.
“Well........yippeee! And, I hope this is the beginning of a trend!”
Something like 36 states are *already* considering this. The RATS are slitting their own throats.
“It’s meaningless. Fed law trumps state law. Supremacy clause.”
Not so fast. It will set up an 10th Amendment challenge to the SCOTUS about the SocialistCare bill rammed through congress against the will of the People - especially if enough states jump on board.
“The legislation passed, 80-17, Wednesday in the House of Delegates, after having already made it through the Senate. The bill now heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell, who has promised to sign it, The Associated Press reported.”
Pre-emptive strike.
“Gosh! one would almost think Americans HATE 0bummerCare. :-)”
This is what is happening in the red/purple states. We saw what happened in blue blue MA. Oh my the RATS are ‘bettin’ the farm’ on this one sick huge turd of a bill.
They would do well to heed our wishes, and if not our wishes then the wisdom of Abe Lincoln: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
The question is: Does the federal(national) gubmint have the power to do X.
What does the 10th amendment add to that question? Nothing. It says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" belong to the states, etc.
So how does that resolve the above question? It doesn't. You are still right where you were, asking whether or not the fedgov can do X. The 10th merely says what states can do when the feds CAN'T do X, but it does nothing to resolve the question.
The question is answered, ultimately, by the SCOTUS. And once they rule, there is no appeal, and the matter is settled.
—”damn, my weather radio going off”
**”That’s a global warming alert”
LOL - comes built-in with certain (commie) models...
“The 10th amendment is worthless.”
Wow, really? Is the rest of the USC worthless as well?
“The question is answered, ultimately, by the SCOTUS.”
And what do they ultimately appeal to?
“If the RE market wasn’t so depressed, I’d sell and move there.”
True dat. The Red SE is seeing a real migration (like North and South Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma - probly a few others I didn’t list there). And funny thing is - liberals seem to hate the South and that mitigates them coming. We still need to be cautious about the unions moving in...
"The powers not delegated." That's where the 10th begs the question. To appreciate its worthlessness, you have to understand "implied powers." The Constitution grants implied powers. Go back to the Articles of Confederation and you will see it spoke only of EXPRESSLY delegated powers. That changed when the Constitution was drafted. It was an intentional change. See the First Bank of the US, where Hamilton successfully argued for implied powers. Washington agreed with Hamilton. So did CJ Marshall later on.
So, the question becomes whether a power is "implied" or not, and under our system, those questions are ultimately decided by the federal judiciary, who are responsible for interpreting law, including the Constitution. And since SCOTUS cases are the last resort--without appeal--and since the Constitution is supreme law, the laws and constitutions of the states notwithstanding, that means the states have no say in the matter at all.
We need to get this going in Texas!
You really need to understand implied powers, and the role of the judicial branch to appreciate the situation.
“largely symbolic” my ass. If you feel froggy, leap!
“And since SCOTUS cases are the last resort—without appeal—and since the Constitution is supreme law, the laws and constitutions of the states notwithstanding, that means the states have no say in the matter at all.”
The SCOTUS has to decide what rises to its docket. Surely a massive move by the states to address forced socialist health care would rise to its docket. So whether it’s the 10th A., or building on other SCOTUS case law regarding implied powers, the SCOTUS would need to decide on what basis the feds could take over 1/6 of the US economy in one fell swoop.
So in that sense, it matters what the states and people say, and do. Perhaps not legally, as you opine, but certainly from the standpoint of rising to have a standing before the SCOTUS.
Better plan of course: kill the bill NOW.
Bob’s the man.
No, it is a new day. I attended the Republican convention in Richmond last year and it was electric.
I agree that creating a national clamor has political value. It just doesn't carry any legal weight. It's symbolic, but yes, symbolism has its place, as I pointed out at the outset.
So whether it’s the 10th A., or building on other SCOTUS case law regarding implied powers, the SCOTUS would need to decide on what basis the feds could take over 1/6 of the US economy in one fell swoop.
Presumably, the SCOTUS will eventually rule on it. But the 10th amendment will have nothing to do with it, because it says nothing at all about what is or isn't a national delegated power. It merely says what happens to undelegated powers.
So in that sense, it matters what the states and people say, and do. Perhaps not legally, as you opine, but certainly from the standpoint of rising to have a standing before the SCOTUS.
I agree that making noise helps. Placing any hopes on the 10th amendment is a fool's errand, though. You watch and see.
What interests me is that 35 states have enacted similar bills. If they were serious, they would unite to propose a constitutional amendment. They apparantly have the numbers. And that is where they actually have the power to overcome the feds. It's the one and only way they can trump the national Congress and judiciary.
I was just reading up on the amendment process. Look at this. Four ways to do it:
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
•Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
•Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
I find it interesting to note that no amendments have ever been passed using the state-only approach. They have all originated in the national Congress. Shows you how the balance of power is stacked against the states--by design.
Interesting - the Constitutional amendment approach needs to be looked at seriously.
Thanks for the good detail.
Conservatives are afraid of a convention, which is one reason it never happens. But it's the only way under our system to circumvent the national power.
“Conservatives are afraid of a convention, which is one reason it never happens. But it’s the only way under our system to circumvent the national power.”
So, if a convention is called - could it be called for just this one amendment, and not opened up to other untoward items? Or just how would it work?
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.