Posted on 01/22/2011 11:40:55 PM PST by Minus_The_Bear
Recently, the state of Idaho became the first of 6 states to begin process of nullification...
Idaho started this process thanks to Tom Woods book Nullification.
You can watch a 25+ minute video talk given by Dr. Woods in Ft. Worth on Nullification on why mainstream media figures like Chris Matthews doesn't understand state rights... and why nullification matters.
No, but the stenographer to the ratification convention was.
Cartoons are for kids.
Woods is awesome. I missed his last speaking engagement in town because I had a rare night job that couldn’t be rescheduled.
Under the concept of “dual sovereignty,” federal law governs the individual, not the states. The Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. [Coyle v. Oklahoma, 221 U.S. 559, 565 (1911); New York v. United States, 505 US 144 (1992)]States cannot be compelled to enforce federal law or participate in a federal regulatory program. If federal law pre-empts state law through exercise of the interstate commerce act, under cooperative federalism, the state can alternatively voluntarily create their own regulatory program to meet minimum federal standards. [Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981)]
As was stated in Printz v. United States and Mack v. United States, (June 27, 1997): “It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority. See Texas v. White, 7 Wall, at 725. It is no more compatible with this independence and autonomy that their officers be ‘dragooned’ (as Judge Fernandez put it in his dissent below, 66 F. 3d, at 1035) into administering federal law, than it would be compatible with the independence and autonomy of the United States that its officers be impressed into service for the execution of state laws.”
Most often, Congress uses the “spending power” [under the clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States”] to accomplish its extra Constitutional aims. Congress attaches conditions on the grant of federal funds and is permitted to do so as long as the conditions bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending.[South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987):
“...The breadth of this power was made clear in United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936), where the Court, resolving a longstanding debate over the scope of the Spending Clause, determined that “the power of Congress to authorize expenditure of public moneys for public purposes is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution.” Thus, objectives not thought to be within Article I’s “enumerated legislative fields,” id., at 65, may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds.]
There are some conditions the Court has placed on the spending power: (1) It must be in pursuit of “the general welfare”; (2) The grant must be given unambiguously, enabling the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation;(3) The conditions must be related to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs; and (4)the power may not be used to induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional. The Court has cautioned that there is a line But the Court also acknowledged that “in some circumstances, the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which ‘pressure turns into compulsion’ [South Dakota v. Dole (1987)]
So when my County government was audited on our Mental Health program and were told that we owed the federal government for more than $1 million in over payments for one year and the state for a small fraction of that amount, it answers the question of what is wrong with California and the nation. The feds have acquired control over vast sums of our taxes and the state is left with little to nothing. The feds are using this to control issues over which they were never given direct authority in the Constitution and, in turn, to control the State governments. The State governments have become willing partners agreeing to participate in order to get money for programs to address social issues that would otherwise fall under their jurisdiction.
This is why, when Schwarzenegger tried to cut In Home Health Benefits to the elderly and disabled, he could not, because that would bring the benefits below the federal minimum.
The States need to own up to their part in all this and let go of the banana. The Republicans in Congress need to identify these programs where they have exceeded their specific delegated authority and undermined our composite form of government and shut them down. Sending them back to the States where they belong and, after a plan of deficit reduction, devolving the revenue sources back to the states to collect as taxes and spend accordingly.
Nullification is great if it accomplishes these aims.
Exactly. An old post of mine on the same issue:
Posts on a number of threads at FR have correctly pointed out the damage done by many types of federal grants, dispensed with strings attached to states, and I’d been meaning to jot down some thoughts on the topic and respond. Of course, now I can’t find any of those threads, so I’ll just start one of my own. In reality, this is an issue of such importance it probably deserves its own thread.
The offer of “federal funds” in exchange for the state taking some action desired by the feds is an implicit admission that it’s an issue on which the feds have no Constitutional authority. If a cop tells you to do something, he doesn’t slip you a sawbuck if you do it. Your boss has no pre-existing legal right to demand that you show up for work, so in exchange for you doing so, he gives you a paycheck. If the funds are being paid to influence some issue outside the Constitutional grant of powers to the federal government, that leads to questions about the money itself: Where did the money come from? Either they had money in excess of the amount needed to care for their delegated responsibilities or they’re using money that should be used in that way for things they’re not supposed to be involved in. Then either they’ve overtaxed us and not refunded the overcharge, or they’re diverting funds needed to carry out their proper responsibilities to other ends. Or…(the actual explanation) they’re borrowing money, obligating us and our children for a debt of money used for things they admit they have no authority for.
When used to influence legislation, these grants will be used disproportionately in favor of bills that would be politically unpopular with the state’s voters. Otherwise wouldn’t whatever’s being paid for already be the law? So the feds use our own money to influence our legislatures to pass laws we don’t want, on issues the feds admit they have no Constitutional authority to meddle in. Sounds like a program ripe for termination (and corresponding reduction in taxes or borrowing), right? But there’s still a problem if we just stop doing this today.
The horse is already out of the barn. There’s a lot of inertia to legislatures and the public. If the grants were stopped today, five years from now you’d probably find all the laws they paid for (speed limits, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, 0.08 BAL DUI, etc) still in force. The laws have been in place long enough they’ve become the baseline for many. Many people probably even think they’re good and necessary, that their repeal would wreak havoc on the roads and highways, just like people who hate gun rights are always prophesying blood in the streets every time someone proposes rolling back some infringement on our gun rights. If it took 20 years to get people acclimated to the idea that the federal government is allowed to have a say in what they wear on the road, it may take 20 years to educate them and the next generation, that that is not in fact the case.
I get an engineering trade magazine, and there was an article a while back sympathizing with guys who like to work on their own cars, but who’ll now be unable to rotate their own tires because it would confuse the car’s computer about which signal was coming from which tire air pressure sensor. The author seemed to feel that while the loss of autonomy was an unfortunate side effect, it was unavoidable because the alternative would be that we would all have to drive around without automated tire pressure monitoring. Onoz! What does the guy think we’ve been doing for a century now? Just because someone invented this thing, which may or may not solve a problem that doesn’t even appear to exist, I’m expected to be willing to give up the option to do something if it would mean interfering with this system, which I never asked for in the first place. See what I mean? People are idiots! And this guy’s an engineer!
So if we stop handing out highway funds today, the laws the feds bribed states to enact against their own people, with their own money, would probably stay in force, for free!
Perhaps the solution is to keep the funds giveaway rolling for a finite time in reverse. If you want federal highway funds for 2010 and subsequent years, you have to return your DUI BAL, seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, whatever, to whatever they were BEFORE the federal bribes went into effect. Then keep the new “liberty grants” in force for at least as long as the old anti-rights ones were, to undo the acclimatization damage they did. By stating only that a state must return the law to what it was pre-grant, then if there is a state populated by such government-sucking sheeple that they actually wanted harsh repressive laws absent federal involvement, and passed them without being bribed by the feds, they can keep them. The whole point here is to AVOID butting into the way voters govern their own states. Or, another approach might be to say that if the law didn’t change post-grant, then the grants did no harm in that state on that topic, and grants to that state on that particular issue are terminated immediately.
Woods BUMP!
You are correct. It was a comment in passing when Mr. Henry was asked why he had not chosen to attend the Federal Convention.
Har! Have you drawn troll duty today?
#23 AND #24; Great posts!
Well, I gathered Jacquerie was attempting to give the impression Patrick Henry never uttered the words. In which case, she would be wrong. He either said the words or he didn't, the venue notwithstanding.
When do we start nullifying everything that obammy did since he usurped the presidency? Can we charge him for using the White House to conduct his illigitimate activities? When can we deport him to his country of birth so we won’t have to pay for his food bills and vacations anymore?
Really informative. Thanks for straightening out our thinking.
About 150 years to late for that.
I’m sure your thinking didn’t need much “straightening out” in the first place. You’re not an elected official or federal employee, are you?
Just because the tyrants won a round, doesn't mean everybody else has to take it as holy writ till the end of time.
(Not to be interpreted as arguing in favor of secession, the saying just kind of fits the topic)
No. Just an abiding interest. I remember back in the 60’s when the carrot was offered and the whole country forsook it’s inheritance for a bowl of porridge. Back before ‘guidelines’ became mandatory and it became nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. I was a staff writer for a daily during those years.
Sorry, I failed to make myself clear. My question could have been phrased as “If not a federal employee or elected official, why would you assume your thinking needed straightening?”
I sent my post to my State Senator and Assemblyman. I know they read it, because they sent me a comment back. Good guys, both.
Excellent idea. I may do the same.
As bad as things are now, I have so much hope for the future. Just look at how much attention is paid to the Constitution...and that bunch of old dead white guys you mentioned.
These are lessons that we need to have...in this time, and in the place where we are as a country now.
The founders were nothing short of brilliant, and I have no doubt that they were divinely inspired.
Don't know much about history, eh?
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.