Please ~ping~ me to articles relating to the 10th Amendment/States Rights so I can engage the pinger.
If you want on or off the ping list just say the word.
Tenth Amendment Chronicles Thread
Tenth Amendment Center
Firearms Freedom Act
Health Care Nullification
| CLICK HERE TO FIND YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES |
I think this idea would just be an incredible force for our liberty.
Excellent. Thanks for posting. Bookmarking for tomorrow.
Thank you so much for the post!
The state in which I reside*, Oregon, is one of the six states considering nullification.
Sen. Wyden suggested that they find a way to pull out of Obamacare.
All of this is shocking, and is keeping me off balance. I thought I knew how the libtard world worked! lol
*reside - residence, not necessarily home.
BTTT
BTTT
thanks
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.
Woods BUMP!
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?
About 150 years to late for that.
Don't know much about history, eh?
Explosive.
Thanks for posting.
According to Fox's judicial analyst, Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Ohaha's healthcare reforms amount to "commandeering" the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. "The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate state governments.
Nevertheless, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done.(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com............
=============================
States Can Check Washington's Power; by directly proposing constitutional amendments
WSJ 12/21/09 | DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
FR Posted 12/2/09 by rhema
For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.
There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.
The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.
But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments? That has the potential to reinvigorate the states as a check on federal power. It could also return states to a more central policy-making role.
The Framers would have approved the idea of giving states a more direct role in the amendment process. They fully expected that the possibility of amendments originating with the states would deter federal aggrandizement, and provided in Article V that Congress must call a convention to consider amendments anytime two-thirds of the states demand it.(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Related Stories:
Randy Barnett: The Case for a Federalism Amendment
Clarence Thomas: How to Read the Constitution
mark